The first Chapter, propounding the state of the controuersie, and the grounds of our proofes.

1. WHeras the holy Ghost, 2. Thess. 2. Thess. 2. 8. 2. 8. hath foreshewed, that Christ our Sauiour shall con­sume Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth, that is, by the mi­nisterie of his worde, which Esay 11. 4. is called the rodde or Esay. 11. 4. scepter of his mouth, & the spi­rite of his lips: it cānot therfore be denied, but that it is the du­tie of all faithfull ministers, who are as it were the mouth of christ vnto his people, to set themselues against Antichrist; that by their ministery his king­dome may be weakned, and the kingdome of Christ Iesus more and more aduaunced. For which cause I tooke vpon me in my publicke readings not long since, to intreat of this maine con­trouersie betwixt vs and the church of Rome, concerning Anti­christ. But because my speech could prosite onely those that heard me, I haue for diuerse causes thought good by writing to make the benefit of my labours cōmon: First, that by this means [Page 2] the Papists which be tractable may be reclaimed: Secondly, that those which bee obstinate among them may bee confoun­ded: Thirdly, that Protestants and professours of the trueth which be found & resolute, may be more & more cōfirmed: last­ly & especially that those which be weake & wauering may be stayed, and preserued from falling into that fearfull iudgement, which as the Lord hath threatned 2. Thess. 2. against vnsound professours in these latter times, so hath it within these few years fallen vpon very many, who hauing by the great mercy of God beene deliuered out of the more then Egyptian bondage of An­tichrist: and being set in the way toward the celestiall Canaan and land of promise, seemed with the vnthankfull Israelites to be wearie of the celestiall Manna the foode of their soules, and desired to be againe among the flesh-pots of Egypt. For seeing they had not receiued the loue of the trueth that they might be saued, therefore God hath sent vpon them the efficacie of errour 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. that they should belieue lies (meaning the lies of Antichrist) that all they might be condemned, which belieued not the truth, but delighted in vnrighteousnes, meaning the mysterie of iniquitie wherof he had spoken verse. 7. that is to say, Antichristianisme or 2. Thess. 2. 7. Popery.

2 And that we may proceed in order, we are first to set down the state of this controuersie, which in deed is the cheese of all controuersies betwixt vs and the Papists, and of the greatest con­sequence. For if this were once throughly cleared, all others would easily be decided. Our assertion therefore in few words is this, That the Pope of Rome, who is as it were the God of the Pa­pistes, is that grand Antichrist, who according to the prophecies of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures, was to be reuealed in these latter times. The Papists hold the contrary. And whereas we say and proue that their Lord God the Popes holinesse in Antichrist, they affirme that our assertion is blasphemie, and our arguments do­tages. Rhemist. in 2. Thess. 2. Bellar­min lib. 3. de Pont. Rom. siue de Antichriste cap. 18. But if it were no harder a matter to demonstrate the truth of our assertion, then to proue their conceipt concerning Anti­christ and the proofes therof to be meere dotages; I should very easily put this Question out of controuersie; that the Pope is An­tichrist.

[Page 3] 3 But first our assertion is to be expounded, and afterwards proued. As touching the name wee agree (saith Bellarmine) in Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. c. 2. this, that as the name Christ is taken two waies, to wit, commonly and properly, so also the name Antichrist. The name Christ com­monly belongeth to all that are annointed of God; and that ei­ther to the speciall calling of a King, Prophet or Priest, or to the general calling of a Christian. And in this sence it is taken either Psal. 105. 15. more largely for the whole body of those that professe the name of Christ, whereof some are members of Christ in title and pro­fession 1. Cor. 12. 12. onely; or more strictly for the society of the elect the ci­tizens of heauen, who haue the marke of God, and are not only Apoc. 9. 4. in shewe and profession, but also indeed and in truth members of the mysticall body of Christ. Peculiarly and [...] the name Christ belongeth to Iesus the sonne of God, who was an­nointed with the oyle of gladnesse aboue all his fellowes, and is the Psalm. 45. 7. head, after a general maner, of all Christians, but more specially of the elect. In like sort the cōtrary name Antichrist belongeth commonly to all that be enemies to Christ; and those either o­pen & professed enemies as the Iewes, Turkes, Infidels (in which sence the worde is not vsed in the Scripture) or else couert, pro­fessing themselues Christians, and vnder the name and professi­on of Christ, oppugning Christ and his truth. And so it is taken 1. John. 2. 18. 22. either more largely to signifie the whole bodie of Heretickes (as in the Epistles of Iohn) or more strictly the societie of them who hauing made an apostasie from Christ, haue receiued the marke of the beast. Properly or rather peculiarly & [...] it belongeth to the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition: who after 2. Thess. 2. 3. a more generall maner is the head of all Heretickes, and more specially of that societie, which hath the marke, the number and Apoc. 13. 17. name of the beast. The societie or body of those who hauing made an apostasie frō Christ to Antichrist, & the Antichristian state which in the Scriptures is called the whore of Babilon, wee hold to be the apostatical church of Rome. The head of this An­tichristian Apoc. 17. body & catholicke apostasie, we hold to be the Pope of Rome; and consequently that the Pope is that graund Anti­christ, whom the holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath described vnto vs; And that he [...] is called the Antichrist, not onely [Page 4] because he is the head of the Antichristian body, but also because he being in profession the vicar of Christ, is in deed Aemulus Christi, that is, an enemy opposed vnto Christ, in emulation of like honour, as if we should say, a counter-Christ, as the worde Anti­christ doth also signifie.

4 But when we say that the Pope is Antichrist, wee meane not this or that Pope, howsoeuer some of them haue beene more notorious Antichrists then others: as for example Siluester the 2. Gregory the 7. aliâs Hildebrand, Boniface 8. Iohn 22. aliâs 24. Alexander 6. &c. but the whole rowe or rabble of them, from Boniface the 3. downeward. For although the Antichrist be but one person, yet he is not one as Christ the head of the Chri­stian body, is one, Christ because he liueth for euer hath no suc­cessours, and therefore is one in nature and number, as being one singular & definit person. The head of the Antichristian body, which is to continue to the end of the worlde, is continued not in one singular and definit person, but in a succession of many, who are mortall and momentary; which successiuely haue bene, are, or shalbe the heads of the catholicke apostasie: of any wher­of indefinitely, or of all commonly, the worde Antichrist is vn­derstood. For euen as the Pope or vicar of Christ according to the Popish conceipt, is one person not in number and nature, but by lawe and institution, one at once ordinarily, but many succes­siuely; so Antichrist is not one singular person, but a succession of Antichristian Popes, which we begin at Boniface the thirde. Because he with much adoe, about the yeare of our Lord 607. obteined from the Emperour Phocas, and al his successours since, haue challenged vnto them, the Antichristian title of the head of the catholicke or vniuersall Church, or oecumenicall & vniuersall Bishop. Which title of blasphemy, as Gregory calleth it, befitting Lib. 4. epist 32. & 34. & 38. him that resembleth Lucifer in pride, when as Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged not long before, to wit, about the yeare 600. in the time of Mauritius, whom Phocas cruelly murdered, Gregory the great then Pope of Rome affirmed confi­dently (for so he saith, Fidenter dico) that therein he was the forerunner of Antichrist, who was now euen at hand. Omnia e­nim Lib. 4. epist. 38. quae praedicta sunt, fiunt. Rex superbiae propè est, & quod dici [Page 5] nefas est, sacerdotum ei praeparatur exercitus. For all things (saith he) which were foretold, do now come to passe. The king of pride (mea­ning Antichrist) is at hand: and that which is horrible to be spo­ken, an army of priests is prepared for him. Whereby he would al­so insinuate, that he should be the prince of priests. Now this is a principle in the church of Rome, that the Pope, (especially such a Pope as Gregory the great, speaking definit [...]uelie and confident­lie) can not erre. And if this be true (as they may not deny, the Pope being the foundation of all their trueth) then must they needs confesse that Antichrist was come, almost a thousand yeers since, and that the Pope their prince of priests, who not onely succeedeth Iohn of Constantinople in that Antichristian title, but also farre exceedeth him in all Antichristian pride, challeng­ing a soueraigne and vniuersall authority not onely aboue all o­ther Bishops and priests, but also aboue all kings and Emperours, is that Antichrist.

5 To this testimony of Gregory I might adde diuerse other witnesses. But my purpose is not to draw mine arguments from the writings, and as it were the cisternes of men, who liued be­fore the reuelation of Antichrist, and therefore except themselues had bene prophets, could not fully expound these prophecies: but from the pure fountaines of holy scriptures expounded by the history and euent, the best interpreters of prophecies. For as Daniell saith of the like (or rather as the Papists say of these same Dan. 129. prophecies concerning Antichrist) The words are closed vp, and sealed, vntill the appointed tyme. And accordingly was it said by Augustine, prophetias citiùs impleri quàm intelligt, that prophecies are fulfilled sooner then vnderstood, and by Irenaeus whome Bel­larmine also alleadgeth to the same purpose, omnes prophetiae Lib. [...]. aduers. haeres. c. 43. Bell. de pont. R. lib. 3 c. 10. (saith he) priusquam habeāt efficaciam, aemgmata sunt & ambigui­tas hominibus, All prophecies before they haue their complement, are vnto men darke and doubtfull speeches. And therefore spea­king of some part of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, hee Apoc. 13. saith, Certius & sine periculo est sustinere adimplet ionem prophe­tiae, quàm suspicari, &c: It is more sure and safe to wait for the ful­filling of the prophecie, then before hand to deliuer vncertaine ghes­ses. Lib. 5. advers. hares. pag. antepenult. Omitting therefore the vncertaine coniectures of men (for [Page 6] such are diuerse opinions of the fathers concerning Antichrist, as Bellarmine confesseth of some,) from the sacred scriptures, the Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 10. vndoubted oracles of God, I frame this demonstration;

6 Vnto whomesoeuer the prophecies of holy scripture descri­bing Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body, doe wholy and onely agree, hee is that graund Antichrist who is foretold in the scriptures. Vnto the Pope of Rome the prophecies of holy scripture concerning Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body, do who­ly and onely agree: therefore the Pope of Rome is that graund An­tichrist which is foretold in the scriptures. The proposition I take for graunted. For seeing the holy ghost hath of purpose in diuerse places of the scripture taken vpon him fully and sufficiently to describe Antichrist, and that to this end, that he might bee knowne; we neede not doubt, but that this description of Anti­christ is so perfect and so proper vnto him, as to whome that des­cription agreeth not, he is not Antichrist: & contrarywise whom it wholy and onely fitteth, hee must be held and acknowledged to be that Antichrist. All the controuersie therefore is concer­ning the assumption, namely, whether the descriptions of Anti­christ in the scriptures agree to the Pope or not. Antichrist is des­cribed by the holy ghost, especially in three places, viz. in the se­cond chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians, in the thirteenth of the Reuelation from the eleuenth verse to the end, and in the seuenteenth chapter of the same booke. For I omitte those places in the prophecie of Daniel which vsually are al­leaged, (because they speake properly of Antiochus Epiphanes, Chap. 7. & 8. & 11. & 12. who was but a type of Antichrist, as Bellarmine also confesseth,) and the ninth of the Apocalypse, because it is by some expoun­ded Lib. 3. de pont. R. c, 18. & 21. of the Turks.

7 And that the description of Antichrist in the scriptures fitly agreeth to the Pope, it appeareth by this induction. For whereas all the arguments and notes whereby Antichrist is described in the scriptures, may be reduced to these heads, to wit, the place or seat where we are to find him; the time, when we were to looke for him; his condition and qualities, that he is an aduersary op­posed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour, a man of sinne in generall, and more particularly an horrible Idolatour: his actions [Page 7] and passions, that is, such things as he shall either do or suffer: I will make it euident by the helpe of God (whose all-seeing spirit I humbly beseech to guide me into the truth) that all and euery one of them doe so fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome, that in the descriptions of Antichrist in the scripture, the Pope may behold himselfe as it were in a glasse.

Chap. 2. Of the place or seate of Antichrist.

1. ANd first as touching the place or seate of Antichrist, I reason thus, Mysticall Baby­lon spoken of in the seuenteenth and eigh­teenth of the Apocalypse, is the seat of An­tichrist:

Rome is Mysticall Babylon, spoken of in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apo­calypse. Therefore Rome is the seat of Antichrist.

As touching the proposition, you are to vnderstand that Ba­bylon in the scriptures is taken sometimes literally, and some­times mystically: literally, for Babylon either in Chaldaea, or in Egypt. Babylon in Chaldaea was the Metropolis or imperiall city of the Babylonian and Assyrian Monarchy. Babylon in AEgypt is called Babylis and Cayrus, of which some vnderstand the A­postle Peter to speake 1. Epist. 5. 13. Babylon mysticall in the A­pocalypse, is the seat or chiefe city of Antichrist, resembling the 1. Pet. 5. 13. Apoc. 17. 5. Assyrian Babylon in pride, idolatry, filthinesse, and especiallie in most cruell persecution of the church of God. And for the same causes Apoc. 11. 8. is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt. Sodom, Ap. 11. 8. for pride and filthinesse: Egypt, for idolatrie and for cruelty to­wards the Israel of God. And as the church of Christ in the Apo­calypse is called Ierusalem mysticallie, or the holy city: so the church & especially the Metropolis or chiefe city of Antichrist, is mysticallie called Babylon. This as it is the receiued opinion of the faithfull, so may it euidently be gathered out of the seuen­teenth and eighteenth of Apocalypse, which without all doubt [Page 8] are prophecies concerning Antichrist, and the Antichristian city and seat, as the Papists themselues often confesse. Bellarm. lib. 3. de P [...]t. R. c. 2. Sander. demon­str. 13. & 18. &c

2 For that which the Papists sometimes obiect, That by Ba­bylon is meant not any one city or company, but the vniuersall company of the reprobate, it is vnworthy the answering. And the argument which our Rhemists bring to proue their assertion, is without sence, to wit in their annotation vpon Apoc. 18. 21. where the Angell throwing a great stone into the Sea, saith, with such violence shall that great city Babylon be throwne, and bee found no more. By this (say they) it seemeth cleere, that the A­postle meaneth not any one city, but the vniuersall company of the reprobate, which shall perish in the day of iudgement. But I answere, that the destruction of the vniuersall company of the reprobate in the day of Iudgement, is described afterward chap. 20. 11. And this destruction, as appeareth plainely by the circumstances of the text, especially in the ninth verse, and those which follow vnto the eighteenth, shall be before the day of Iudgement, and therefore is not the destruction of the vniuersall company of the wicked. For if the vniuersall destruction of the wicked were here signified, then none of the wicked should [...]uruiue after this de­struction to lament the same, as there shall, vers. 9. 10. 17. And that the vniuersall societie of the wicked is not meant by Baby­lon, euidently appeareth by the whole discourse, chapters 17. and 18, where the holy ghost speaketh of a city ruling ouer the prin­ces of the earth, situated vpon seauen hilles, sitting vpon many waters, that is, ruling ouer many people, nations and languages, with whome all princes and inhabitants of the earth haue com­mitted fonication, whose destruction is bewailed of all sorts of the wicked, none of which people or princes, or wicked ones that mourne for her, should be of the vniuersall company of the repro­bate (as vndoubtedly they are) if Babylon signified the whole number of the wicked. And whereas they alleadge Ierem. 52, where onely the history of the Babylonian captiuity is recorded, to prooue that Babylon signifieth the whole number of Gods e­nemies: it argueth, that they haue not so much as any shewe of reason to obiect against the truth of this proposition, namely that mysticall Babylon is the seat, or as they speake, the See of Anti­christ, See [...]. 18. [Page 9] and therefore from henceforth vntill something further be obiected, I will take it for graunted.

3. But let vs come to the assumption, viz, that Rome is mysticall Babylon: which I will proue by three arguments. First, because the description of Babylon, and of the whore of Babylon set downe by the holy Ghost, Apoc. 17. agreeth in all points to Rome and the Romane state. But most plaine­ly in these two; First that the whore of Babylon is that great citie which in the Apostles time, had the kingdome ouer the Apoc. 17. 8. Kings of the earth. And secondly, that this citie is situated on 7. hilles: which two notes most properly describe Rome. Apoc. 17. 9. And so Propertius describeth it,

Septem vrbs alta iugis, toti quae praesidet orbi, That is the ci­tie Eleg. 10. lib. 3. mounted on 7. hilles, ouer-ruling the whole world. That Rome was the Imperiall citie of the world, and the Metropolis of the Romane Monarchy, it is out of Question, neither is there any of our aduersaries either so ignorāt o [...]so shameles as to deny it. Prō hēce therfore I reason thus: That citie which in th'apostles time had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, is the whore of Babylon. Rome is that citie which in th'apostles time, and since also vnder the Pope, had the dominiō ouer the kings of the earth: therefore Rome is the whore of Babylon. And that Rome also Georgic. 2. in fine. was situated on 7. hils, it is most manifest. Of her Virgi [...] saith,

Varro speaking of a festiuall day, which amōg the Romanes Lib 5. de ling. la [...]. was called Septimontium, he saith it was so called, ab his 7. mō ­tibus in quibus vrbs sit a est. that is, of the 7. hilles whereon the citie was situated. And Plutarch vpon the same occasion cal­leth Problem, Rom. Romae inst [...]. lib. 1, num. 65. Rome [...]. 1. Septicollem, that is Seuen hilled. Blondus saith, Montes in vrbe septem numerantur, The hilles within the citie are seuen in number. and the names of these 7. hilles are commonly knowne, & vsually named in Romane authors, viz, Palatinus, Capitolinus, Qutrinalis, Coelius, Esquilinus, Vimina­lis, Auentinus.

4. Yea but say our English Rhemists, The Angel himselfe In Apo. 17. 9. here [...] [...]eth these 7. hilles to be allone with the 7. heads, and [Page 10] the 7. kings. And yet the hereticks take them literally for 7. hilles: whereas the number of 7. is mysticall, signifying vniuersally all of that sort. And they might marke, that the Propets visions here are most by seuen, whether he talke of heads, hornes (which not­withstanding are not 7. but 10.) candelsticks, churches, kings, hilles. For answere whereunto, we must know that the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth, is generally the Empire of Rome, but more specially vrbs Romae, the citie of Rome, which was the imperiall, and is the papall seate. This beast is said to haue 7. heads: which the holy Ghost expoundeth two waies. 7. capita vrbis, the 7. heads of the citie, are 7. hilles: the 7. heads of the Empire or people subiect to Rome (which also are compared to waters whereon the whore sitteth) are 7. kings, Apo. 17. 1. 15. that is seuen seuerall regiments, or heads of gouerment, (for so the holy Ghost elsewhere calleth them,) wherby the Empire or Dan. 8. 21. people of Rome hath at diuers times beene gouerned: to wit, Kings (which also were seuen.) Consuls, Decemuirs, Tribunes (not tribuni plebis, but tribunt militum consulari potestate), Dictators, Emperours, and Popes. Now the Apostle doth not say, the seuen heads are seuen hilles, and the seuen hilles are seuen Kings: but the 7. heads are seuen hilles, and they (namly seuen heads) are (also) seuen kings, as Bellarmine also acknowledgeth. For this interpretation which they giue to Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 5. the Angel, First, is inconuenient. For heads doe more fitly re­semble kings which are the heads of the body politicke, then hilles doe. And secondly false, for if the hilles be kings, then the citie which is the woman vers. 18. sitteth vpon the seuen kings, for she sitteth on the hilles, vers. 9. Neither is this in­terpretation of seuen heads, that they be seuen hils, any inter­pretatiō Apoc. 17. 9. 18. at all, except we vnderstand hilles properly. Moreouer both the hilles and kings are said to be seuen, not because 7. is a mysticall number, signifying all the kingdomes of persecu­tours, but because they are 7. indeed. Which also may be said of the 7. candlesticks & 7. Churches. Apoc. 1. & 2. & 3. which they bring for an instance. Of the hilles there is no questiō: and it is as true of the Kings, and therefore the Angell nūb. eth them vers. 10. Fiue (saith he) are fallen, one is, and the other is Apoc 17. 10. [Page 11] not yet come: which is verified of these 7. regiments wherof I spake. For the regiments of Kings, Consulles, Decemuirs, Tribunes, Dictators, were ceassed in the Apostles time: One (that is of the Emperours) then was, and the seuenth, that is to say, of the Popes, was not yet come. And as touching the Romane Empire erected and reuiued by the Pope: it is the beast that was a flowrishing imperiall state, but is not Apoc. 17. 8. indeede and in trueth the Empire of Rome, but rather an image of it. Apocal. 13. although it bee in name and title the Empire of Rome. This beast that was and is not, it is also the eight head or regiment, and is one of the seuen, namely of Apoc. 17. 11. Emperours.

5. Secondly that Rome is mysticall Babylon, it may bee Hieronym. in Esay cap. 47. v. 1. item, in epist. ad Marcell [...]: quaest. 11. ad Algasiam: in praef. de spirit. sanct. ad Pau­lin. proued by the testimonies of very good Authours. Ierome saith, Romanam vrbem in Apocalypsi Ioannis & Epistola Pe­tri Babylonem specialiter appellar [...], that the citie of Rome is called Babylon specially, in the Reuelation of Iohn, and epistle of Peter. Augustine calleth Rome the second Babylon, and Baby­lon of the West. To these we may adde Tertullian, Primasius, Victorinus (who saith, the seuen heads are the seuen hilles on De ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 22. & 27. which the woman, that is, the citie of Rome doth sitte) Pros­per, and many others, Sibylla also oftentimes expresly calleth Rome Babylon. Lib. aduers. In­daeos 3.

6. Thirdly, by the confession of our aduersaries them­selues. De promiss. & praedict. For first to proue that Peter was at Rome, they say, that by Babylon mentioned, 1. Pet. 5. 13. is meant Rome: although there can no sufficient reason be giuen, why the Apostle if he had meant Rome, should not rather haue vsed the name of Rome, then of Babylon. Secondly, the Rhemists conuicted with clearenesse of truth writing on the last verse of the 17. of the In Apoc. 17. 18. Apocalypse confesse, that if by Babylon is meant any one citie (which before we haue proued) it is most like to be old Rome. And on the 5. verse they doe confesse, that as the persecuting Emperours, which (as they say) were figures of Antichrist, did principally sit in Rome; so it may well be, that the great Anti­christ shall haue his seate there. And againe on the 18. verse they alledge a reason For (say they) by the authoritie of the [Page 12] old Romane Empire, Christ was put to death first: applying the prophecie of the 11. Chapt. verse 8. to Rome: thereby at vna­wares confessing that Rome is that great citie, which as in the 17. of the Apocalyps is called Babylon mystically, so in that place is termed spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was also crucified. Thirdly, the authour of the Wardword, not knowing how to denie this so euident trueth, is content thus farre to agree with vs, that Rome is Babylon. For not onely S. Iohn (saith he) in the Apocalyps, but Peter also in his Epistle doth call Rome Babylon, and we doe not denie it. Bellarmine also confesseth so much, Per meretricem intelligi Romain, that Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 13. by the whore of Babylon is to be vnderstood Rome, and proueth the same by the testimonie of Tertullian and Hierome. Ther­fore seing mysticall Babylon is the chiefe citie and See of An­tichrist, as our aduersaries cannot denie with any shewe of rea­son: and seing Rome is mysticall Babylon, as hath bene pro­ued not onely by reason & testimonies, but also by the confes­sion of our aduersaries: the conclusion must necessarily be in­ferred, that Rome therefore is the seate of Antichrist.

7 What then what cā the Papist answer to this syllogisme?

It may well be, [...]y the Rhemists, that the great Antichrist shall haue his seate there. And we doe not denie saith the authour of the Wardword, but that Rome is Babylon. And Bellarmine doth not onely say it, but proue it. How then? Forsooth wee must distinguish of Rome. For Rome is either Heathenish or Christened. Heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Empe­rours was Babylon: But Rome Christened is the Apostolicke See, and as it were the Ierusalem of the Christians. But this cuasion of theirs, howsoeuer they please themselues in it, is fri­uolous and absurde, as shall appeare by these reasons. For 1. first, if Rome be Babylon, as now at the length they confesse, and consequently the seate of Antichrist, as they cannot de­nie with any shewe of reason: I would faine know of them, whether vnder the heathenish Emperours Rome could be cal­led [Page 13] the seat of Antichrist, because Antichrist did then sitte in Rome, or because he was to sitte there after the Heathenish Emperours were remoued. If they say, because he sate there then, their answere is ridiculous, and contrary to all that them­selues hold concerning Antichrist. Therefore they must needs confesse, that Rome is called Babylon and the seat of Anti­christ; not because Antichrist sate there whiles it was heathe­nishe, but because he was to sitte there after the Emperours were remooued.

8 And that the holy ghost by Babylon doth not meane Heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours, either onely or principally, but Rome christened vnder the Pope, it may further appeare out of the whole discourse of Saint Iohn in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse. The whore of Babylon is the great city, which in the Apostles 2. time, and since vnder the Popes, reigned ouer the kings of the earth; called a whore, and the mother of fornications: not onely because her selfe hath by spirituall fornications plaid the strumpet, according to that which is sayd of Ierusalem: Fi­delis ciuit as fact a est meretrix, The faithfull city is become an Esay. 1. harlot: but also infected al kings and nations, subiect vnto her, with her superstition & idolatry. But Rome heathenish, which neither dealt by whorish sleights and allurements, but by mar­tiall pollicy and power, neither had professed her selfe to bee the Church and spouse of Christ, could not so fitly be called an harlot, whereby is signified an adulterous and apostaticall state. And besides, Heathenish Rome for the most part per­mitted to euery countrey their owne religion: and was so far from enforcing her religion vpon other nations subiect vnto her, that as in her was erected the Pantheon in honour of all the Gods (which Boniface the fourth hauing obtained of Pho­cas Marcellin. lib. 16. Rosin. lib. 2. c. 9. consecrated to the virgin Mary and all the Saints) so shee admitted the idoles, religions, and superstitions allmost of all other countries, excepting the religions of the Egyptians and the Iewes, because they did not forsooth beseeme the maiesty of the Empire. But Popish Rome, of Bethel is become Beth­auen, and of a faithfull city an harlot, exceeding all others in [Page 14] whorish entisements, cousenages, impudencies, cruelties, and all filthines: insomuch that we may truely say with Mantuan, Roma est iam tota lupanar, Rome wholy is become a stewes: and with Petrarch, that shee is scelerum aetque dedecorum omnium sentina, The sinke and sewre of all villantes and shamefull practi­ses: and hath not onely plaid the harlot her selfe, but is become the mother of all fornications, that is, idolatry and superstiti­ons, and the fountaine of all other abhominations in the chri­stian world. With which the cup of her fornications inebria­teth (which more argueth the sottishnes of the Romish religi­on) all kings and people that consent vnto her, and with fire & sword, obtrudeth her superstitions and Idolatrous religion, vn­to all nations that they can make subiect to that See.

9 Againe, if Iohn had spoken of old Rome, which then o­penly persecuted the saints, then had he not spoken of a myste­rie 3. (as he doth) neither would he so greatly haue wondred to Apoc. 17. 5. 7. see the whore of Babylons eitheir idolatry or cruelty, against the Saints (as he doth vers. 6.) if by the whore were meant old Rome, whose Idolatrie and crueltie to Iohn was not strange. And further that the holy ghost by Babylon meaneth Popish 4. Rome, it may be proued out of the rest of the 17. chapter be­ginning at the 8. verse: where the Angell declareth vnto Iohn the mysterie of the beast, whereon the woman sitteth, which hath the 7. heads and ten horns. For although this beast, as ap­peareth by conference with the thirteenth chapter, may signi­fie in generall the Romane state as it is opposed to Christ, Apoc. 13. 1. 2. &c. which in respect of the regiment, hath been subiect to seauen heads of gouernement, in respect of the imperiall citie is seated on seauen hilles, and in respect of the Empire was di­uided in the Apostles time, into ten prouinces or kingdoms, as Strabo and others testifie: yet, here the Angell speaketh espe­ciallie of the Romane state and Empire renewed, and as it were re [...]ed by the Pope. To the which, as also to the Papacy (which is the second beast in the 13. of the Apocalypse) though they be either of them but seuerall heads of the beast (vers. 10, & 11.) yet the holy ghost giueth the name of the beast. For this beast saith he, on which the woman sitteth, was & is not, and [Page 15] shall arise out of the depth: and again, that it is the beast which was and is not, though it be. And vers. 11. hauing shewed that the 7. heads of this beast signifie both the imperiall seat stan­ding on 7. hils, & also 7. kings, that is, 7. chiefe gouernments: he saith, that this beast which was and is not, is the eight (namely head of gouernment, or [...], for he speaketh in the masculine [...]) and is one of the seauen, namely of Emperors. All which cannot be vnderstoode of the Romane Empire, as it was heathenish, but as it is Popish. For this head which had bene and after was not (for it lay voide from the time of Au­gustulus vnto Charlemaigne, the space of 325. yeers, viz, from the yeer 475, vnto the yeere 800) was after to arise (for so hee saith [...]) being reuiued by the Pope, who was to put Ap. 13. life into the image of the former beast. For this Empire erec­ted by the Pope, although it hath the name of the beast ascri­bed vnto it, yet it is but the image of the former beast, & ther­fore is not, in truth & imperiall authority & dominion, the Em­pire of Rome, although in title it be. And further it is said, that this beast is the 8. head, & is one of the 7. which cannot be vn­derstood of the heathenish Emperors but of the Popish. If therfore this beast whereupon the whore of Babylon sitteth, ruling & guiding the same, as the rider doth the beast on which he sitteth, be not the old Empire but the new, erected by the Pope: then the whore of Babylon is not old Rome vnder the heathenish Emperors, but Rome christened vnder the Pope. But the first is true, therefore the last.

10 And siftly the ten homes (saith the Angel) which thou saw­est are ten kings, that is, the chiefe gouernors of the ten prouin­ces 5. or kingdomes, who before the dissolution of the Empire in Apoc. 17. 12. the west, had not as yet receiued the kingdome; because they stil remained as procōsuls or propraetors, that is deputies & lief tenāts vnder the Emperor. But after the Empire was dissolued in the west, they receiued power as kings about the same time with the beast. i. Antichrist the Pope (for so Antichist both in the 13. chap. & in the 17. is cōsidered, 1. as a head of the beast, & 2. as a beast by it selfe.) For albeit neither hee could raigne in Rome, nor they in the prouinces, by soueraign authority, while [Page 16] the Empire stood in the west, and flourished; yet when it was once decaied, (but especially when the Emperour also of the cast had by the Popes meanes lost his title in Italy and Rome, and was by him bereaued, as the authour of the booke called fasciculus temporum saith, of the westerne Empire) then he sei­zeth on Rome, and a great part of Italie, and they on the seue­rall prouinces. And that these ten hornes are the heads of ten kingdomes, which together with the beast (meaning Anti­christ) shall diuide among them the Romane Empire, (for that is signified when it is saide that they receiue power as kings, that is, soueraigne authoritie, the same houre with the beast) it is the receiued opinion of the best writers. Yea Bellar­mine himselfe saith, Ioannes dicit decem reges, qui sibi diuident Rom. imperium, odio habituros purpuratam meretricem. i. Ro­mam, Lib. 3. de Pont. R. cap. 13. et eam desolatam facturos, Iohn doth say that the ten kings which shall diuide among them the Romane Empire, shall hate the harlot arayed with purple, that is (saith he) Rome, and shall make her desolate. And therefore the holy ghost in that place speaketh not of Rome as it was vnder the Heathenish Emperours, nor of the Empire as it was Heathenish, for then it was not dissolued; and long before the dissolution, had Rome ceassed to be Heathenish: but of the Empire erected and re­newed by the Pope; which although it neither enioyeth Rome it selfe the imperiall seate, nor yet the prouinces which in times past belonged to the Empire, yet hath the name and title ther­of. And consequently, he speaketh of Rome as she should bee, not onely after the dissolution of the old Empire in the west, but also after the erection of the new, that is to say of Rome Popish.

11 Of these ten hornes it is further said, that they haue all 6. one minde, being all of the same Popish religion, al of them Apoc. 17. 13. with one consent wholie deuoted to the Pope, and sworne vn­to him. To whome for a time they giue ouer themselues, and their whole power to helpe and support the beast, thinking themselues bound (as hee hath perswaded them) to exercise their temporall sword, that is, their ciuill power, for the De maiorit. c. unam sanctam. church, meaning himselfe, and at his beck and commande­ment. [Page 17] And being ioyned to him & vnited one with another by holy leagues (as they call them) make holy warres, forsooth, a­gainst Apoc. 17. 13. 14. Christ the lambe in his true members. But when as Christ shall begin to consume Antichrist with the preaching of his worde, (as he is sure to ouercome because he is the Lord of Lords) then these ten hornes which before had ioyned with Antichrist, and had committed spirituall fornication with the whore, shall begin to hate the whore and to leaue her desolate and naked. Which cannot be vnderstood of old Rome, but of Apoc. 17. 2. that which now is, wherof this Prophecy already is in part ful­filled. For since the reuelatiō of Antichrist in these latter times, the Pope hath lost, as Bellarmine cōplaineth, magnā Germaniae partem, Suetiam, Gothiam, Noruegiam, Daniā vniuersam, bonā Lib. 3. de pont. R. cap. 21. Angliae, Galliae, Heluetiae, Poloniae, Boemiae ac Pānoniae partem, that is, a great part of Germany, al Sueuia, Gothland, Norway, Denmarke, a good part of England, (but he might as well haue said all England, and thereunto added, Scotland and Ireland) a good part of Fraunce, Heluetia, Polonia, Boemia, & Pannonie. So that diuerse of these 10. Kings haue already forsaken the whore of Babylon, and haue bereaued her of a great part of her maintenance, and left her, as much as in them lieth, naked, & the rest in Gods good time will accomplish his will.

12. Seuenthly, It is apparāt that Iohn his treatise of Rome, 7. extendeth vntill the destruction thereof. If therfore by Baby­lon Apo. 17. & 18. is meant only heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Em­perours; then the destruction which the holy Ghost denoun­ceth against the whore of Babylon, did befall Rome, whiles it was heathenish. But it is absurde to say that this destruction befell heathenish Rome. For first this destruction is an vtter & finall destruction. Apocal. 18. 21. 22. 23. And before this de­struction the Empire was to be diuided into ten kingdomes, which first should ioyne with Antichrist, and afterward op­pugne him. Which is vtterly false of Rome heathenish, but yet is begunne to bee fulfilled of Rome Popishe, and will in due time be accomplished. And againe it is most plaine that Iohn 8. intreateth of the state and conditiō of Rome, as it shalbe in the time of Antichrist. But Antichrist, as the Papists themselues [Page 18] confesse, was not to come whiles Rome was heathenish, but after the dissolution of the Romane Empire. And lastly, Hierome and other of the fathers, in whose times Rome was not Heathenish, doe notwithstanding call it Babylon. Not that 9. then it was, or had beene before, but because it should be ac­cording to the Prophecies of the holy Ghost, the seat of An­tichrist, whose comming he and other of the fathers supposed not to be farre of: and therefore Hierome in his Epistle to Marcella, vseth this argument as the principall to perswade her to come from Rome (which then was not Heathenish) be­cause it is Babylon.

13. These arguments might suffice to proue that not Rome Heathenish vnder the Emperours, but Rome Christe­ned vnder the Popes, is mysticall Babylon the chiefe citie and See of Antichrist. But yet for better euidence of this trueth, and for the clearer manifestation of Antichrist, I will further proue vnto you, that Rome Christened and professing her selfe to be the Church of Christ, is the seate of Antichrist. For if Antichrist shall sitte at all in Rome, then shall hee sitte in Rome Christened professing her selfe to bee the Church of Christ. But he shall sitte in Rome (as hath beene proued in parte and shall further bee cleared) therefore in Rome christ­ned, and professing her selfe to be the Church of God. The proposition is built vpon this foundation, that Antichrist shall sitte in the Churche of God, and therefore if Antichrist shall sitte at Rome, he shall sitte in Rome professing her selfe the Church of God. Now then that Antichrist shall sitte in the Church of God, I proue by the testimonie of Saint Paule, af­firming 2. Thessal. 2. 4. that Antichrist shall sitte in the tem­ple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God. But because the Papistes labour by might and maine to extort this place from vs, as seruing rather to proue their conceipt, that Antichrist shall sitte in the temple of God at Ierusalem: I will therefore deliuer the place from their cor­ruptions, and also make good our interpretation. For first, the temple at Ierusalem, and citie it selfe, as it was a type of the church of Christ: so when the church of Christ was once plan­ted by the preaching of the gospell throughout the worlde, [Page 19] it was vtterly and finally to be abolished, according to the Pro­phecie of our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 24. 14. And then shalbe the end, namely of the temple and citie of Ierusalem. For after the tēple was once vtterly destroied by Titus Vespasian, as Christ Mat. 24. 2. had foreshewed, it is neuer to be reedified. For as Daniel saith, according to the vulgar translation, which with the Papists is the onely authentike Text of Scripture, Chap. 9. 27. Et erit Dan. 9. 27. in templo abominatio desolationis, & vsque ad consummatio­nem & finem perseuerabit desolatio, And there shalbe in the temple the abomination of desolation, and vnto the consummati­on and end, the desolation shall continue: or as Hierome spea­keth In Dan. 9. more plainely, Vs (que) ad consummationem & finem mundi perseuerabit desolatio: The desolatiō shall cōtinue vnto the cō ­summation and end of the world. Our Sauiour Christ also Luo. 21. 22. 24. foretold, that Ierusalem being destroied by the Luc. 21. 22. 24. Romanes, should be troden vnder foote by the Gentiles, vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that is vntill the second comming of Christ, which in the next wordes is described. Wherefore when as Iulian the Apostata endeuoured by the Iewes to reedifie the temple that hee might conuince the preaching of Christ of falshood, ( [...] Lib. 3. cap. 20. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 20. Sozom. lib. 5. cap. vlt. [...], as Theodoret speaketh) which hee could not doe, vnlesse Christ had taught that it should not be reedi­fied. Our Sauiour Christ by fire first from heauen, and after out of the earth, and by a feareful earthquake hindered this enter­prise, thereby approuing his godhead, and shewing that he was not pleased, as Sozomen saith, with the renewing of the tem­ple. It seemeth also to haue bene the iudgement of Cyrill with many others in the primitiue church, that the tēple should ne­uer be reedified: and Hierome saith, that the opinion which is Ad Marcell. for the restoring of the temple, is a Iewish fable. Whereas therfore the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall cause this tem­ple to be built, and that he shall haue his seat there, which they know shall neuer be: what doe they else but make a mockery of all the prophecies of the holy Ghost concerning the com­ming of Antichrist, and with Iulian goe about to giue the lie to Daniel and our Sauiour Christ.

[Page 20] 14. Againe, if th'apostle had by temple meant such a temple as should be built by Antichrist, hee would not haue called it the Temple of God, but rather of the Diuell. Non e­nim templum alicuius idoli (saith Augustine) aut daemonis, De ciuit. Dei lib. 10. c. 19. templum Dei Apostolus diceret. For the temple of some idoll or Diuell, the Apostle would not call the temple of God. Nei­ther are wee by the temple of God to vnderstand a materiall building, for such (as Bellarmine truely saith) are not called the temple of God in the newe Testament. And therefore the more grosse is he to vnderstande it of a materiall temple, and of a corporall sitting. For first, materiall temples in the wri­tings of th'apostles are not called the temples of God: but the congregations of Gods people are the temple of God. See 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. And according to the Scriptures phrase speaketh Lactan [...]us, Sol [...] Instit. lib. 4. cap. 30. (saith hee) catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum cultum retinet, hic est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei. It is the catholicke Church alone which retaineth the true wor­ship: this is the welspring of trueth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God. The temple of God therefore signi­fieth the congregation or companie of them which professe the name of Christ. In this temple Antichrist sitteth, that is, ruleth and raigneth. For wee are not to vnderstand it of the corporal gesture, as appeareth by that which followeth, he shal sitte in the temple of God as God, that is, he shall rule and raigne as if he were a God: for that is meant by Gods sitting, who doth not sitte after a corporall maner. In the temple Psalm. 9. 5. of God therefore, which is his Church, Antichrist sitteth, that is ruleth and gouerneth, challenging a soueraigne and vniuer­sall dominion ouer all those that professe the name of Christ, as being the head, husband and Lord of the vniuersall church: which agreeth most fitly and properly to the Popes of Rome. Neither are we to omit the phrase of sitting. For whereas prin­ces are said to raigne so many yeares, the Popes are saide to sitte, and the chiefe place of his dominion is called his Sedes, that is Sec or seat.

15 And this our interpretation is confirmed by the testi­monies [Page 21] of the auncient. The temple of God (saith Theodoret) he calleth the churches, wherin Antichrist shal challēge to him­selfe in 2. Thess. 2. the first seat, endeuouring to shewe himselfe to be God. And againe, Dei autem templum vocat ecclesias, The temple of God Epitom. he calleth the churches. Hierome, & in templo Dei (saith he) vel Hierosolymis vt quidam putant, vel in ecclesia vt veriùs arbi­tramur: Ad Algasiam quaest. 11. And he shall sit in the temple of God, either at Ierusalem as some thinke, or in the church, as we more truely suppose. Chry­sostome, in 2. Thess. 2. [...], where it seemeth [...] is put corruptly for [...], for so the greeke scholiast, whoe vsually reporteth worde for worde, out of Chrysostome saith, [...] see Oecumen. in 2. Thess. 2. [...], In the temple,) Hee saithe not in the temple at Ierusalem, but in the churches of God. And likewise Theophylact, not in the temple which is at Ierusa­lem in 2. Thess. 2. specially, but simply in the churches and in euery temple of God. Augustine of these words saith, But in what temple of God he shall sit as God, it is vncertaine; whether in that ruine of De ciuit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19. the temple which king Salomon built, or else in the church. For the Apostle would not call the temple of an idoll or diuel, the tem­ple of God. Whereupon some (to whose iudgement not only Au­gustine in this place, but Primasius also subscribeth) some I say by Antichrist in this place will haue understood not the prince Bellarmine ci­teth it, as Au­gustines owne iudgement. cap. 13. himselfe, but his whole body after a sort, that is the multitude of men pertaining vnto him together with the prince himselfe. And they thinke it might better be read in the latine as it is in the greeke, non in templo Dei, sed in templum dei sedeat, tanquam ipse sit templum Dei quod est ecclesia. Sicut dicimus sedet in a­micum. i. velut i amicus, &c. He sitteth not in the temple of God, but as the temple of God, as if he were the temple of God which is the church, euen as we say sedet in amicum, that is, he sitteth as a friend. Which exposition most fitly agreeeth to the Pope, and church of Rome who esteeme themselues alone to be the ca­tholike church, and all others professing the name of Christ, to be heretikes and schismaticks. By this which hath bene saide, it is plaine that by the temple we are to vnderstand the church of God. And yet this doth no more proue the church of Rome [Page 22] to be the true church of God, then they can proue the temple of Antichrist at Ierusalem, where they say he should sit, to be Of this see more in the 2. booke, & 13. chap. §. 4. 5. & 6. the temple of God. It is sufficient that the church where Antichrist sitteth, hath bene the true church, and still is in title and profession; although in truth it bee but an Apostaticall church. Eor Antichrist, as he was to sit in the church, so he was to be the head of the Apostasie, and of those that fal from god: who notwithstanding (according to that exposition in Au­gustine) shall sit in templum Dei as though they alone were the true church of God.

16 But the Papists confirme their exposition, viz, that the temple of God signifieth the temple at Ierusalem, out of the Apoc. 11. 8. eleuenth of the Apocalypse & eight verse. Where Iohn sheweth (say they) That the bodies of Enoch and Elias being slaine by Antichrist, shall lie in the streets of Ierusalem. Whereunto I answere, that Iohn in that place neither speaketh of Enoch and Elias, not yet of Ierusalem. And whether he speake of the persecution of Antichrist, there may be some doubt; because he seemeth verse. 2. and 7. to speake of the same persecution of the holy city that is the church, vnder the heathen; & name­lie the persecuting Emperours, for 42. moneths, which is men­tioned Apocalypse 13. 5. But supposing it to be vnderstood of Antichrist his persecution, let vs consider the force of their argument. Where the two witnesses of God are slayne by An­tichrist, there is (say they) the seat of Antichrist: At Ierusa­lem the two witnesses of God shall bee slaine, therefore at Ierusa­lem shall be the seat of Antichrist. The proposition they take for graunted, the which notwithstanding is not generallie true. For the two witnesses of God may bee slaine in that place by the authoritie and commaundement of Antichrist, where his proper seat is not. For as our Sauiour Christ was put to death, by the authority of the Romane Empire, at Ie­rusalem, where notwithstanding was not the imperiall seat of the Emperour: So the witnesses of our Sauiour Christ might be slaine by the authority and commaundement of the Antichrist of Rome, either at Ierusalem or else where, where notwithstanding is not the proper seat of Antichrist, This a­lone [Page 23] is sufficient to ouerthrow their whole argument. For if their proposition be not generally true, then their whole argu­mentation from a particular proposition is mere sophistry.

17 Notwithstanding, their assumption is also to be denyed, because the holy ghost speaketh not of Ierusalem (as Hierome proueth) but of Rome, or rather of the Empire of Rome. Yea but (say they) Christ also was crucified where the two witnesses should bee slayne: at Ierusalem Christ was crucified, and not at Rome, therefore at Ierusalem the two witnesses should bee slayne. I answere to the assumption: Christ was crucified at Ierusalem, and in the great city also, that is to say, within the Romane Empire, wherein and by authoritie where of our Sa­uiour Christ was put to death. In which sence the Rhemists seeme to apply this prophecy to Rome. If by the great city (say they) is meant any one city, it is most like to be old Rome, For by in Apoc. 17. 18. the authoritie of the old Romane Empire Christ was put to death first. Whereunto I might adde, that euen in Rome it selfe Christ hath bene crucified in his members: and that within Ierusalem Christ was not crucified Heb. 13. 12. Now that Ierusalem is not here meant, but Rome, or rather, the Ro­mane Empire, I proue; first, because it is called the great citie. By which title throughout the Apocalypse is meant Babylon or Rome, as appeareth by conference of these places. Apoc. 14 8. and 16. 19. & 18. 10. 16. 18. 19. 21. but especially Apoc. 17. 18. where the woman, that is, the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city which reigneth ouer the kings of the earth: And of this great city▪ i. Empire of Rome (which as it is called Sodome, which is the name of a city, so also Egypt, which is the name of a kingdom) the streets may fitly signifie the cities or townes of the seuerall prouinces. Once only is this title giuen to Ierusalē, & then not to the earthly Ierusalem, but to the hea­uenly. Ap. 21. 10. And so Augustine expoūdeth this place, In pla Homil. 8. [...]n. Apoc. te is ciuit at is magnae. i. in medio ecclesiae, in the streets of the great city, that is, in the middest of the church. Sauing that by the name church; he must needs vnderstand an adulterous & apostaticall church (which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon), be­cause as it foloweth in the text, it is called spiritualy Sodō or E- [Page 24] For euen as in the middest of the church euen at Ierusalē christ was crucified, so also the two witnesses of Christ were to bee slaine in the middest of the church, & euen in that city which professeth her selfe to be as it were the Ierusalem of Christen­dome. Secondly, the great city whereof he speaketh, is called spirituallie Sodom or Egypt. Sodom, for her pride and vn­cleannes, Egypt for her idolatrie and crueltie towards the Is­raell of God. Which titles most fitly agree to Rome: which is not inferiour either to Sodome in pride and vncleannesse, or to Egypt in grosse idolatry, and sauage cruelty towards the Mat 4. 5. Mat. 27. 53. church of God. But they are not in this place ascribed to Ierusa lem, which in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the new testa­ment, is called the holy city, euen then when it had crucify­ed our Sauiour Christ. And not to seeke further, euen in that eleuenth chapter of the Apocalypse vers. 2. neither is the citie of Ierusalem in the Apocalypse any where spoken of in the ill Hicrome ad Marcell. part. This is also Hieroms argument in his Epistle to Marcella. None of the holy scripture (saith he) can be contrary to it selfe, and much lesse the same place of scripture. For about ten verses before, Ierusalem is called the holy city. Now if it be called the holy city euen after the passion of our Lord, how is it againe call [...]d Cap. 13. spirituallie Sodom and Egypt? But Bellarmine answereth, that Hierome did not write this in good sooth: by which aunswere it were easie to elude any testimony: as though Hierome made no conscience to write vntruthes, especially in so waightie a Irenaus. matter, although in the name of others. Thirdly, before the time of this reuelation which was in the latter end of Domiti­ans raigne, the temple and city of Ierusalem were vtterly de­stroyed, and neuer so to be reedified as to become the seat of Antichrist, therefore this place cannot be vnderstood of Ieru­salem. Wherefore these obiections notwithstanding, our asser­tion remaineth fi [...]e and stedfast, that Antichrist was to sit in Rome christened, and professing her selfe the church of God. Euen as the Bishops of Germanie in Auentinus applying both this prophecie of Paul, and that of Iohn Apocalypse 17, to the Lib. 5. hist. Boe. Antichrist of Rome, In Babylonia say they, in temple Dei sedet: he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God.

[Page 25] 18. Now let vs further consider what other euasions they vse to auoide this trueth. First they say, that Babylon did not signifie any one citie, but the whole societie of the wicked. Secondly, if it signified any one citie, that then it was olde Rome. Now thirdly, if the whore of Babylon doe signifie Rome christened, that yet notwithstanding it is not (as Bel­larmine De Pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13. is not ashamed to say) the seat of Antichrist. But if Rome christened or Church of Rome be the whore of Baby­lon (as wee haue proued though our aduersaries should not confesse it) then is it so called because shee is an adulterous and apostaticall church, which hath fallen from Christ to An­tichrist, whom in steed of Christ she acknowledgeth to be her husband and head: then is she the mother both of all fornica­tions, Apoc. 17. 5. that is of all superstitious and idolatrous worshippe, and also of al abominations, as Atheisme, Machiauellisme, Sodomy and Antichristian heresies, with whom the Kings and inhabi­tants Apoc. 17. 2. 4. of the earth haue committed fornication, being made drunke and intoxicated with the golden cuppe of her fornica­tions, that is, of her glorious idolatries and Antichristian here­sies: who as she is cloathed with Scarlet, so is she died red, and Apoc 17. 4. 6. drunke with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Iesu: as being that citie and church wherin the two witnesses of Christ are put to death. Apoc. 11. And cā she then be the whore of Babylon, and not the Antichristian citie and state? especially considering these two thinges which the Pa­pists themselues are forced to confesse, first, that the state of Rome is here figured as it shalbe in the time of Antichrist: se­condly, that Antichrist shalbe one of the seuen heads, & name­ly the last head of the Romane beast, and consequently shall haue Rome for his principall seat. Let vs see then whether the Iesuit be able to bring so much as a shew of reason against this truth. For it may be you expect his proofe. Antichrist, saith he, Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 13. making his collection out of Apoc. 17. 16. shall hate Rome, and shall fight with her, and shall make her desolate, and burne her. Whereupon it followeth manifestly, that Rome shal not be the seat of Antichrist. But it should seeme the Iesuit was in a dreame when he framed this argument. For it is euident that not An­tichrist, [Page 26] but the ten hornes, that is the ten Kings, shal hate the whore, that is, the Antichristian city & president therof: & ac­cordingly Tertullian, Prostituta illa ciuitas, à decemregib. dig­nos exitus referet, That city which hath prostituted her selfe to De resurrect. carn. c. 25. play the harlot, shall frō the ten Kings receiue her deserued end. And so in another place himselfe being better awaked reaso­soneth from that place. The ten kings (saith he) which shall di­uide among them the Romane Empire, and in whose time Anti­christ shall come, shall hate the purple harlot that is Rome and make her desolate, how then shall shee be the seat of Antichrist? Whereunto I answere, that the very contrary is to be inferred vpon that place: where it is said that the 10. hornes, that is the 10. kings, which shall diuide among them the Romane Empire, shal in deed for a time ioyne with Antichrist, and giue their power vnto him. But when as Christ shall begin to waste and to weaken him with the spirit of his mouth, that then these 10. Kings shall oppose themselues against the Antichri­stian citie and the head thereof. Which, euent and experience in parte hath proued to bee true in some of these 10. Kings, as hath before beene shewed. From that place therefore wee §. 11. may reason thus; The purple harlot which the 10. Kings shall assault is the city of Antichrist. Rome is that purple harlot, as the aduersarie himselfe confesseth, therefore Rome is the citie of Antichrist.

19. Their last refuge is this: that Rome Christian, where the Pope sitteth, doth not stande vpon 7. hilles, but is remoued from the seuen hilles into the plaine of Campus Martius: and that the Pope sitteth on the other side of the riuer vpon the mount Vatican. Saunders therefore thought it to bee but a childish argument to proue from the 7. hilles that the seate of Antichrist is at Rome. But we would knowe of him whether it be the same Rome where they say Peter sate or not. If it be the same, then it standeth on seuen hilles, if it bee not the same, how is it then the Apostolicke seate and chaire of Pe­ter? True in deede it is, that in the time of the Emperours the Pomarium of the citie was enlarged, so that it enclosed a good parte of Campus Martius: and that since some more [Page 27] auncient partes of the citie being decaied, the greatest parte of priuate buildings stande in the plaine. Yet notwithstan­ding euen to this day, the seuen hilles are enclosed within the walles of the citie, and vpon them there doe yet remaine, be­sides some of the Popes palaces and courts, diuers churches and houses of religion and other buildings of note: as that learned diuine of blessed memory D. Fulke particularly shew­eth In Apoc. 17. 9. in his answere to the Rhemists. Neither doth the enlarg­ing of the citie in one parte, and the decaying of it in another, proue it not to be the same citie. And although the Pope doth liue in the Vatican, or in any other pallace of his whersoeuer: yet who knoweth not, that Rome is the Papal or as they cal it the Apostolick seat, appointed as they Rod. Cupers de eccles. pag. 37. num. 1. say by Christ himself. Neither can the Pope as Cupers dae eccles. p. 226. num. 16. they teach chaunge his seate: or if he should, he should ceasse to be the successour of Peter. For whosoeuer is chosen Bishop of the citie of Rome, he (say they) is the successor of S. Peter, the vicar of Christ, and Bishop of the world. And as Rome in generall is the Popes seat, or See; Cupers pag. 37. num 4. so more specially the cathedrall church of Laterane, whereof more properly the Pope is Bishop, as the husband of one wife. Cupers. pag. 221. n. 31. In which respect they say, that as S. Peter and his successours bee the head of the whole church or vniuersitie of the faith­full, so the Laterane church being referred to other materiall Cupers. pag. 106. num. 11. churches, is the head of all churches of the world. Vnto this church was adioyned the chiefe pallace of the Pope, which was inhabited by them vntill the time of Boniface the 9. as Onuphrius testifieth, that is to say 1400. yeares almost after De 7. vrb. eecl. Christ: howsoeuer since the time of Leo the 10. who lodged therein, it is within these last hundred yeares decaied. Now it is well knowen that the pallace and church of Laterane stan­deth on the mount Coelius in the most remote part of the citie, and furthest distant from the Vaticane. So that all these shifts and euasions of the Papists notwithstanding, it is euident, that Rome, which we haue now proued to be the seat of the Pope, is by the former reasons alleadged, the seat of Antichrist.

CHAP. 3. Concerning the time of the Reuelation of Antichrist.

1. AS from the place we gather the Pope to be Antichrist, because the seat of Anti­christ is Rome christned, or professing her selfe the church of Christ: So the consideration of the time ioyned with that of the place, doth make this trueth much more euident. Rome Christned is the seate of Antichrist: but when doth Antichrist sitte, that is, raigne there? I answere that he could not exercise Antichri­stian dominion there, whiles the Emperours had their seat in Rome. But when the Emperours were remoued and the Em­pire in the West dissolued: then did Antichrist succeed them in the seat, that is, in the gouernmēt of Rome. And this may be proued first, by the testimonie of S. Paule. 2. Thess. 2. 8. And then that outlaw, meaning Antichrist, shalbe reuealed. And whē 2. Thess. 2. 8. is that? When he that hindereth shalbe taken out of the way. And who is that which hindereth the reuelation of Antichrist for a time, that he might be reuealed in his due time? Who this was, 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. the Apostle had told the Thessal. by word of mouth, and ther­fore forbare for iust causes to tell them by writing which they knew already, to wit, that he might not incurre the needlesse 2. Thess. 2. 5. 6. hatred of the Romanes. But that which he had told them, in all likelyhood, was continued in the church. For although this place in it selfe be most difficult, yet generally it is vnderstood of the Empire and Emperours of Rome by most of the aun­cient writers of the Church. Tertullian: who shall be takē out of the way, but the Romane state? whose departure being diuided De resurrect. carn. among ten Kinges shall bring in Antichrist. Ambrose, After the decay of the Romane Empire, Paule saith that Antichrist In 2. Thess. 2. shall appeare. Chrysostome on these wordes, Onely hee that holdeth that is (as hee expoundeth) hindereth now vntill he In 2. Thess. 2. be taken out of the way: [...] (saith hee) [...], that is, [Page 29] the Empire of Rome, when it shall bee taken out of the way, then he (meaning Antichrist) shall come, and worthily. For whiles men shall be in awe of the Empire, none will hastily be brought in subiection to Antichrist. But when the Empire shall be dissol­ued he shall seize vpon the vacancie, and shall challenge to him­selfe the Empire or rule both humane and diuine. Hierome spea­king of these words, And now what hindereth you know, that he Ad Algas. quaest. 11. might be reuealed in his time: that is (saith he) what the cause is why Antichrist commeth not yet, you know very well. Neither could he plainelie say that the Romane Empire is to be destroyed, which the Emperours thinke is aternall. Wherefore according to the Apocalypse of Iohn, there is written in the forehead of the harlot cloathed with purple, a name of blasphemy, that is, Romae aeternae, to Rome aternal. And afterwards these words onelie he which holdeth now must hold vntill hee bee taken out of the way, and then that out law shall be reuealed, hee expoundeth thus, onelie that the Romane Empire which now holdeth (that is, go­uerneth) all nations, depart and be taken out of the way, and then Antichrist shall come. Cyrill, Antichrist shall come, when the Catech. 15. times of the Romane Empire shall be fulfilled. Primasius, The kingdome of the Romanes shall bee taken out of the way, before in 2. Thess. 2. Antichrist be reuealed: Theophylact, when the Romane Empire shall be taken out of the way, then shall Antichrist come. The in 2. Thess. 2. greeke scholiast on those words, that which holdeth &c. hee in 2. Thess. 2. 6. meaneth saith he [...] that which letteth and hinde­reth. And what is that? Many vnderstand the holy ghost, others the Romane Empire, whose iudgement is the better? For vntill that be dissolued, Antichrist shall not come. And for this cause blessed Paul spake so obscurelie, because he would not incur vn­seasonable enmitie with the Romans. For when they should heare that the Empire of the Romanes shall be dissolued, they would persecute him and al the faithful, as being such as looked for the dissolution of the Empire. But if he had spoken of the holy ghost, what letted him to haue said plainelie, that the grace of the holie ghost did hinder him that he should not appeare? To which we may adde, that in the sixt verse the Apostle speaketh in the newter gender, and in the seauenth in the masculine: the [Page 30] former whereof may signifie the Empire, the latter the Empe­rour, of whom the holy ghost speaketh, as of one man ( [...]) as he vseth to speak sometimes of Antichrist and wee of the Pope; although both by the one and the other is signified not one man, but a state or succession. Augustine in deede saith of De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. c. 19. these words, but he that hindereth shall hinder. I do confesse that I am vtterly ignorant what he saith. Some think that this is spo­ken of the Romane Empire, and that Paul the Apostle would not therefore write it plainelie, least he should incur this slaunder that he was an ill willer to the Romane Empire; which men hoped to be aternall. Notwithstanding this seemeth to haue bin his iudge­ment also, for afterwards he thinketh those words may thus be expoūded of the Empire of Rome, tan [...]ū qui modò imperat, im­peret &c. only he which reigneth must raigne (for so [...] also may signify, & to the same purpose Primasius expoūdeth those words, tantū vt qui tenet nunc, sc. imperiū, only he which holdeth now, to wit the Empire) vntil he be done, that is taken, out of the way; and then that outlaw shall be reuealed, whome no man doub­teth to signifie Antichrist.

2 But what need I to be so diligent in gathering testimonies for the cōfirmation of this truth, seeing it is not only confirmed by the former assertiō (for how could Antichrist raign in Rome while the Roman Emperors remaind or raignd there) but also is confessed by Bellarmine himself, namely that by this let, is to be vnderstood the Empire of Rome. Rather let vs cōsider whe ther the Empire that hindred, be taken out of the way, or not. Beliarmine vnderstandeth this taking away, of an vtter aboli­shing Cap. 5. of the Romane Empire, so that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperor or King of the Romanes. Frō whēce he would proue that Antichrist is not yet come, be­cause the Romane Empire is not yet abolished. Wee confesse that the Romane Empire which hindred the reuelatiō of An­tichrist was to be dissolued, and also diuided among ten, that is many kings (for so this number of ten is oftē vsed indefinitly): Num. 14. 22. Iob. 19. 3. Nehem. 4. 12. which is all that can be gathered either out of the scriptures or fathers. But that there should be such an vtter abolishment of the Romane Empire, as that there should not remain so much [Page 31] as the name or title of the Emperor or King of the Romanes, we do vtterly deny. It is sufficient that the Emperor was so far See a. book. chap. 5. forth taken out of the way as it hindred the Reuelation or do­minion of Antichrist, And so much the phrase of the Apostle seemeth to import, [...] vntil hee be done out of the way, (or as the Rhemists themselues do read, vntill he be taken out of the way) as may appeare by conference of like places. Let vs then consider, in what sence the Romane Empire did Mat. 13. 49. Act. 17. 53. & 23. 10. hinder, and was to be taken away, and in what sence it hinde­red not, and was to remaine: For the better vnderstanding whereof we are to distinguish betwixt the old Empire and 1. Cor. 5. 2. 2, Co [...]. 6. 17. the new. The old Empire, as it hindered the dominion of An­tichrist, was to be taken out of the way, that it might bee no more an hinderance thereunto. The new Empire in the west erected by the Pope hindreth not the dominion of Antichrist, but rather supporteth him, and therefore together with Anti­christ was to remaine. Neither doth the Apostle speake of the new Empire, but of the old, as shall appeare by these reasons;

3 First the Apostle speaketh of the Empire which hindered 1. or held then, & of that only: for so he saith, only he which now letteth wil let vntill he be taken out of the way. And Hierome expoundeth those words, and now what hindreth, you know, after Ad Algas. quaest. 11. this maner, quae causa sit vt Antichrist us in praesentiarū non ve­niat optimè nostis, You know very well what the cause is that An­tichrist cometh not now: But the old Empire hindered them and not the new. And therefore the Apostle speaketh of the taking away of the old Empire & not of the new, Again when he saith 2. the Empire hindred, he meaneth the imperial authority & do­miniō, & that at Rome, not the title or name therof in Germa­ny. For it is not the name or title of an Emperour in Germany, that can hinder the dominion of Antichrist at Rome, & much lesse at Ierusalē, where the Papists say his seat shall be. Thirdly, 3. Antichrist appeared & shewed himselfe (and in that sence was reuealed) before the erection of the new Empire. For the new Empire is the image of the former beast: which Antichrist the 2. beast Ap. 13. causeth to be made. And wheras Antichrist is (as the Papists also cōsesse) the 7. head of the beast which hath [Page 32] heads, the Empire renewed (which is the beast that was and is not though it be) is the 8. in order, though in name it is one of the 7. and in that sence is to bee referred to the sixt head, namely the Emperours. Fourthly the whore of Babylon, that 4. is the Antichristian state, was to sitte vpon the beast which af­terwards was to ascend, that is, the Empire renewed. Therfore with Antichrist there was to remaine an imperial state, though much abased vnder him. Fiftly, the Empire renewed is the 5. beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth. And therefore is Ioan de turre­crem. lib. 2. c. 114. so farre from hindring Antichrist, that it supporteth him, as the beast doth the rider. And to that end in deed was this Empire erected in the west, that it might support the church of Rome. For when as the church of Rome was oppressed by the king Adrian. 4. in epistol. ad ar­chiep. German. apud Auenlin. lib. 4. of the Lombards, it sought aide of the Emperours of Constan­tinople; and when they would not defend the church, the Pope translated the Empire to the French king: and from him vpon the same occasion to the Germaines, and that to this end, vt Dist. 96. c. si im­perator, in glossa. Rex Teutonicorum foret imperator & patronus sedis Apostoli­cae, that the king of the Almaines might be Emperour, and pa­trone of the See Apostolicke. And for the same cause the Empe­rour 6. is called of them procurator siue defensor Romanae Eccle­siae, the proctor or defender of the church of Rome. Sixtly, the Pa­pists themselues doe hould that the Empire which now is, shall continue vnto the end of the world. For they say that in the second of Daniel (as many others also haue said) is descri­bed a succession of the chiefe kingdomes or Monarchies of the earth, which should continue vntill the end of the world: the last whereof is the Romane Empire, Seauenthly, the de­struction of the Romane Empire (which the fathers say shall go before the reuelation of Antichrist), is the dissolution and diuision thereof among ten kings, which in deede long since happened to the old Empire, but cannot happen to the new: vnlesse we can imagine that ten mightie kings shall arise out of the bare name and title of an Emperour diuided among them. When as the Papists therefore teach vs not to expect Antichrist vntill the Empire that now is either be diuided into ten kingdomes, they are ridiculous; or vtterly abolished which [Page 33] they say shall continue to the end, they are absurd, and in both impious, making (as it may seeme) a scorne of the prophecyes concerning Antichrist, which they make to imply impossibili­ties and contradictions.

4. By this which hath bene said it plainely appeareth, that howsoeuer the old Empire in the west, which hindered the do­minion of Antichrist, was to be takē out of the way before An­tichrist should be reuealed; yet notwithstanding euen with, & vnder Antichrist there was to be an imperiall state in name & title, which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, & therfore is so far frō hindering Antichrist, as that it suppor­teth him. Let vs then cōsider how the Empire which hindred the reuelatiō of Antichrist was takē out of the way, & how af­terwards Antichrist was reuealed. Of the taking away of the Emperour, as also of the reuelation of Antichrist there are two degrees. The Romane Emperour was first takē out of the way, when the imperia [...] seat was by Constantine the great transla­ted from Rome to Bizantium or Constantinople, and that to this end, as they haue set downe in the forged donation of Con­stantine, that he might leaue rowme to the Pope. Because for­sooth where the princehood of priests, and head of Christian reli­gion Dist. 69. c. Con­stantinus, & de electione c. fun­dament. in sex­to. was by the heauenly Emperour placed, there it is not iuste that the earthly Emperour should haue power. Secondly, after the death of Constantine the great, and of Flauius Valerius Constā ­tinus his son, the Romane Empire being diuided into 2. partes the Easterne & the Westerne, and by diuisiō being weakened, the Westerne was ouerthrowne in the yeare of our Lord 475. & Rome it selfe taken by the Gothes. So that neither in Rome any Romane afterwards had his seate of authority, vntill the Pope tooke vpon him the souerainty: neither in the West was there any Romane Emperour vntill Charles the great, that is to say, from the yeare 475. vnto the end of the yeare 800. In the meane time Italy was gouerned first by the Gothes, and after­wards a great part thereof by the Lombards. And howsoeuer the Emperours of the East had recouered Rome, and some part of Italy, which because they gouerned by exarches hauing their seat in Rauenna, was called the exarchat of Rauenna, the Lom­bards, [Page 34] enioying the rest: yet before the renewing of the Empire in the West, the Emperour of the East had lost all Italy and Rome, and that by the Popes means. For when as Leo the third called Isaurus, Emperour of Greece, had held a coūcel at Con­stantinople of 330. Bishops, wherein was decreed that all ima­ges within the Empire should be destroied & burnt: and af­terwards put the same decree in executiō: the Popes of Rome first Gregory the 2. and after Gregory the 3. excōmunicate him, forbidtributes to be paid him out of Italy and Rome, absolue his subiects from their allegiance vnto him, and hauing stirred vp not onely the Italians, but Lombards also against him, the exarch of Rauenna is slaine, and the Emperour depriued of all his dominion & reuenewes in Italy and Rome. So that howso­euer the Empire in the East stood all this while: yet according to the prophecie of th'apostle, he which hindred the reuelation of Antichrist, that is to say, the Emperour of Rome, was taken out of the way; First, by remouing to Cōstantinople frō Rome, where Antichrist could not vsurpe that dominion and soue­raintie whiles the Emperour had his seate there, which after­wards he did. Secondly, because the Empire of the west, which properly was the Empire of Rome, was dissolued, & the Empe­rour of the East lost his title & interest in Italy and Rome.

5. Of the reuelation of Antichrist there be also two de­grees. The first, of his raigning and shewing himselfe in his co­lours: the secōd, of his acknowledgemēt. Of his raigning there be 2. degrees also. The first, whē he challēged supreame autho­rity ouer the vniuersal church of Christ. Which he did when he vsurped the title of vniuersal or oecumenicall Bishop or head of the vniuersall Church: which was done as we said about the yeare 607. About which time besides other prodigious sights Anno. 607. there appeared a terrible comet, & thē we hold that Antichrist (to wit, the head of the Antichristiā body) was borne. True it is that the seeds of Antichristianisme were sowē before his time: & euen frō th'apostles time the mystery of iniquity, that is, An­tichristianisme, was working although more couertly, & pre­paration was made towards the birth of the great Antichrist, partly by heresies & some declinatiōs in the church of Rome in [Page 35] religion from the purity of the primitiue church, partly by the ambition of diuers of the Bishops of Rome, who aduauncing themselues as Socrates saith, beyond the limit of priesthood into forraine dominion, contended to haue the primacy aboue Lib. 7. c. 11. all other churches (and that is the chiefe scope of many of their Epistles decretall) and to the same end forged a Canon of the councel of Nice, when their ambition was curbed by other ge­nerall councels. And lastly by the indulgence of deuout Empe­rours and Princes, who haue by great deuotions and priuiled­ges aduaunced that church. Notwithstanding wee hold that Antichrist was not reuealed, vntill he shewed himselfe by vsur­ping an vniuersall dominion ouer the church of God.

6. But notwithstanding this great title & authority, Anti­christ was yet but in his nonage, and vnder the gouernmēt not only of the Emperor, but also, for a time, of the Emperors Lief­tenant in Italy the Eparch of Rauenna, by whom the electi­on of the Pope (made by the Clergie and people of Rome) was of necessitie to bee ratified and confimed, vntill Bene­dict Anno. 684. the 2, obtained this priuiledge frō the Emperour Constan­tine 4. called Pogonatus, that the electiō of the Pope by the clergy and people of Rome should be good without the con­firmatiō of the Emperour. Vpō which priuiledge obteined, the Pope began to care litle for the Emperour, holding himselfe hencefoorth to be [...] or rather as th'apostle speaketh [...] 2. Thess. 2. 8. without law, & subiect to the iudgemēt of no mā, as they pro­fesse in diuers of their canons. Not lōg after they began to ad­uāce thēselues both against & aboue the Emperour. Constātine the 1. suffereth the Emperour Iustmian to kisse his feet, about the yeare of our Lord 710. Within three yeares after the same Anno. 710. Constantine setteth himselfe against the Emperour Philippicus Bardanes in defense of images, as did his two successours Gre­gory the 2. and third against Leo Isaurus in the same quarel. In whose three times, (that wee may know Rome to be the mo­ther of spirituall fornications) were helde three Councels at Rome, wherein worshipping of images is approued and the oppugners there of excōmunicated. And we must note that about this time (saith the Author of the booke called Fasci­culus temporum) the Popes began aboue their woont to oppose [Page 36] themselues euen in temporall matters against the Emperours: because of their vnsoundnesse in the faith (for so he calleth their oppugning of images) and to translate the Empire from nation to nation, as time required. As for Gregory the 2. he was the first which anouched himself supcriour to the Emperour; who Anno. 723. also excommunicated Leo the 3. because he sought to abolish the idolatry of his time, which they call worshipping of ima­ges. But his successour Gregory the 3. not onely excommunica­ted the said Emperour for the same cause, but also forbad any tributes or duties to be paide vnto him out of Italy & Rome, & absolued his subiects frō their allegiance vnto him. Wherupō Rome (being then a Duchy) with diuers other cities in Italy, re­uolting from the Emperour, sware obediēce to the Pope, Who Anno. 727. by the defection of the Italians, and helpe of the Lombards, dispossesseth the Emperour of all his reuenues in Italy; & con­sequently (as the popish author of the booke called Fasciculus temporum saith) totum regnum occidentis ab eo abstulit, Hee tooke from him the whole kingdome of the West. But when as the Lombards held the exarchat of Rauonna which the Pope in­tended to himself, & sought to rule ouer all Italy as the Gothes had done, not exempting Rome or those other cities which had reuolted to the Pope; first, Gregory the 3. when Rome was besieged by Luitprendus, vsed the friendship of Carolus Mar­tellus Anno. 732. to free him from the siege. Whereupon the Pope remo­ueth the tuition of the Church of Rome from the Emperour of Greece vnto Carolus Martellus the great Master of Fraunce, & to his sonne Pipinus after him. Whom that the Pope might bind vnto him, and finde a sufficient defence against his eni­mies, hee (namely Zacharias) hauing (as themselues testifie) Caus. 15 quaest. 6. c. alius. deposed Childerick the King of Fraunce from his kingdome, and absolued his subiectes from their allegiaunce (because Anno. 750. forsooth he was too simple to rule) maketh him (namely Pipin) King of Fraunce. Who afterwards when his helpe was in­treated by the Pope Steuen the third, against Aistulphus the king of Lombards, enforced the said King to yeeld vp the Anno. 754. exarchat of Rauenna, and Pentapolis, which hee gaue to the Pope. This donation his sonne Charles the great confirmed and enlarged with a plentifull addition (reseruing notwithstan­ding [Page 37] to himself the royalties of those possessions) when he had at the intreaty of Adrian the Pope ouerthrown the kingdome Anno. 773. of the Lombards in Italie. For which cause, as also for that hee assisted the Pope Leo the third, against the insurrections of the people of Rome, punished his aduersaries, and caused the peo­ple of Rome to sweare alleagiance to the Pope: The Pope (namely Leo the third) crowned him Emperour of Rome, tran­slating Anno. 800. that title from the Emperour of the East to him, and in him renewing the Empire of the west, which had beene voide since the time of Augustulus. And as he made him Emperour, so to him was committed by Adrian and Leo, the confirmati­on of those which were elected to the Papacy. Which yoke as the Popes following oft strugled against: so at the last, they shooke it off. And whereas, in former times, the Pope was sub­iect to the Emperour, & being elected was confirmed by him, Adrian. 3. an. 883. afterwards it came to passe that as the Empire was renewed in Charlemaigne, and after reuiued in Otto the great, and that to this end that it might support the Papacy; so the Pope (namely Anno. 960. Iohn the 12, aliâs 13.) causeth the Emperour to sweare vnto him to that end, taketh order for the election of the Emperour, Gregory. 5. appointing 7, electors, reseruing the coronatiō of the Emperor Anno. 995. and confirmation of the election vnto himselfe; and at the length subiecteth the Emperour vnto him as his vassall, chal­lenging both swords and vsurping an vniuersal dominion and soueraignty ouer all the christian world, not onely ouer eccle­siasticall persons, as Bishops and Priests, but also ciuil, as prin­ces, Kings, Emperours, whome he esteemeth as his vassals, and maketh them kisse his feete, as we shall shew more fully when we come to speake of his Antichristian pride. Vnto this Mo­narchy C. Fundamen­ta. de elect. in sexto. (as they call it) not onely of spirituall but also of tem­porall power, they long aspired, but neuer fully attained, vntill the time of Gregory the seauenth, in whom Antichrist was Anno. 1073. come to his [...] or full growth, wherein hee flourished, vntill our Sauiour Christ the king of kings and Lord of Lords began to waste and consume him with the breath of his mouth. This is that which Auentine saith, Hildebrand who also is called Lib. 5. annal. Boior. Gregory the seauenth, first established the Pontificall Empire. [Page 38] which his successours for the space of 450. yeares (that is to A­uentine and also Luthers time) so held, in spite of the world, and maugre the Emperours, that they haue brought all both in hea­uen & hel into bōdage &c. at their pleasure they cast men head­long from heauen to hel, and again from hel aduance to heauen. The Emperour from henceforth is nothing but a bare title with­out body or shew.

7 But no sooner was Antichrist come to his full growth (wherby he plainly reuealed & discouerd himself) but straight­waies he began to be acknowledged, which is the 2. part of his reuelation, wherof also there are degrees. For first hee was ac­knowledged particularly dy diuerse learned & godly men in the time of Gregory the 7. and in euery age since vntil the time of Luther. As for example, the Bishops of Germany affirme Gregory the 7. to be Antichrist. Antichristū esse praedicāt. Vnder the name & title of Christ (say they) he cōtriueth the businesse of Antichrist: he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God: he extol­leth Auētin. annal. Boior. lib. 5. himselfe aboue all that is worshipped, as if he were a God, he boasteth that he cānot erre. And afterward Auentin either in his owne name or in the persō of Sigeberius, speaking of the times Lib. 5. annal. Boior. of Gregory the 7, All men almost (saith he) that were good, open-hearted, iust, ingenuous, and single hearted, haue left in writing, that the Empire of Antichrist did then begin, because they saw those things which our Sauiour Christ so many yeares before had prophecied vnto vs, to happen in that time.

The Bishop of Florence, in the time of Paschalis the second, preached that Antichrist was come, meaning the Pope. Anno. 1119. Catalog. test. Anno. 1120. Catalog. test. & Magde, cen­tur. 12.

Honorius Augustudonensis applieth the prophecies in the Apocalypse concerning Antichrist, to the Pope and church of Rome. Dialog. de lib. arb. & praedest. Bernard in his time ac­knowledgeth a general apostasie, and complaineth of the state of the church as Antichristian Anno. 1140. Serm. 33. in Cant. in con­uers. Pauli serm. 1.

Ioannes Sarisburiensis taught that the pope is Antichrist, and the city of Rome the whore of Babylon. About the same time Petrus Blesensis wrote, that Rome is that very Babylon whereof Iohn speaketh in the Apocalypse. Anno. 1157. Polan. in Dan. Anno. 1158.

Gerhardus and Dulcinus Nauarrensis preach that the Pope [Page 39] is Antichrist, and that the cleargy and prelates of Rome were the very whore of Babylon prefigured in the Apocalypse. Ex I Fox.

In the time of Alexander the third, the Waldenses teach that Anno. 1170. Ex I. Fox & catal. test. Roger Houe­den in Ri­cardi. 1. Bal. centur. 3. c. 35. in appēd. Anno. 1189. Catalog. test. the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome Babylon.

Ioachim the abbot, beeing demaunded of Richard the first king of England, now going towards the holie land, concer­ning Antichrist, aunswered thus; Antichrist is alreadie borne in the citie of Rome, and is aduaunced in the See Aposto­licke. And in certaine Germane verses also published at Francofurt, he affirmeth that the Pope and his priests are Anti­christs.

Eberhardus archiepiscopus Iuuacensis, Hyldebrand (saith he) about an hundred and 70. yeares ago did first, vnder the shewe Anno. 1241. Auentin. annal. Boior. lib. 7. of religion, lay the foundation of Antichrists kingdome. And straightwaies after, those priests of Babylon (saith he) couet to reigne alone, they cannot endure an aequall. Neither will they ceasse vntill they haue troden all vnder their feet, and do sit te in the temple of God, and be extolled about all that is worshipped. Their hunger afterwealth, and thirst for honour, is insatiable &c. he that is the seruant of seruants desireth to bee the Lord of Lords, as if he were a God. And againe, hee wasteth and spotleth, he deceiueth and killeth, I meane that man of perdition whome they call Antichrist, in whose forehead a name of blasphemie is written, I am God, I cannot erre, he sitteth in the temple of God, he ruleth farre and wide.

Robert Grosthead, the worthie Bishoppe of Lincolne, on his deathbed complaining of the Pope, and bewailing the losse of Anno. 1253. Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. soules which happened through the auarice of the Popes court, with sighs he said; Christ came into the world to gaine soules: therefore if any feare not to destroy soules, is not he wor­thily to be called Antichrist?

Guilie [...]s de sancto amore, a master of Paris and chiefe ru­ler Anno. 1260. of that vniuersitie, called the monks and priests the subiects of Antichrist.

One Lawrence also an Englishman & master of Paris, proued the Pope to be Antichrist, & the synagogue of Rome the great Anno. 1290. I. Fox. Babylō. About the same time Maenardus Tyrolius in a publick [Page 40] edict calleth the Popes effeminate Antichrists. And againe, if they be not Antichrists, I pray you what are they? Auentin. an­nal. boior. li. 7.

Michael Cesenas principall of the gray fryers, wrote against the pride, tyranny and primacy of the Pope, accusing him to be Anno. 1322. 1. Fox. Antichrist, and the church of Rome the whore of Babylon drunken with the bloud of Saints. Hayabalus a fryer in the time of Clement the sixt, preached (and that, as he saide, by Anno. 1345. Henrie. de Herford. in Chronic. Catalog. test. 1. Fox. commaundement from God) that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon, and that the Pope with his Cardinalles is the very Antichrist. Wilh [...]lmus Occomensis, as Auentine calleth him, wrote a booke against Charles and Clement the sixte, wherein he calleth the Pope Antichrist. Auentin. an­nal. Boior. li. 7.

Briget, whom the Papists worship as a canonized Saint, cal­leth the Pope a murtherer of soules, more cruell then Iudas, Anno. 1370. more vniust then Pilate, worse then Lucifer himselfe. She pro­phecieth 1. Fox. that the See of Rome shall bee throwne downe into the deepe like a milstone, (according to the prophecie of Saint Iohn, Apocalypse. 18. 21) About the same yeere, Matthias Pa­rifiensis, a Bohemian, writing a booke of Antichrist, proueth that he is already come, and noateth him to be the Pope.

Franciscus Petrarch, in many places of his writings, calleth Anno. 1374. the court of Rome the whore of Babylon, the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth.

Vrhanus the sixt, and Clement the seauenth two Popes at once, call one the other Antichrist. As Bernard before had cal­led Baldus. de vit. pontif. Anacletus, against whom Innocentius the second was cho­sen as Antipope. That beast saith hee in the Apocalypse, to Anno 1378. Anno. 1130. Epist. 125. whom is giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies, & to war with the Saints (meaning Antichrist), occupieth the chaire of Peter, as a Lyon ready for the pray.

But most effectually doth our godly and learned country­man Iohn Wicleffe discouer the enormities and heresyes of the Anno. 1383. Bellar. de pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 1. Pope whom he pronounced to be Antichrist. Artic. 30.

His iudgement as in other things, so also in this, that worthy Martyr of Christ Iohn Husse followed. Who affirmeth in his Anno. 1405. booke de ecclesia, that hee was troubled because he preached Christ, and discouered Antichrist. That the Censures of the [Page 41] Romish church were Antichristian, and proceeding frō Anti­christ: & (as Gerson & the Parisians obiect against him Art. 16) that in those times & many ages before, there had bin no true Pope, nor true Romane church: but the Popes were Antichrists & the church of Rome the synagogue of Satan. Whose iudge­ment many in Bohemia followed. Sir Iohn Old [...]astell, the Lord Anno 1413. 1. Foxe. Cobham, that famous & noble martyr of Christ, prosessed to K. Henry the 5. that by the Scriptures he knew the Pope to be the great Antichrist, the son of perdition &c. Hieronimus Sauana­rola taught that the Pope is Antichrist, because he did attribute Anno. 1500. 1. Foxe. more to his owne indulgēces & pardōs then to Christs merits.

About the yeare of our Lord 1517. Luther began to preach against the Popes indulgences, and afterwards against other Anno. 1517. errours and abominations of the Pope and church of Rome, discouering more plainely then any had done before him, that Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. Since whose times this truth hath beene almost generally acknowledged by the true and reformed Churches of Christ.

Seing therefore we haue proued, that Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God, and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour whom hee was to succeed in the gouernment of Rome, and there to be reuealed both by his owne shewing himself in his colours, & also by the acknowledgement of others: it cannot be auoided but that the Pope is Antichrist. For he and none but he sitteth, that is reig­neth in Rome, professing her selfe the church of God, and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour, (not onely by the remouing of the imperiall seat, but also by the dissolutiō of the Empire in the West) whom hee succeedeth in the gouern­ment of Rome, where he hath bene reuealed not onely by his owne shewing himselfe in his colours, but also by the acknow­ledgement of others.

8. Vnto the former place of the Epistle to the Thessal. we will adde two other places out of th'apocalyps, from whence both the place and time of Antichrist may be iointly gathered. The former place is in the 13. of th'apocalips, where two beasts are described, signifying two estates of the Romane gouern­ment 2. as they are opposed vnto Christ: the former representeth [Page 42] the persecuting Emperours, the latter Antichrist. Of the former he saith thus, I saw a beast arising out of [...] sea (that is, of many & diuers peoples which it had vanquished.) Now the descrip­tion of this beast containeth in it the resemblances of those 4. kingdoms which are described in Daniel, the Romane Empire farre surpassing thē al. The first of the beasts in Daniel, signify­ing the kingdome of the Babylonians, is cōpared to a Lion: The 2. resembling the kingdome of the Medes and Persians, to a Beare: The 3. representing the monarchy of the Macedoniās, to a Leopard: The 4. figuring the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, to a beast with 10. hornes, resembling so many of their kings, who should tyrannize ouer Iewry. The Empire of Rome therfore, as if it were compounded of them all, is resembled to a beast hauing ten hornes with so many diademes vpon them, both in respect of the ten persecuting Emperors, answering the 10. Seleucedae & Lagidae, as also in regard of the 10. kingdoms or prouinces wherinto the Romane Empire in those times was diuided; being also like a Leopard, hauing the feet or pawes as it were of a Beare, & the rauening mouth of a Liō. And besides all this, is said to haue seuē heads, which afterwards (chapt. 17.) are expounded to be 7. hilles, & also 7. heads of gouernmēt &c. & to this beast was giuen authority or power, ouer euery tribe, Verse. 7. language and nation &c. al which are proper to the Empire of Rome. The former beast therefore signifieth the Romane state, especially as it was vnder the persecuting Emperours, as Bel­larmine Lib. 3. de pont. R. cap. 15. confesseth.

The second beast, described vers. 11. and so forward to the end of the chapter, is (as Bellarmine saith all men do confesse) Antichrist: who also is, by the cōfession of the said Bellarmine, De pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 10. & 15. one of the heads of the former beast. By the description of this beast (that we may now note that which serueth for the present purpose, reseruing the residue vntil their due time & place) it is apparant, that there is one & the same principall seate of both the beasts, that in that seat the second beast succeedeth the for­mer, practising al the power or authority of the former beast & Verse. 12. that before him, that is to say, euen at Rome: and that his chiefe endeuors tēde to magnifie the beast, that is the Romane state; as in making mē to worship it, in causing mē to make an image [Page 43] of & to the beast, wherunto he giueth spirit & speach, & enfor­cing men to worship the same: finally in compelling men to take vpon thē the marke of the beast, his name, & nūber of his name. All which as they argue Antichrist to be a Romane, suc­ceeding the Emperors in the gouernmēt of Rome: so also they fitly & properly agree to the Pope, who succeedeth the Empe­rours in the gouernmēt of Rome, where he vsurpeth all & more then al the power of the Emperours, chalēging a more vniuer­sal & soueraigne, or rather diuine authority, then belonged to thē; whose maine endeuors are to aduaunce the Romane state, which he calleth the See Apostolik, & which he maketh al mē to worship: causing them also to make an image of the Empire (which was the head that had receiued the deadly woūd) to & in behoofe of the Romane state; an image I say, partly in the Emperour of Almaine, resēbling the title ornamēts & shew of the former Emperours: partly in his owne courts not onely in Rome, but in all other coūtries represēting the former imperial authority & tyrāny both in Rome it selfe, and in the prouinces thereunto belōging. This image both in the Empire & popish courts he animateth & authorizeth. For as there is no question to be made hereof in respect of his courts, so is it as true in re­spect of the Empire, if that be true which themselues professe. Namely, that what the Emperor hath, he hath it wholy frō thē: that the Empire in the West was renewed by the Pope, who trāslated the title of the Emperor of Rome frō the Emperor of the East, first to the Frēch, & after to the Germās: that the Pope caused this new Emperor to be made, that he crowned & au­thorized him, that he appointed 7. Electors in Germany, reser­uing the cōfirmation of the electiō & coronatiō of the Empe­rour to himself: of which points we shal hereafter speake more at large. Further, he causeth al mē to worship the image by him Chap. 7. erected, & cōpelleth all men to receiue the marke of the beast, as also the name of the beast (which cā be no other but either Romane or Latine,) & the nūber of his name. i. to liue insubiec­tiō to the See of Rome, & to professe thēselues to be Romanes & Latines in respect of their religiō, as herafter shalbe shewed. Chap. 8.

9. The same is proued out of the 17. chap. of th'apocalyps, 3. where be reckened 7. heads, that is 7. kinds of principall rulers [Page 44] as it were heads of gouernment, whereby Rome hath bene go­uerned, euery one succeeding another. The sixt head being the Emperours, the seuēth Antichrist which is the Pope. For Anti­christ is one of the 7. heads of the beast which hath 7. heads & 10. hornes. And this beast signifieth the Romane state, therfore Antichrist is a head of the Romane state. All which Bellarmine after a sort cōfesseth. Now it is most certaine that Antichrist is Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 15. none of the first 5. heads, for they were past in th'apostles time: neither is he the sixt head which was of the Emperours, that then was; for that was to be done out of the way, as the Papists thēselues do teach, before the reuelatiō of Antichrist. It remai­neth therfore that the seuenth head which is the Pope is Anti­christ. The eight head, which also is one of the seuen, is the Em­pire renewed by the Pope, & is said to be the beast, which was & is not though it be, wheron the whore of Babylō sitteth. If it be obiected that the seuenth head wherby Antichrist is signi­fied, was to continue but a short time, as it is said vers. 10: and that this therfore cannot agree to the Pope, who hath raigned already in Rome many 100. yeares: I answere that this is spokē of purpose to arme the faithfull with patience, who otherwise would thinke the reigne of Antichrist very long, & our Sauiour Christ also to be slowe in cōming. Whereas in truth neither is our Sauiour Christ slow in cōming as Peter sheweth, neither is 2. Peter. 3. the kingdome of Antichrist long. But in respect of God with whom a 1000. yeares are as one day, & in cōpatison of the e­ternal kingdome of Christ (with whō the faithful are to raigne after they haue suffered vnder Antichrist,) it is to be accompted very short. And surely if the whole time from the Ascension of of our Sauiour vntil his returne vnto iudgement, is noted in the Scriptures to be very short, and that to this end that we should not thinke it long, then is the raigne of Antichrist (which is but part of this time) much more short. The holy Ghost in the be­ginning of the Reuelation signifieth that the time of fulfilling Apoc 1. 3. the prophecies therein m [...]tioned was at hād. And our Sauiour Heb. 10. 37. Christ promiseth by the Apostle, that after a very litle while he would come: & in the last chapt. of the reuelatiō, he saith, yea, I Apoc. 22. 20. come quickly. And Iohn likewise in his Epistle noteth that the [...]. Iohn. 2. 18. whole time of Antichrist was but a part of the last howre.

[Page 45] 10. And further whereas the Papists obiect, in respect of the time, that Antichrist is not yet come, because the Romane Empire is not yet dissolued, and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist: it may notwithstanding euidently be shewed out of the same chapter of the Apocalypse compared with the Apoc. 17. euent, both that the Empire is dissolued, and that Antichrist is already come. For the Empire is then knowen to be dissolued, when it is diuided among ten who shall haue receiued power as kings, as Iohn noteth, the fathers teach, & the Papists them­selues confesse. But it is most certaine that the old Empire of of Rome is diuided among ten kings at the least, who before the dissolution had not soueraigne authority: and that the Em­pire which now is, being but a title, and contayning no such kingdomes, is not capable of such a partition. And that Anti­christ also is come it is as euident. For those ten hornes which in the Apostles time had not receiuèd the kingdome nor so­ueraigne authority, but were gouernours of the prouinces by deputation frō the Emperour, were after the dissolution of the Empire to receiue powèr as kings with the beast; or, as the Pa­pists reade, after the beast, that is Antichrist, If therefore the go­uernours Ap. 17. 12. of the kingdomes whereinto the Romane Empire was diuided, haue receiued power as kings, then it is certaine that Antichrist is already come. For oither after him, or at least with him they were to receiue their soueraignty. It is as cer­taine therefore that Antichrist is come, as it is sure that the go­uernours of the prouinces which once belonged to the Empire are soueraigne princes and not liefetenants vnder the Empe­rour. And that this Antichrist which is already come is the Pope, it is plaine enough by the same chapter. For whosoeuer succeedeth the Emperours (who were the sixt head) in the go­uernment of Rome, as the seauenth head of the Romane state, he is Antichrist. But the Pope as the seauenth head of the Ro­mane state succeedeth the Emperors (who were the sixt head) in the gouernement of Rome; therefore he is Antichrist. If you say, the seauenth head was not come in the Apostles time verse 10. and yet there were Bishops of Rome then: I answere that the Bishops of Rome, in the first three hundred yeares, were [Page 46] meane men in respect of their owtward estate, & nothing lesse then heads of the Romane state. And that howsoeuer after­wards they obtained great authority, & more & more aspired vnto the soueraignty: notwithstanding, vntill the sixt head was taken out of the way, the 7. was not reuealed. But after the sixt head was gone, the 7. succeeded in the gouernment of Rome. Cupers de eccl. p. 37. n. 9. vr­bem Romanam ad papam ple­no iure spectare constat. & pag. 258. n. 7. Ro­mana vrbsita Papae dominio cessit, vt Caesa­ri nil iuris in [...]areseruelur. Insomuch that now for a long time the city of Rome hath so wholy belonged to the Pope, as that the Emperour hath no manner of right therein. To conclude therefore, If Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God, & that after the taking away of the Romane Emperor whom he was to succeed in the gouernmēt of Rome, as hath bin proued: it followeth necessarily, seeing these notes agree to the Popes of Rome and to none but them, that therfore the Pope is Anti­christ.

Chap. 4. Of the conditions of Antichrist, and his opposition vnto Christ.

1. NOw if to those former notes of place and time, we shal ad the rest, & find them al pro­perly to fit the Popes of Rome, then may it not be doubted, but that the Pope is Anti­christ. In the next place therfore let vs cōsider his cōditiō & qualities, in respect wherof he is called the man of sin. For first Antichrist in respect of his op­positiō to Christ, he is [...] an aduersary, in respect of his pride & ambitiō, [...] lifted vp aboue al that is called god &c. Frō these 2. notes therefore we may argue thus; He that is such an aduersary as the scriptures desoribe opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour, he is Antichrist: The Pope is such an aduersaie as the scriptures describe opposed vnto Christ in 2. Thess. 2. 4. aemulation of like honour: Therefore the Pope is Antichrist. The truth of the proposition is testified by the Apostle, implyed in the name [...] which signifieth hostem & aemulum Christi, and confessed by the aduersaries. The assumption Bellarmine would disproue by this slender argument; because the Pope [Page 47] forsooth professeth himselfe the seruant of Christ. For euen as he professeth himselfe to be Christs seruāt, so he termeth him­selfe; Of this see more in the 2. book & 1. chap. Gen. 9. 25. the seruant of seruants, (which is Chams title) when as in truth he would be esteemed Lord of Lords. But this is so farre from disprouing the assumption, as that the Pope could not be such an aduersary as is described in the scriptures, and conse­quently not Antichrist, vnlesse he professed himselfe to be the seruant of Christ. Let vs therefore consider what maner of e­nemy Antichrist is according to the scriptures. First, he is an A­postate or reuolter: 2. a disguised enemy or hypocrite; that is, one that is fallen indeed frō god & his truth as it werea star frō heauen, yet retaineth the name & profession of Christ; vnder which name & professiō he oppugneth christ & his truth: Euē as a rebellious subiect, when he presumeth without commissi­on to leuy a power of men against his Soueraigne, that he may deceiue the rest of the subiects, abuseth the name and authori­ty of his prince to colour his rebellious practises. And that this is the property of Antichrist, Hilary hath well obserued: It is Ad Auxentiū the property of Antichrists name, to be contrary to Christ. This is now practised vnder the opinion of counterfeit piety: this, vnder a shewe of preaching the Gospell, is preached, that our Lord Iesus Christ may be denied whiles whiles he is thought to be preached. Tract. 3. in I [...] ­an. Epistol. Augustine saith, we haue found many Antichrists which confesse Christ with their mouth.

2. First I say he is an apostate, yea the head of that Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 3. or falling away frō the truth, mentioned 2. T [...]hess 2. insomuch as some of the learned as Chrysostome, Augustine, Theodoret, The­ophylact, Oecumenius by that Apostasy vnderstand Antichrist Lib. 3. de pont, R. chap. 2. himself. Yea Bellar. himselfe affirmeth that by Apostasy in that place Antichrist himself may be most fitly vnderstood. But the Papists, which falsly hold that the visible church of Christ cannot er, & much lesse fall away, expoūd this Apostasy or de­fection, to be a reuolt or falling away frō the Roman Empire. Neither do we deny but that also there hath bin a defectiō frō the Romane Empire: but yet we deny that it is vnderstood in this place. Ambrose saith, then shall desolution draw neere be­cause In 2. Thess. 2. De ciuit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19. many falling by error shall reuolt from the true religiō. He calleth him a reuolter, saith Augustine, namly frō the Lord God. [Page 48] Cyrill, Now is the Apostasie, for men are reuolted from the true Catech. 11. faith. Chrysostome and Oecumenius, the Apostasie hee calleth Antichrist himselfe, because hee shall cause many to reuolt from In 2. Thess. 2. Christ. Or else he calleth apostasie [...], the departure from God and the thing it selfe. The same hath Theophylact in effect. And likewise Theodoret on this place. The defection (saith he) he calleth Antichrist himselfe gi­uing In 2. Thess. 2. him a name from the thing it selfe. For his endeauour is to withdraw men from the truth, and to cause them to reuolt. Pri­masius by Apostasy vnderstandeth the forsaking of the truth, and Lyra, the departure from the Catholicke faith. But to omit In 2. Thess 2. humane testimonies, the holy ghost who is the best expoun­der of himselfe, sheweth what kind of defection hee speaketh of For afterwards in the same chapter he noteth this Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. to be of those, who because they haue not loued nor beleeued the truth that they might be saued (but haue taken pleasure in vnrigteousnes) are therefore giuen ouer by the iust iudgement of God to beleeue the lies of Antichrist to their damnation. But more plainely the same Apostle speaking of that Aposta­sie which in these later times was to accompany the reuelation of Antichtist: he saith 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The spirit speaketh euidētly 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith, attending to erronious spirits and doctrines of diuells, spea­king lyes in hypocrisie, hauing their owne conscience seared.

3 Now the Papists are as ready to obiect this Apostasy to vs, as wee to them. How then shall we discerne whether we or they haue made this reuolt? The Apostle in the same place set­teth downe two of those doctrines of diuells, as certaine notes whereby those which make this Apostasie may be discerned. Forbidding (saith hee) to marry, and commaunding to abstaine 1. Tim 4. 3. from meats, which God hath created to bee receiued with thanks­giuing. The former where of Hierome also hath noated to bee a In Dan. 11. marke of Antiehrist. Nota est Antichristi prohibere nuptias. But these notes agree not vnto vs, who neither forbid mari­age, nor commaund abstinence from any meats for religion sake. As for the Papists (especiallie since the times of Gregory the seauenth, they forbid mariage to some men at all times, [Page 49] and certaine meats to all men at sometimes and that for religi­on sake: esteeming of mariage in their clergie worse then ad­ultery or Sodomy; and eating of flesh in Lent, or other forbid­den times, as a mortall sinne. And as touching the falling away of the Church; certaine it is, that although neither the inui­sible 1. Iohn. 2. 19. church in generall, nor any one sound member thereof cā fall away from faith either totally or finally: yet not onely the members of visible churches, but also the churches themselues consisting of hypocrites, as of the greater part, may fall away. As the Church of England which was in King Edwards daies, reuolted in Queene Maries time, from Christ to Antichrist. So hath the church of Rome (which once was famous for her Rom. 1. faith) as may appeare not onely by those notes set downe by the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. 3. and some others which hereafter See the 2. boke chapt. 2. shalbe noted: but also in those innumerable particulars both in doctrine and maners wherein they haue reuolted from the purity of the primitiue Church. And of this catholicke Aposta­sie the Pope is head.

4. Secondly, Antichrist is not an open and outward, but a couert & disguised enimy, oppugning Christ & his church not by open violēce, but with all deceiueablenes of vnrighteousnes. 2. Thess. 2. 10. For he is not so foolish as to professe himself to be Antichrist. Neither could that be which the Apostle testifieth (as Radulphus Flauiacēsis saith) that Antichrist should attaine vnto ecclesiasti­call In Leuit. lib. 18 cap. 1. apud Magdeburg. centur. 10. honours, and in the temple of God that is the society of the faithfull, should take the chaire of honour, vnlesse hauing first pretended a kind of cōformity with the faithful he should deceiue those of whom he is to be ordained. Therfore Antichristianisme is called the mystery of iniquitie: whereupon the Glose saith, 2. Thess. 2. 7. The impiety of Antichrist is mysticall, that is, cloaked vnder the In 2. Thess. 2. name of godlinesse. And, as in the Popes miter was wont, so al­so in the whore of Babylons forehead is written a mystery. Apoc. 17. 2. Thess. 2. 4. Augustin. Primas [...]: & gloss [...]in Apoc. 13. And Antichrist himselfe is deciphered as an hypocrite, sitting in the tēple of God, professing himselfe and his followers to be the onely true church of God, vsing the two Testaments, pretending himselfe, as Hierome saith, to bee the Prince of the couenant, And consequently head of the Church: deceiuing vnsounde In Dan. 11. [Page 50] Christians with a glorious profession of religiō (signified by the Apo. 17. golden cup) & with a shew of coūterfait holinesse (otherwise he could neuer so effectually deceiue many christiās, as that the e­lect Mat. [...]4. 24. should be in any daūger to be seduced) speaking lies in hy­pocrisie, oppugning Christ & his truth vnder the outward shew 1. Tim. 4. 2. & profession of Christian religion, hauing two hornes like the Apoc. 13. 11. lambe, coūterfeiting in some things the humility & meekenes of Christ, & yet challēging that double power both spirituall & tēporall which belongeth to Christ the lābe, as our chief priest and king: and not onely that, but speaking also like the dragon. Which is to be vnderstood partly of his blasphemous speaches which he doth vtter, partly of the doctrines of diuels which he 1. Tim. 4 1. doth teach, partly of those hellish curses which he thundreth a­gainst the true professors of the faith, partly of those great pro­mises, which like the prince of the world he maketh to those Mat. 9 4 that will adore him. These things need no application for those to whom the disguising & more then pharisaical hypocrisie of the Pope & Papists is knowne. For must not his holines be cal­led sanctissimus, most holy, whē he is most wicked? doth not he call himself Seruūseruorū, the seruāt of seruants, whē in truth he maketh himself the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords? And as Faber hath obserued, the Pope in word saith that he is the ser­uant of seruāts, but in deed he permitteth himselfe to be adored, Praesat. instit. which the Angel in th' Apocalyps refused. Frō which fact of the Pope, as if it were a rule of iustice, Antoninus concludeth, that Su [...]. part. 3. there is no lesse honour due to the Pope then to the Angels. Wher­upon [...]it. 22. [...]. 4. (saith he) he receiueth from the faithfull adorations, pro­stration or falling downe before him, and the kisses of his feete; which the Angell permitted not to be done vnto him by Iohn the Euangelist. Neither was Bernards complaint either vniust or Apoc. 22. Serm. in con­uers. Pauli. vntrue, Heuheu, Do [...]ine Deus &c. Alas Lord God, that they be first in thy persecution, which seeme to loue the primacie in thy Church, and to beare rule. And else where, A silihy conta­gion (saith he) spreadeth it selfe now adaies through the whole In cant. se [...]m. 33. body of the Church &c. All are louers, and all enemies, all friends, & al aduersaries; all domesticall or of the houshold, and none peaceable: all neighbours, and yet all seeke their owne: they [Page 51] are ministers of Christ, and they serue Antichrist. And such was the complaint of diuerse Bishoppes in their Epistle to Pope Nicolas recorded in Auentine: Thou bearest the person An. Do. 862▪ Annal. Boior. lib. 4. of a Bishop (say they) but thou playest the tyrant: vnder the habite or attire of a pastour, wee feele a Wolfe: the lying title calleth thee Father, thou in thy deedes boastest thy selfe to be another Iupiter. When as thou art the seruaunt of seruants, thou striuest to be the Lorde of Lords &c. Hee counterfei­teth the Lambe, in calling himselfe the vicar of Christ, and exercising the very same office which Christ himselfe had Bellarm. whiles he was vpon the earth. And because, by horne, in the Scriptures often is meant power: he may be saide to haue two hornes like the Lambe, whiles he challengeth that two-fold power which is peculiar to Christ the Lambe as our King and Priest, and vsurpeth both the swordes, I meane both spi­rituall and temporall. He speaketh like the Dragon, in teach­ing those doctrines of Diuels, mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 3. (for­bidding to mary and commaunding abstinence from meates) in belching foorth most horrible blasphemies (whereof wee will remember some in the next chapter:) in his diuellish curses against the Saints, and Satannicall promises of the worlde and kingdomes thereof to them that will adore him. Luc. 4. 6. Ecce in potestate nostra est imperium, vt demus illud cui vo­lumus Auentin. An­nal. Boior. lib. 6. saith Adrian the Pope, Beholde the Empyre is in our power, that wee may giue it to whom wee will. And where­as Hierome writing of those wordes, 1. Tim. 4. They speake in Hypocrisie (saith he) who, being not continent, would seeme to be so chaste, as that they condemne mariage, and so abste­mious as that they iudge those who vse the creature sparingly; whereas thēselues are giuen ouer to belly cheere, what could haue bene spoken more fitly to shewe foorth the hypocrisie of the Pope & Papists. For do not they, whiles they condēne & con­temne mariage, vnder the shew of vowed chastity practise all vncleannesse; and whiles they cōdemne all moderate eating of flesh, do not they vnder a colour of fasting, feast & feed them­selues with the choisest dainties? Doe not many of them vn­der the pretence of voluntary pouerty gather infinite riches? [Page 52] And doth not all their religion stande in Opere operate, in the bare performaunce of the outwarde worke, that is to say, in hypocrisie? Neither are wee to omitte an hypocriticall pol­licie which of late they haue vsed. For when as they coulde not preuaile with their Sophistry, that is to say, with their Bookes of controuersies: they hoped to preuaile among the simple with their hypocrisie, that is to say, with their bookes of deuotion. Wherein there is a notable shewe of counter­fait deuotion, zeale and holinesse, to bleare the eyes of the sim­ple and vnstaied. But it were to be wished, that as they are, so they were esteemed to be no better then baits of Antichrist, seruing to allure men vnder shew of deuotion, vnto idolatry & apostasie from God: especially if we cōsider that the principall of these bookes were set forth by Parsons & other Iesuits, who Quodlibet &c. are plainly discouered euen by some of their owne side, to be mere Machiuilians and wicked Atheists.

5. Thus you see what maner of aduersary Antichrist is. Now wee must shewe in particular wherein he is opposed to Iesus Christ. He is opposed vnto him as he is Christ, and as he is Iesus: as hee is Christ, that is, as he was annointed of God to be our Prophet, our King, and our Priest; in which respect especially he is called Antichrist. He is also opposed vnto him as he is Iesus, that is to say, as he is our Sauiour. So that Anti­christ opposeth himselfe both to the offices of Christ signifi­ed in the name Christ, and also to the benefites signified in the name Iesus. Now these things also most fitly agree to the Pope: who opposeth himselfe to Christ in all these respectes, not indeede aperto Marte as an open and professed enemy, (for so it becōmeth not Antichrist, who was to be an hypocrit sitting in the Church of God &c.) but couertly and cunningly. For we must remember that Antichristianisme is the mystery of iniquity, wherin Christ was in word & shew to be professed, but indeed & truth, denied. First, thē to Christ our Prophet he is opposed, partly as he oppugneth the prophecy of Christ, and partly as himselfe is a false Prophet. He oppugneth the prophe­cy of Christ; First, in denying Christ to be our onely Prophet (whose voice in the canonicall Scriptures concerning matters [Page 53] necessarily to be beleeued vnto saluation, wee ought onely to heare) whiles he and his followers do teach that the scriptures are not perfect, and that besides the Apocryphall writings (which they haue matched with the canonical) their owne tra­ditions also are necessary, and of equall authority with the scriptures. Secondly by withholding from the people the scrip­tures (which containe the whole doctrine of Christ our pro­phet) in a strange language, and also by reading and preaching vnto them their owne fancies and inuentions, out of the le­gends and liues of saints, and festiualls &c. in steede of the sin­cere truth of God. And by these two practises, the Pope, whiles he leaueth to Christ the name and title of beeing our prophet, he taketh the thing to himselfe. Againe he is opposed to Christ our prophet as himselfe is the false prophet spoken of in the Apocalypse, teaching Antichristian errours and doctrines of diuells. For so many errors, as are taught and held by the Pope and church of Rome, are so many oppositions betwixt him and Christ our prophet. Of the errours of the Romish church there be many centuryes or hundreds, and diuerse of them fundamentall. In respect whereof wee may truly say that the catholike Apostasie (for so I call the Romish religion) is the common sewre of many grosse heresyes.

6 But it will be said, that howsoeuer the Pope holdeth di­uerse errours, yet he teacheth not those, which the holy ghost hath noted as the peculiar doctrines of Antichrist. Whereof the authour of the Wardword reckoneth vp three, and Bellar-mine hath a fourth: But neither of them durst mention those two doctrines of diuells which Paul assigneth to that Aposta­sie, 1. Tim. 4. 3. whereof Antichrist is the head, The first doctrine of Anti­christ (say they) is, to deny Iesus to be Christ. Which they Of this see more in the 2. booke and 14. chapter. would proue out of 1. Iohn. 2. 22. & 4. 3. and 2. Iohn. 7. But the Pope (say they) doth not deny Iesus to be Christ. To the pro­syllogisme or proofe of the proposition I answere, that these places of the Apostle Iohn doe not speake properly of the graund Antichrist, who is the head of the Antichristian body, but of certaine petite Antichrists, or heretickes of those times, which denied either of the natures of Christ, (for he speaketh [Page 54] of such as were then already come into the world:) and there­fore from thence it cannot be proued that the great Antichrist shall directly and expresly deny Iesus to be Christ. Notwith­standing, seeing they are called Antichrists not onely because they belong to the Antichristian body as inferiour members thereof, but also as it may be thought, because they did after a sort deny Christ as the great Antichrist also should doe, al­though not after the same manner: I doe therefore thus farre graunt the proposition it selfe, that Antichrist was in some sort to denie Christ. For Iohn speaketh not of the manner how he doth denie Christ. Neither are we to thinke that Antichrist will denie him after euerie manner, but in such sort as shall be most consonant to the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and suteable to the rest of his lying and deceipt. That is to say, in outward 2. Thess. 2. shewe and semblance to professe Christ (as those Antichrists did, of whom Iohn speaketh) but in deed and in truth to denie him. To come therfore to the assumption: let vs consider whe­ther the Pope and church of Rome doe not in some sort denie Christ, Christ may be denyed, either in deeds or words. Quis­quis autem factis negat Christum, is Antichrist us est, And who­soeuer in deedes (saith Augustine) denieth Christ, he is Anti­christ. Let vs therefore marke (saith he) who it is that denieth, & Tract. 3. in Epist. Ioan. let vs not attend to his tongue but to his works. I regard not what he speaketh, but how he liueth. Works do speake, and do we require words? He is the more lying Antichrist, who with his mouth pro­sesseth Iesus to be Christ, and by deeds denyeth him. According to the Lawyers rule, it is more to testifie a matter by deedes then by words. And Tullie saith, that where the things them­selues Contra Salust. beare witnesse, words are needlesse. And as Antichrist was thus to deny Christ, both as he is the man of sin, and an aduer­sary oppugning Christ and his church: So doth the Pope, how­soeuer in word he professeth Christ. For euen the diuells them­selues haue in word confessed Christ, whom notwithstanding by their deeds they deny. If therefore the Pope be a man of sin (which we shall proue anone) and an aduersary opposed vnto Christ, (which now we haue in hand to proue) then it cannot be denyed but that indeed he denieth Christ.

[Page 55] 7 Secondly, Christ may be de denyed in word & doctrine, and that either indirectly and by consequent, or else directlie & expresly. He that denieth Christ by consequent, howsoeuer openly he doth confesse him, doth indeede deny him; as those which deny either of his natures, or any of his offices. For such is the necessary coherence of truth within it selfe, as nothing can by necessarie consequence be deducted from it, which is not also true. And therefore it is impossible that the conse­quent should be false, the antecedent being true. Whereupon it followeth, that whosoeuer denieth the consequent, doth in­deed deny the antecedent. Iesus is Immanuel, and consequent­ly God and Man. He is Christ, and consequently annointed of God to be our King, our priest, & our prophet. He therefore that denieth any of these, denieth Iesus to be Christ. And further, is Christ truly God? then is he also Iehouah, one that is of & from himself, namely as he is God: thē is he also the Lord & creator of al things, gouerning all things with his presence and proui­dence. Is he truly man? then hath he a true body consisting of three dimensions, length, bredth, thicknes, circūscribed, visible, con [...]ined in one place at once, as being but one body not dis­continued. Is he the true Messias & Mediator betwixt God & man? then is he the only mediator, for there is but one. Where­fore 1. Tim. 2. 5. Act. 4. 12. whosoeuer saith, that Christ is not [...] God of himself, he denieth him to be God: or preferreth any creature before him either in heauen or in earth, he denieth him to be the Lord and maker of al; or assigneth a vicar vnto him to supply his absence on earth, denieth his omnipresēce. Again, whosoeuer saith that Christ his body doth not consist of 3. dimensiōs, that it is not circūscribed, that it is not visible, that it is not cōtained in one place as al other bodies, yea as al other finite natures are; he de­nieth Iesus to be truly man, & consequently denieth him to be Christ. Lastly whosoeuer adioyne other mediators vnto Christ and in some respects preser others aboue him, deny him to be the only mediator; & therfore deny him to be the true media­tor, for there is but one, & consequētly deny Iesus to be christ. And thus as the Antichrists wherof Iohn speaketh (according 1. Iohn. 2. 22. Lib. 3. de pont. Rc. ap. 14. to Bellarmin his own expositiō) did, & as the graund Antichrist (according to our cōfessiō) doth deny Christ, not only in deed, [Page 56] but also in word and doctrine, although not openly and ex­pressely yet indirectly, and by consequent: So doth the Pope and church of Rome, deny Iesus to be Christ. For, what a God and Lord, what a creatour and gouernor of all things the Pope and Papists make our Sauiour Christ, you may easily conceiue; First, when they de [...]y him to bee [...] God of himselfe, and consequently Iehouah. For whosoeuer is Iehouah, he is of, and from himselfe. True indeed it is, that Christ is filius a patre, sed Deus a se, quate nus est Deus: that is, sonne of and from his fa­ther, but God of and from himselfe, namely as he is God. And if he were not of and from himselfe, he were not God. And al­though in the concrete we may and must say with the councel of Nice, that Christ is God of God, that is, Christ who is God, is from the father who is God (the word God beeing taken [...] personallio) because the person of the sonne who is Deus genitus God begotten is from the person of the father who is Deus gignens God begetting: yet it is not likewise true in the abstract. For howsoeuer the Godhead is communicated from the father to the sonne by eternall generation, and from the father and the sonne to the holy ghost by eternall processi­on, yet the deity of the sonne and so of the holy ghost, beeing the selfe same infinite eternall and indiuisible essence of the fa­ther, is from, and of, and by, and for it selfe. And who knoweth not that such is the simplicity of the diuine nature as that God is the godhead, and the godhead is God, and consequentlie that Christ as he is God is the Godhead, which is of and from it selfe. And therefore to conclude, Christ is God of God, in respect of his person, and he is also God of himselfe in respect of his essence which is of it selfe: he is God of God, the name God being vsed personally and relatiuely (for hee is God the sonne, of God the father: and God begotten, of God beget­ting) and he is God of himselfe, the name God beeing taken [...] essentially & absolutely, namely as he together with the father and the holy ghost is one and the same eternall Iehouah and onely true God. In which respect if the Papists deny Christ to be God of himselfe, as they do when they accuse this our doctrine of heresie, and deny him so to bee [...] (God of [Page 57] himself) as we affirm, they do also deny him to be God. Secōd­ly, when as not onely in heauen they set aboue him his mother whom they cal the Queene of heauen, desiring her to cōmaund him, & to shew her selfe to be a mother (as though Christ were as they paint him a baby vnder his mothers gouernmēt) for so they say, Iube natū, & iure matris impera, & againe monstra te esse matrē &c. but also on earth, when euery shaueling priest cā by breathing out a few words out of his vnclean mouth, create his maker (for so they teach, Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui, that is, the priest is maker of his maker. And againe, Qui creauit Stella clericor. serm. discip. serm. 111. apud Iuellum. vos, dedit vobis creare se, Hee which made you, gaue you power to make him,) & when he hath so done, offer him vp to his father. Wherein euery priest amōg thē, being the sacrificer, is after a sort preferred aboue Christ, who is the sacrifice. Thirdly, when as they appoint vnto Christ a vicar to supply his absence, vnto whom they assigne all power which is in heauē and earth, yea Vid. Cap. 5. infinit power, which they say is translated frō Christ vnto him, what do they else but make Christ a titular king, and with the Epicures an idle God, who hath as it were resigned al his right & authority to the Pope. What a man they make our Sauiour Christ who knoweth not, when they hold, & with fire & fagot persecute those that will not hold the same, that his body is multipresent, that is, present in many or rather infinit places at once, and that discōtinued: for they say that it being in hea­uen is also present really and corporally vpon the earth, where­soeuer their Masse is celebrated or their hoste reserued, how­soeuer it is not in the space betwixt heauen and earth, nor in those places where the host is not▪ which is to assigne many or rather innumerable bodies to our Sauiour Christ. And further that his very body, which they say is really presēt in the Masse, is void of quantitie & qualitie, [...] not circūscri­bed, not visible, nor any way sensible, & cōsequently, no body. The which in effect is as much as to denie that Christ is come in the flesh, which is the doctrine of that Antichrist whereof John speaketh. And here by the way note the absurditie of Pa­pists, 1. Iohn. 4. 3. 2. Iohn. 7. who circumscribe the deity of the father whiles they re­semble the same by pictures or images, and denie the huma­nitie [Page 58] of the sonne to be circumscribed: & consequently against all reason make the deitie finit, and the humanitie infinit. The office of Christ is his mediation. Now what a mediatour they make him you may easily iudge, whē they ioyne infinit others with him. For the Apostle saith, that there is but one media­tour 1. Tim. 2. 5. betwixt God and man, and this one alone our Sauiour Christ is, or else he is none at all.

8. Again, Christ may be denied directly & expresly: & that may be done either secretly & in priuate, or else opēly & in publick profession. After the latter sort Antichrist was not to denie our Sauiour Christ: because he was to be an hypocrite & a disgui­sed enemy as hath bene proued. Neither was it necessary that he should deny Christ expresly & directly, & yet this also may bee proued of diuerse Popes. Who howsoeuer they professed publickly that Iesus is Christ (which is all that our aduersaries alledge in this case, and yet that all is nothing, for the Diuels thēselues haue publickly professed Iesus to be Christ) yet pri­uately and among their fauourets they haue denied Christ, & not that onely, but haue shewed thēselues also to haue bene meere Atheists, & diuels incarnat. For to omit Iohn the 22. who denied the immortality of the soule, & of some is called the 23. of others 24. were not Alexander the 6. & Sixtus the fourth, Iulius 2. and Paulus 3. besides diuers others, very Atheists? were not more then twenty of them knowne Necromancers and sorcerers? not to speake of them which were not knowne, which renoūcing Christ our Sauiour, betooke thēselues to the Diuel. As namely Siluester 2. Benedict 9. Gregory 5. & Gregory the 7. who also in a rage cast the Eucharist, that is according to their opinion the very body of Christ into the fire, because it did not answere to his questions when as he consulted there­with. And what may we thinke of Clement the seuēth? who, when he was at deaths doore, said he should now be certified of three things wherof he had doubted al his life, viz. whether there be a God, whether the soule be immortall, and whether there be a life after this life. Or of Iulius the 3. who being for­bidden by the Physitians the vse of Porke, commaunded his porke to be set before him, Al dispette di Dio, In despite of [Page 59] God? As for Pope Leo the 10. hee did plainely enough denie Christ when as more then once he called the Gospell, the fa­ble of Christ, For whē he had receiued an incredible summe of money for indulgences, he said to Bembus, O quantum nobis Ex. Sibrand. [...]ull. de pap. Rom. l. 10. c. 18 profuit illa de Christo fabula! O how much that fable of Christ hath profited vs! And another time when Bembus alledged for his comfort a testimonie out of the Gospell, he answered: Quid mihi narras fabulamillā de Christo? What doest thou tell me of that fable of Christ? If therefore this bee a property of Antichrist to denie Christ, then it cannot be auoided but that according to our aduersaries owne groundes, the Pope who so many waies denieth Christ, is Antichrist. And so much of his opposition to the Prophecie of Christ. For of the o­ther three doctrines which the Papistes assigne to Antichrist, See booke [...]. chap. 14. we are to intreat when wee come to answere the obiections of the Papists.

9. To the Priesthood of Christ our only priest and media­tour, who according to the Scriptures with the oblatiō of him­selfe once made hath perfectly redeemed vs, are opposed. 1. Heb. 10. 12. 14 Their priesthood, whereby Christ is daily offred and his sacri­fice repeated in their abominable sacrifice of the Masse propi­tiatory as they say both for the quicke and the dead: 2. Their owne satisfactions as prices of sinne opposed to the satisfactiō of Christ: 3. Their adioyning vnto Christ other intercessours and mediatours, by whose not onely intercession they hope to be heard, but also merites, hope to be saued. Of Gregory they say thus in their praiers,

That is, Let him saue vs from our sinnes, that in heauen wee may rest with the blessed. Of Thomas Becket th'archbishop of Canterbury, because he died in the Popes quarrell, which like a rebell he maintained against his soueraigne king Henry the second, they say full deuoutly,

Of Peter and Paule, Concede vt ambo [...]ū meritis aeternita­tis gloriam consequamur. Graunt that by the meries of them Ex. Rom. Bre­uiar. both we may obtaine eternall glory. To Mary the blessed vir­gin whom they idolatrously cal our Ladie and the Queene of heauen, they pray thus, O vnica spes miserorum, libera nos Ex compassio­nib. Mariae. ab omni malo, O thou that art the onely hope of them that are in miserie, deliuer vs from all euill. And elsewhere they call her, Desperatorum spem vnicam, peccatorum salvatricem, Innoc. in orat. de 300. dier. indulgent. In orat. de 5. vnb [...]rib. The onely hope of them which are in despaire, and the Sauiour of sinners. Againe, Mediatrix Dei & hominum, salus & spes in the sperantium, O thou the mediatrix betwixt God and men, the saluation and hope of them that hope in thee. And some­where it is said:

O Queene of heauen, mother most deare to thy sonne, do not thou despise me, vnto thee alone I cōmend me. And againe:

Seeing there is no other hope, besides thee O virgin mother, the mother and daughter of-thy father, to whom I pray thee re­concile me. And to conclude (for innumerable such speeches might be produced,) they say;

O happy mother which doest purge away our sins, by thy mother­ly authority commaunde our redeemer. So that sometimes they doe ioyne vnto our Sauiour Christ other mediatours not onely of intercession, but also of redemption, (which indeede is pre­supposed in the former) sometimes also they exclude our Saui­our Innocent, in o­rat. in laudem virginis. Christ, when as they say that Mary purgeth away the sins [Page 61] of all the faithfull, and that she and no other is the onely hope of them that are in misery and despaire. And not to speake of their blasphemous psalter, wherein they turne that which is spoken in the Psalmes either of God or Christ, to the virgin Mary: some of them say, that whereas the kingdome of Christ consisteth in two things, iustice and mercie; Christ reserueth iustice vnto himself, & mercie he hath giuen vp to his mother. And therefore one saith, A foro iustitiae Dei appellundum est ad Bernardinus in Mar [...]al. forum misericordiae matris eius. From the court of Gods iustice, we must appeale to the court of his mothers mercy.

10 As touching the kingdome of Christ, what doth not the Pope oppugne in it? The realme and kingdome of Christ is his church which he ruleth by his spirit inwardly, and out­wardly by his word, which is both his scepter and his lawe, and also by such officers and ministers as hee hath ordained both in the church and common wealth. The church and peo­ple of God this sonne of perdition seeketh to destroy. First by killing the bodies of the true seruants of Christ that refuse his marke, in respect whereof hee may most worthilie bee called [...] or abaddon that is, a destroyer, & his church the whore Apoc. 9. of Babylon, which is drunke with the bloud of Saints and of the Martyrs of Iesus, as shall be shewen in the second booke and seauenth chapter. And as hee killeth the bodies of those that will not receiue his marke, so hee murdereth the soules of them that submit thēselues vnto him, poysoning them with his damnable errours and making them drunke with the wine of his fornications, after which they shall drinke of the cuppe of Apoc. 14. 9. Gods wrath. Now in making hauocke of mens soules he ta­keth such liberty vnto him, as that if he should draw with him innumerable soules into hell, yet no man may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis? Syr, why do you so? And in the Canon, Si papa dist. 40. it is sayd, If the Pope do cary with him innumera­ble Gloss [...]iur. ca [...]. peoples by troupes into hell, no man in this world may presume to reproue his fault, because he is to iudge all, and to be iudged of none, vnlesse he be found to erre from the faith, which the Pope as he is Pope cannot doe. Hereunto Bellarmine aunswereth that the words of this Canon bee not the words of any Pope, Cupers. pag. 18. num. 12. [Page 62] but of Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz. Yea, but say I, the Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 21. Pope hath so approued this speeche being deliuered by ano­ther, as that hee hath canonized it, and appointed it for one of the canons of his law. Which is more then if it had bin spoken by himselfe. But Bellarmine replyeth; If this sentence of Boni­face be not true, why do you obiect it: if it be true, why do you not receiue it? I aunswere, because it being not onely false, but blasphemous also and Antichristian, is notwithstanding by the Pope authorized for a Canon in his lawe. Moreouer, one of the chiefe works of Gods spirit the spirit of adoption, which is speciall faith, apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ to our iustification, hee laboureth to extinguish in the hearts of men, calling it presumption: acknowledging no other faith Iam. 2. but such as is common to the diuells (which consisteth onely of knowledge and assent), and yet not requiring that in the lay people whome vnder the name of implicite faith, hee nuzleth in palpable ignorance, and leadeth them beeing blind, as Elizeus did the Aramites, euen whether it pleaseth 2. King 6. him. The pure wheat of Gods word hee suppresseth and kee­peth from the people in an vnknowne tongue, and see deth them with the mast of their Legends and festiualls and lyes (I should haue sayd liues) of Saints. The lawes of Christ he part­ly dispenseth with, and partly abrogateth, making them of none effect by his owne constitutions and traditions. In the church, in steede of the offices and functions ordayned by Christ, hee hath created a new priesthoode, erected an hie­rarchy, consecrated orders and religions of his owne. In the common wealth hee absolueth the people from their obedi­ence to their princes if they shal displease him. And it is a prin­ciple among them, that it is lawfull for him to depose Empe­rours and Kings, and to absolue their sworne subiects from fi­delity and allegiance towards them. And thus you see how the Pope opposeth himselfe to the prophecy, priesthood and king­dome of Christ. Whereunto I might adde how he is opposed to these offices of Christ, not onely in these respects allreadie mentioned, but as an aemulus, as an antiprophet, an antipriest, and a counter king seeking in his Antichristian pride to match [Page 63] our Sauiour Christ in all those offices: but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the next chapter. Now to the benefites of Christ he is opposite, as he is an enemy to the grace of god: as hee taketh away Christian liberty, and taketh vpon him to make new lawes, to binde the conscience: as he abridgeth the merites of Christ, and ascribeth the merite of saluation not onelie to our owne works prescribed of God, but also to such as haue beene in superstition, will worship, and idolatrie, de­uised by themselues: as he teacheth men to seek saluation else­where then in Christ. All which oppositions of the Pope to Christ, whosoeuer shall duely consider, hee will not seeke fur­ther for Antichrist.

Chap. 5. Of the pride and ambition of Antichrist, aduan­cing himselfe aboue all that is called God, &c.

1. BVt Antichrist is not onely hostis an enemy to Christ, but also (as our aduersaries con­fesse), aemulus Christi, that is, such an aduersarie as is opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour, as the word Antichrist doth also signifie. It remai­neth therefore that wee should speake of the pride and ambition of Antichrist [...], whereby hee seeking to match Christ our Sauiour, aduaunceth himselfe as the Apostle speaketh Aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, insomuch that hee sitteth in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God, as God, shewing himselfe that hee is God, or as the Papists themselues reade, as though hee were God. Where (for auoiding of errour) we are to vnderstand the pride of An­tichrist Vulgat edit. [...]em. to be described such as is incident to a wretched man, [Page 64] a man of sin, a sonne of perdition. And the greatest pride that is incident not onely to any man, but to any creature, be it the diuell himselfe (whose Satanicall pride Antichrist was to imi­tate and not to exceed) is this, to seeke to be as God. When as Es. 14. therefore it is said that Antichrist aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, it is not meant that hee shall seeke to aduaunce himselfe, aboue God or the deitie it selfe: For God being infinite in goodnesse, excel­lencie and power, there cannot bee conceiued a better, a supe­riour, a greater. And therefore wee cannot imagine how Anti­christ should aduance himselfe aboue God. And it is euident that the height of Antichrists pride heere spoken of, is noted in these words, Insomuch as he shall sitte in the temple of God, as God, By all therfore that is called God, we are to vnderstand all those to whom the name of God is cōmunicated: not essence, for that cannot be communicated to any that is not god. Now the name of God is communicated to Angells in heauen, Psal. 8. 5. cum Heb. 2. 7. & Psal. 97. 7. cum Heb. 1. 6. and to princes and magistrates on earth, Exod. 22. 28. Psal. 82. 1. 6. And wher­as it is said that hee shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is worshipped, wee are to vnderstand by the word [...] not God himselfe, but any thing that is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped. So Wisd. 15. 17. images, and Act. 17. 23, altars among the heathen are called [...]. Such in the church of Rome, are Saints, images, the crosse and reliques of Saints, the eucharist, &c. The meaning then of the Apostle is this, that Antichrist being a wicked and wretched man, shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God, as Angells and Kings, or that which is worshipped, as Saints and images and altars, the crosse and eucharist it selfe, insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, hee shall rule & raigne in the church of God, challenging a soueraigne, vniuersall and diuine authority ouer al those that professe the name of Christ, as if he were a God vpon earth, shewing himselfe whether by words or by deeds that he is god, or which is all one, behauing himselfe tanquam sit Deus, As though he were God. The like things were foretold of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is thought [Page 65] to haue bene a type of Antichrist. Dan. 11. 36. But (to come to the application of this prophecie) if Antiochus were compa­rable to the Pope in aduauncing himself aboue all that is called God: or if I shal not proue out of their owne (I meane popish) writings, that he hath lifted vp himselfe in such maner as is scarcely credible to be incident vnto a mortall mā; then let not the Pope be deemed Antichrist, but rather looke for some o­ther, who shall goe beyond him in Antichristian insolency and Satanicall pride.

2. From this place therfore of th'apostle, I argue thus: Who­soeuer aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God, as God, taking vpon him as though he were a God, he according to the testimony of th'apostle, is antichrist, that is, Aemulus Christi, such an enimy as in a kinde of emulation seeketh to match Christ and to be equall to him. But the Pope of Rome (as shalbe proued) aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, insomuch that hee sitteth in the temple of God as God, taking vpon him as though he were a God vpon earth, there­fore according to this testimony of th'apostle the Pope is Anti­christ. And first that the Pope aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, it is plaine, because he lifteth vp himself not onely ouer Kings and Emperours on earth, but also aboue the Angels in heauen. Of his lifting vp himselfe aboue Kings & Emperours is the testimony before alledged 2. Thess. 2. 4. Papa superio­ritatem habet in imperium. Clemeatin. Pastoralis de re Iudic. especially to bee vnderstood. For he speaketh of such an ad­uancement whereby Antichrist should be reuealed, as was to be hindered for a time by the Romane Empire. Let vs then consider how he aduaunceth himselfe aboue Kings and Em­perours who are called Gods. The Pope if you will beleeue him & his followers, is the Paulus 4. ad ducem Floret. in bulla. Rod. Cupers. meritò rex regū & do­minus dominan­tium censetur Papa, re (que) ipsa existit. pag. 43. num. 39. c. solitas, extr. de maior. & obed. &c. per venerabilē opt. qui filij sunt legitimi. An­tonius de Rosellis. King of Kings and Lord of Lordes, by Lib. Carem. whom Princes raigne, and from Clem. 5. in cōcil. vienn. whom the right of Kings dependeth. For you must know that as they full solemnely di­spute, the R. Cupers. pag. 251. nū. 62. Empire or temporall rule, as well as the priesthood or ecclesiasticall dominiō is translated vnto the successours of Peter: [Page 66] that the Idem pag. 52. num. 28. & p. 1. 251. n. 63. & 64. right of rule & direct dominiō of the Empire and king­doms belongeth to the Pope, howbeit he cōmitteth the exercise therof to Emperours & Kings: that Idem pag. 28 num. 7. Emperours, Kings, & all Princes receiue their right of gouerning their kingdoms from the Pope, & that by him they are confirmed, & by him depo­sed: that to him Emperors & Kings as being but his vassals are bound to sweare c. tibi domino. dist. 63. &c. 1. de iuretur. allegiaunce and sidelity: that hee so farre surpasseth the c. solitae de maior. & obed. Emperour as the Sunne excelleth the Moone, that is, according to their Astronomy, G [...]oss. ibid. Sta [...]st. Oricho­vius quantum Deus praestat sacerdoti, tantū sacerdos prae­stat regi. qui re­gé anteponit sa­cerdoti, is ante­ponit creaturā creatori. Apud Iuellum. seuen and fiftie times, or rather as the creatour is superiour to the creature. Therefore Kings and Emperours Li. [...]erem. 1. sect. 5. cap. 3. & lib. 3. sect. 1. cap. 3. when they come into the presence of his holinesse, must, after obeysance done in three seuerall distances, fall downe before him and kisse his foote, euen as Mantuan saith of him,

And if they be in presēce when he taketh Lib. 1. c [...]e­rē. sect. 2. c. 3. horse, the Emperor or chiefest Prince that is present must hold his right stirrop, & when he is moūted must hold the bridle, & play the lackey for a certaine space, & likewise whē he lighteth off, must hold the right stirrop; which if he happen to mistake as being not vsed to seruice, he must looke for a check, as we read Helmoldus Chron. Slauor: l. 1. c. 81. & Bal: de vit. pont. of Hadrian the 4. who bitterly checked Frederick the Emperor for holding the stirrop on the wrong side. Or if it be his pleasure to be cari­ed alost on mens shoulders, lib. caerem. 1. sect. 2. & 5. de processione pon­tifi [...]s & Caesa­ris per vrbem. Lib. 1. c. 8. cae­rem. the Emperour, kings, & princes that are present, must put vnder their shoulder & helpe to cary his holinesse for a space, and whiles he is on foote the Empe­rour or chiefest Prince must beare vp his traine. If the Empe­rour be at the Popes L [...]b. caerem. 1. sect. 3. Antonin. sinn. part. 3. [...]it, 22. cap. 5. §. 13. E. venerabilem de elect. feast, his duetie is before dinner to hold the Pope water to washe his hands, and to bring in the first messe. For in deed Imperator est minister Papae, The Emperour is the Popes minister.

3. These are but matters of ceremony. But as he vaunteth that all the right of kings dependeth on him, so he challengeth authority and power to translate kingdoms, to create & depose Kings, to translate the Empire from nation to nation, and to giue the same to whom it pleaseth him. The Emperour (saith [Page 67] Hadrian, apud Auent [...]n. lib. 6. he) is Emperour by vs. Whence hath hee the Empire but from vs? Behold the Empire is in our power to giue it to whom wee well. And accordingly he hath Bellarm. de pont. Rom. lib. 3. cap. 16. deposed diuerse Kings and Em­perours, and created others, as I shall not need to prooue, for both they and their followers boast thereof. And if you de­sire some other examples of their insolent and Antichristi­an behauiour towardes Emperours and Kinges, did not Gre­gory the seuenth make Henry the Emperour, who came in all humilitie to submitte himselfe vnto him with his wife and childe, daunce attendaunce at his gate bare-foote and bare­head by the space of three daies, before he would graunt them any accesse vnto him? When as the Emperour Fredericke Naucler. gene­rat. 40. Barbarossa was excommunicated by the Pope, and his sonne taken prysoner in Venice, hee came to the Pope Alexan­der the third, into the Churche of Saint Marke there, to the ende that hee might bee absolued, and his sonne restored. Where, before all the people, the Pope hauing commaunded the Emperour to prostrate himselfe vpon the grounde and so to aske pardon, he setteth his foote in the necke of the Em­perour, saying, it is written, Super aspidem & basiliscum am­bulabis, & conculcabis Leonem & Draconem, Thou shalt walke vpon the Aspe and Cockatrice, and shalt tread vpon the Lion and the Dragon. Which indignity when the Emperour being not well able to brooke, made answere, Not to thee but to Pe­ter, the holy father treading on the Emperours necke replied, Et mihi & Petro, Both to mee and to Peter. And when as Henry the sixt came to bee crowned Emperour, and to that ende kneeled before Celestin the third sitting in his pon­tisicall chaire, did not hee after hee had sette the imperiall Diademe on his head, and as some say with his feete, kicke it of with his foote againe? What should I tell you of In­nocent the second, how hee caused his owne with the Em­perours picture to bee set vp in the Palace of Laterane, him­selfe sitting in his pontificall throne, and the Emperour knee­ling before him and holding vp his hands as vnto God, with these verses subscribed,

That is, The King of the Romanes commeth before the gates, swearing first to the honours & priuileges of the citie, afterward he becommeth the Popes man, of whose gift he receiueth the im­periallcrowne.

4. And thus hath the Pope lifted vp himself aboue al that is called God vpō earth, that is to say, Kings & Emperours: let vs now cōsider whether he exalteth himself aboue those which are called Gods in heauen, that is to say, the Angels. First, in ge­nerall it is auouched by himselfe & his approued writers, that the power of the Pope is greater then all other created power. Antonin. s [...]m. pact. 3. lit. 22. c. 5. Potestas Papaemaior est omni alia potestate creata: Concil. Late­ranēs. sub Leo. 10. sess. 10. That vnto him is giuen all power aboue all powers as wel of heauen as of the earth. Qui totum dicit nihil excludit, Hee that saith all ex­cludeth nothing: Innocent. Pa­pa. extr. de con­stit. R. Cupers. pag. 28. num. 5. that to the vicar of the creatour, that is the Pope, euery creature is subiect: and more particularly, that he hath Felinus apud Iuellū. vi [...]riatum Christi, Christes vicarship, not onley about things in heauē, in earth, in hel, but also aboue the Angels both good & bad: Nicolaus Eg­mūdanus apud Bal. de vit. pōl. Pontificem Romanū habere imperium in angelos ac daemonas, That the Pope hath rule ouer the Angels and Di­uels. That he hath power to command the Angels, for so they say, Gregor. Ha­imburg. in ap­pellat. Sigism. apud Iuell. Papa Angelis habet imperare, & Camotensis. Papa angelis praecipit. And according to these testimonies which auouch his right, is the Popes practise. For not onely he callengeth greater ho­nour & reuerence to be done to himselfe then is due to the an­gels (for he admitteth of adorations & fallings downe before him, which the angels refuse because they are our fellow ser­uants:) but also he taketh vpon him to cōmaund the holy An­gels at his pleasure to remoue soules departed out of purgatory into heauen. Clement the 6. in his bull concerning those which should come to Rome to celebrate the Iubile, he cōmaundeth the Angels of heauen, that if any of thē should die in that lour­ney, to bring their soules being wholy freed from Purgatory into the glory of Paradise. His words be these: Prorsus manda­mus angelis paradisi, quatenus animam à purgatorio penitus ab­solutam, in paradisi gloriam introducant.

[Page 69] 5. It remaineth that I should shew how the Pope aduan­ceth himselfe aboue the [...], that is the thinges wherein God is worshipped, or which are worshipped as God in the church of Rome, as namely the Saints, the crosse, the altar, and their God of bread. As for the saints they are subiect to the Antonin. part. 3. lit. 22. cap. 5. §. 5. Pope quoad canonizationem, standing at the curtesie and free disposition of the Pope whether to bee deified that is as they speake to bee canonized, or to be deposed. For such is his au­thority Troilus Mal­uil. in tract. de canonis. sanct. 3. dub. (if you will beleeue him) in canonizing of Saints, that hee can canonize whom he will, yea of a damned person cast into hell he can make a saint in heauen, and contrariwise hee Antoninus part 3. lit. 22 c, 5. §. 6. can vnsaint those which before wore canonized. The crosse which they say is to bee worshipped with diuine worshippe, is notwithstanding made an ensigne of the Popes authoritie, Traianum Gregorius per orationem sud a poena inf [...]rni quae infinita est absoluit. and is borne before him as the mace before the magistrate, or the sword before the prince, & when their procession is at an end it is laid vnder his feet. And that he may be knowne euen literally so to sitte in the material temple as if he were a God, it is to be noated that his seat in the church is aboue the altar. But their chiefe [...] is their God of bread, which because they imagine it to be Christ himselfe it is worshipped among them as their maker and redeemer, notwithstanding in the Popes processions and iourneyes it is made an attendaunt on his holinesse. For I shall not neede to tell you now which you heard before, how Pope Hildebrand, when it did not answere his demands as being not vsed to speake, did cast it into the fire. It is worthy to bee remembred which is reported by Io­annes Monlucius the Bishop of Valence, who was the french Lib de religio­ne ad Reginam matr [...]. Fulmen brut. pag. 12. & 13. kings Embassadour at Rome, & testified by others, that when the Pope is to trauell abroad, three or foure dayes before, hee sendeth the Eucharist (that is Christ their maker) on horseback accompanied with muletors and horsekeepers, and courtisants and cookes with sumpterhorses and all the baggage of his court. Afterwards the Pope who professeth himselfe his vicar followeth, attended with Cardinalls, Primates, Bishops, and Potentates. And when he commeth neere to the place whe­ther he trauelleth, their Christ is brought to meete him on the [Page 70] way that it may be caried before him into the towne. But with what difference of honour is hee and his attendant caried in such solemne processions? The Pope either rideth on a goodly white horse vnder a stately canopie, or else is caried aloft vp­on noble mens shoulders in a chaire of golde, when the Christ of the Papists, the Popes attendaunt is caried vpon a simple hackney in comparison, with no such magnificence▪ & yet that hackney is the Popes vicar appointed in his steed to Stapleton in epist. ded cat. ante p [...]incip. do [...]in. ca [...]ie the Monstrame. In a word, he is supremū numen in terris the chiefe or supreme [...] that is to be worshipped on earth.

6 But let vs come to the height of Antichrists pride, For it is not sufficient for the Pope to be lifted vp aboue all that is cal­led God, or that is worshipped, vnlesse he take vpon him as if he were God, and seeke to match himselfe with Christ, as the name Antichrist importeth: that vnto him the height of An­tichrists In c. ecclesia, vt lite pe [...]den­te, & in Concil. Lateran. sub Iu [...]o. Bald. in l. barbar. de off. praet. pride may also be applied, which is described in these words, insomuch that hee sit teth in the temple of God as God, behauing himselfe as if he were god, or (which is all one) shewing himselfe that he is god. For of his followers and flatterers hee is said to be all and aboue all, the cause of causes, and the first Gomesius de regul. cancell. cause. Bald. in c. ecclesia vt lite pendente, that hee is numen quoddam, visibilem quendam Deum praese serens, a certaine di­uine maiesty shewing himself to be a certaine visible God. A­greeable to the prophecy 2. Thess. 2. 4. [...], that is as Beza translateth praese ferens, hebr. moreh i. facrens se apparere of some he is called Decius c. 1. de constitutio­nib. Ca [...]dill. pro concil trident. Bald. Cod. sentent. rescindendi. 1. vit. & de elec­tione. Felin. c. ego. N de iure­ius. terrenus Deus or Deus in terris, a God vpon earth. In the councel of Laterane it was said to him, & he heard it willingly, Christoph. Marcellan con [...]l. Lateran. sess 4. In arca tri­umph. Impress. Lug­ [...]uni [...]. 1555 Tu es alter Deus in terris, thou art another God vpon earth: in honour of that hellhound Sixtus the 4. it was written, and presented to his view, that he is worthilie be­leeued to be a God vpon earth,

By the oracle of thy voice thou gouernest the world, and wor­thily art thou beleeued to be a god vpon earth.

The Canonists call him, Our Lord God the Pope. For so it is written not onely in diuerse old editions, but also in that [Page 71] newe edition which by the authority of Pope Gregory 13. was corrected and published, Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, nö sic potuisse statu­cre prout statuit, haereticum censeatur: to beleeue that our Lord God the Pope the authour of this, and the aforesaid decretal, could not decree as he hath decreed, it ought to be indged hereti­call. And as they willinglie heare themselues called God (and not onelie themselues heare or reade it, but by their authoritie appoint the same to be published vnto the world) so they are content to bee worshipped and adored as God. Neither was the complaint of Frederic the second vntrue; Pontifices Romanos affectare dominationem & diuinitatem, at­que In Epist ad Othon. Bauar. duc. apud A­ [...]entin. lib. 7, vt ab hominibus haud aliter, imó, magis quàm Deus time­antur, That the Popes of Rome affect Lordshippe, and diuinity. and that they may bee feared of men no otherwise, yea more then God. Franciscus Zabarella a Cardinall of Rome saith, The Popes haue beene made to beleeue (such is their pride) that Apud Iuellum. they can doe all things what they list, euen vnlawfull things, and that they are plusquam Deus, more then God. These are more then sufficiēt to prooue that the Pope taketh vpō him as if he were a God, although he should not in word affirme any such thing of himself. But so shamelesse is this Antichrist, Gregor. 9. de translat. episc. c. quanto. & canter corpora­lia that he affirmeth the like things of himselfe. As namely that those things which he doth, be done by a diuine power: and the reason is giuen by his Lawyers, because the Pope canonicallie elected, is a God vpon earth. Whereupon Innocentiue. 3. vseth vt eccles. bene­sic. c. v [...] nos [...]ū. Capistran. fol. 23. these words, vt nostrum prodeat de Dei vultu iudicium that our iudgement may proceed from the face of god: That Peter & con sequently his successor the Pope (for to that purpose it is allea­ged) is assumd into the felowship of the vndiuided vnity. And in Bonifac. in 8. de elect. one place he not only affirmeth, but by testimony also confir­meth C. Fundamen­ta in sexto. that he is God. Satis euidenter (saith he) ostēditur, a seeula­ri potest [...]te n [...] ligart prorsus, nee sol [...]i posse pontificē, quē constat Distinct. 96. c. satis cuiden­ter. a pio principe Constantino Deū appellatū: nec posse Deū ab homi­nibus iudicari manifestū est. Wher the Pope proueth he cānot be iudged by any secular power, by this reasō. God cānot be iudged of mē. The Pope is god, therfore the pope may not be iudged of mē. [Page 72] assumption he approueth by the forged testimonie of Constan­tine. And therefore not vnworthily by a worthy Bishoppe in Auentinus, the Pope is said to be Antichrist, in whose forehead this name of blasphemy is written: Deus sum, errare non pos­sum. Lib. 7. Eber­hardu [...] Ep. sil [...]sourgensis. I am God, I cannot erre.

7 But as I said, the name Antichrist signifieth such a one as seeketh to match Christ. Let vs therefore farther consider how this agreeth to the Pope. For if the Pope doe seeke to match himselfe with Christ, then by this argument alone if there were no more, hee may be certainely conuinced to bee Antichrist. In Christ wee consider his natures and his offices, As touching his nature the Pope if you will beleeue their blas­phemies, Extrau. in Ioan. 22. aequè ac Christus Deus est, ens secundae intentionis compositum ex Deo & homine. As well as Christ he is god, a be­ing Vid Erasm. annotat. in 1. Tim. 1. Papa stupor mundi. Clemen. in pro aem. in gloss. of the second intention compounded of god and man. And as Christ in respect of the one nature is greater then man, and in regard of the other lesse then God, so they say of the Pope, Ioan. a Ca­pistr de Pa­pae & ecclesiae authoritate. Est quasi deus in terris, maior homine, & minor Deo, plenitudi­nem obtinens potestatis. He is as it were a god vpon earth, greater then a man, and lesse then god, hauing the fulnesse of power. That he is a man I shall not neede to proue, howbeit some of his fol­lowers cannot well tell what to make of him. They say hee is the wonderment of the world, Nec deus es, nec homo: quasi neuter es inter v [...]rumque. neither God nor man, but a neuter betwixt both. That hee would bee supposed and ac­knowledged as a God, besides all the allegations in the for­mer section, it appeareth also by the diuine properties which are attributed to the Pope. His holinesse (that is to say) the Pope, (for his holinesse is himselfe,) is Ps. 94. 1. Rod. Cupers de ecclesia pag. 61. num. 52. Deus vindictae the god of reuenge, true without errour, yea without possibilitie of er­ring, for hee cannot erre, whose Sub finem tit de censib. exact. & pro­cur in Clement. ad verbum vo­lumus & Abb. Panorm. de constitut. de translat it. episc. c quanto in gloss. will must stande for reason as if it were the rule of iustice. For euen as some of his Ger [...]chus a­pud Auentin. lib. 5. friends say he often beateth vpon that of the Satyre,

So I will, so I command, my will must stand for reason. And therefore it were no better then Dist. 40. non nos in gloss. sacriledge to call in question any of his doings. For power, whether you vnderstand potesta­tem, or potentiam, that is authority or might, hee would seeme [Page 73] to be infinit in respect of both, for Lib. caerem. 1. sect. 7. infinit power is giuen vn­to him. And if vnto Christ Cupers de ec­cl. pag 50. num. 45. 46. De ma­ior. & obed. c. vnam sanctam in gloss. was giuen all power in heauen and in earth, then the Pope who is his vicar hath the same power. He forsoth is the Bald. c. eccle­sia. vt lite. pen­dente. cause of causes, of whose power none must enquire, seeing of the first cause there is no cause: yea to In L. sacrile­gij. c. de crim. sacril. doubt of his power, is no better then sacriledge. Panormit. ex Hostiensi. extr. de translat. praelat. c. quan­to. & de electi. c. licet. Excepto peccato potest quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus, Sinne excep­ted, the Pope may doe all things as it were which God may doe. He can chaunge the nature of things, yea De translat. episc. c. quāto in gloss. of nothing he can make something, and of vniustice righteousnesse, for hee hath the fulnesse of power.

8. If you respect his office he hath the same Bellarm. de pont. Rom. l. 5. c. 4. which Christ had whiles he was on the earth, howbeit there is great oddes in their outward estates. R. Cupers de eccl: pag. 50. num. 45. 46. Bellarm. de concil, l. 2. c. 17. & de pot. Rom. lib. 2. c. 31. Ioan. de turre­cre. sum. de ec­cl. lib. 2. c. 27. & cap. 80. R. Cupers. pag. 34. num. 1. Bonifac. 8. c. quoniā de im­munit. in 6. Panormit. For it is not sit that the Pope should resē ­ble Christ who now is glorified in heauen, as he was contēned, but as the Pastor of the whole world supernal & heauēly, & as he shall come to be our iudge, to whom it is certain that all men of neces­sity must obey. For it is euident that the worke of redēption being accōplished, the power of Christ was extended as well in heauen as in earth. Mat. 28. All power is giuē vnto me in heauē & in earth. Which power is translated vnto his Vicar, &c. In respect of his office therfore, he is the foundation, the head, the husband, the Lord of the vniuersal church, in vnction Christ, & is therfore to be called R. Cupers. de eccl. Christus Domini, the Lords Christ. Now if it be obiected that Christ alone is the head Eph. t.. 21. 22. 4. 15. 5. 23. Col. 1. 28. of the Catholike Church and so of the Eph. 5. 24. Ioan. 3. 29. 2. Cor. 11. 2. 1. Cor. 3. 11. 12. rest: answere is made, that R. Cupers. de eccl. pag. 128. num. 36. Christ and the Pope in the Church are vnū & idem caput, one and the same head, and doe make one and the same consistorie: Idem pag. 30. num. 8. for it were a monstrous thing that the Church should haue two heads. And to the same purpose saith a 1. de. turrecre [...]at. summ. de eccle. lib. 2. c. 26. Cardinall of Rome, The iudge­ment of the Pope is reputed the iudgement of God, and his sen­tence, and his consistory, the consistory of God: and therefore Christ and the Pope are not properly two heads, but one, as Bo­niface the eight declareth, In extrav. c. vnam sanctam. But to speake more particularly of his offices. For prophecie, hee is [Page 74] the vniuersall or oecumenicall Bishop, and Pastor of Pastors, Orat. Cornelij episcop [...] [...]. in concil. [...]ri­dent. sub. Pau. lo 3. the Ordinary or Bishop of the whole world: Who is oom a light into the world, but men haue loued darkenesse more then light, who hath the supreme authority of interpreting the scriptures, who is the supreame iudge in controuersies of religion, hauing De translat. e­pise. c. quanto in gloss. an heauenly arbitrement, and as it were a diuine and infallible iudgement, who is aboue Decret. Greg. l. 1. de elect & [...] o [...] c. sig­nifica [...] Concil. Florent. & T [...]dent. generall councels, for R. Cupers de [...]ccl. pag. 31. num. 23. Pig [...]. lib. 6. c. 13. although in a generall councell the vniuersall Church is represented, in Cupers. pag. 125 n [...]. 9. so much that nothing is greater then the Councell, Tamen Pa­pa eidem omnimoda supereminet authoritate, Notwithstan­ding Cap [...]. sol. 23. C. de sum [...]. tri­nit. l. 1. in. f. the Pope surpasseth the same in all maner authority, whose iudgement is to bee preferred before the iudgement of the whole worlde, insomuch that if the whole worlde should determine against the Pope, wee must stande to his sentence, for so they say, R. Cupers. pag. 11 [...]. 18. Papae sententia totius orbis pl [...]to prefer­tu [...]: And againe, 1. de turre­crem. lib. 3. c. 64. Si totus mundus sentiret (or as the In c. nemo. 9. q 3. glosse readeth senten [...]iaret) contra Papam, videtur quòd sen­ten [...]ae Papae standum esset, vt 24. q. 1. haec est fides, haec gloss. Baldus. who is of greater authority then all the Saints, and in re­spect thereof is of 1. de turre­crem. summ. lib. 2 cap. 26. great perfection then the whole body of the Church besides. But it is not sufficient for this Antichrist to preferre himselfe aboue the whole Church which is the bo­dy of Christ, vnlesse also hee sought in respect of the prophe­ticall office to match himselfe with Christ the head of the church, yea and in some respects to ouermatch him.

9. He seeketh to match himselfe with Christ, 1. in ta­king vpon him to make newe articles of Eaith, and to pro­pound doctrines not contayned in the Scriptures as necessa­rie vnto saluation. 2. In making fiue Sacraments more then Christ appointed, (some whereof hee preferreth aboue baptisme) and those two which Christ hath ordained he hath so altered and chaunged as that the one is scarcely, the other not at all the same. And whereas Christ ordained the Sacra­ment of his body and blood in two kindes, they not withstan­ding his institution will haue it administred to the people but in one kind. For so it is professed in the Councell of Con­stance, that although Christ administred this venerable sacra­ment [...]ss. 13. vnto his Disciples vnder both kinds of bread and wine, and [Page 75] although in the primitiue church this sacrament was receiued of the faithfull in both kinds, notwithstanding this custome of recei­uing the bread only was vpō good reason brought in, for the auoi­ding of some dangers and scandales. 3. In making their owne deuises, decretals & traditiōs of equal authority with the word of God. Innocentius 3. comanded that the words of the canon Ioan. Bal: in eius vita. of the Masse should be held equal to the words of the gospell. Agatho the Pope decreed that all the constitutions of the See apostolick are to be receiued, as authorized by the diuine voice D stinct. 19. c. sic omnes. Ioan. de turre­crem. lib. 2. c. 108. of Peter himselfe. And in the same distinction, this is the ti­tle or argument of one chapter, Inter canonic as Scripturas, decretales epistolae connumerantur, that is, Among the Cano­nicall scriptures the decretall epistles are numbred. Which in D [...]st. 19. c. in ca­nonic [...]. the chapter it selfe is absurdly proued out of Augustine mis­alledged. And as touching traditions (whereby are meant De doctr. Chri­sti. l. 2. c. 8. all points of popery, which as themselues confesse are not con­tained in the written worde) the holy Councell of Trent hath ordained that they are to bee receiued, and honoured Pari pi [...]tatis affectu ac reuerentia, With as great affection of Sess. 4. pietie and reuerence, as the written worde of God. Which de­cree when as a certaine Bishop misliked, Ceruinus the Popes Iacobus Na­chiantes Clo­diae follae e­piscopus. Bal. in vita Marcell [...] se­cundi. legate (who afterwardes was Pope, called Marcellus 2.) caused him to bee expelled out of the Councell. And last­ly, least he should seeme in any thing to be inferiour to Christ our Prophet, hee confirmeth his doctrines by miracles as they call them.

10. And thus the Pope matcheth himselfe with Christ our Prophet: let vs now consider how he aduaunceth himselfe aboue him. Which he manifestly doth in preferring his owne and the churches authority aboue the scriptures. And if the Hervaeus de potest. Tap. e. & R. Cupers. Petrus de pa­lude, de potest. Papae. [...]t. 4. church be aboue the Scriptures, then much more is he. For he not onely virtualiter est tota ecclesia, that is, virtually the whole church, but also his power alone exceedeth the power of all the whole church besides. Now that the authority of the church & much more of the Pope who is superior to the church, is aboue the scripture, it is both generally affirmed & by som particulars cōfirmed, Cardinal Cusanus entitleth his book, De authoritate [Page 76] ecclesia & concilij supra & cōtra scripturā, Of the authority of the Church & councell aboue & against the Scripture. Syluester Prierias master of the Popes pallace saith, That indulgences are warranted vnto vs, not by the authoritie of the Scripture, Contra Lutheri conclusiones de potestate Papae. but by the authoritie of the Church and Pope of Rome, which is greater. Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz saith, That all men so reuerence the Apostolicke See of Rome, that they ra­ther desire the auncient institution of Christian religion from the Pope, then from the holy Scriptures. This saying the Pope hath so approued, that he hath caused it to be inserted into the Dist. 40. c. si Papa. Canon lawe. The particulars which proue the Pope to ad­uaunce himselfe aboue the Scriptures are these. 1, Because he hath as they say authoritie to adde to the Canonicall Scrip­tures, other bookes that are not in the Canon. And that those Dist. 19. c. si Romanorum. Ioan. de turre­crem. l. [...]. cap. 112. which be in the Canon, haue their Canonicall authority from him. In the 19. distinction cap. Si Romanorum, Pope Nicolas not onely matcheth their decretall Epistles with the holy Scriptures, but also affirmeth that the Scriptures are therefore to be receiued, because the Pope hath iudged them canoni­call. Another saith, Whosoeuer resteth not on the doctrine of the Romane church and Bishop of Rome as the infallible rule of God, Syluester Prie­rias contra Lu­therum. à qua sacra scriptura robur trabis & authoritatem, From which the sacred Scripture draweth strength and authority, hee is an Hereticke. Eckius saith, Scriptura nisiecclesiae authoritate non De ecclesia. est authentica, The Scripture is not authenticall but by the au­thority of the Church. For I will not tell you how some of them haue not bene ashamed to say, that the Scripture with­out the authoritie of the Church, is of it selfe no better worth then AEsopes fables. Pighius saith, The authority of the church Vid. Chemnit. exam. part. 1. pag. 47. is aboue the Scriptures, because the authoritie of the Church hath giuen the Scriptures canonicall authority. Secondly, whereas the Scriptures are not the words and syllables, but the true sence and meaning thereof. They teach that the scriptures are to be vnderstood according to the interpretation of the Pope and Church of Rome: and that sence which the Pope assigneth to the Scriptures, must bee taken for the vndoubted word of God. The Pope (saith one) hath authority so to ex­pound Heruau [...] de po­testate Papae. [Page 77] the scriptures, that it is not lawful to hold or thinke the contrary. A Cardinall of Rome saith, If any man haue the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of scripture, although he neither know nor vnderstand whether and Cardinal. Hosi­us de expresso dei verbo. how it agreeth with the words of the scripture, notwithstanding he hath ipsimum verbum Dei, the very wordof God: And if the sence, which they giue, be diuerse according to the variety of their practise and diuersitie of times, we must acknowledge that the scripture is to follow the church and not the church to follow the scriptures. Whereupon Cardinall Cusanus, It is no Nicol. Cusanus ad Bohem. epist. 7. maruell (saith he) though the practise of the church expound the scriptures at one time one way and at another time another way. For the vnderstanding or sence of the scripture runneth with the practise. And that sence so agreeing with the practise is the quickning spirit. And therefore the scriptures follow the church, but contrarywise the church followeth not the scriptures. And this is that which one who was no small foole in Rome auou­ched, The Pope saith he may change the holy gospell, and may Henricus Doc­tor magister sacri palatij Romae ad lega­tos [...]ohemicos sub Felice Pa­pa. 1447. giue to the gospell according to place and time another sence. And to the same purpose was the speech of that blasphemous Cardinall, that if any man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and man, and the Pope thought the same, he should not bee condemned. To conclude therefore with Cardinall Cusanus, This is the iudgement (saith he) of all them that thinke rightlie, Cardinal. s. Angeli ad cos­de [...] legatos Bohemicos. that found the authoritie and vnderstanding of the scriptures in the allowance of the church: and not contrariwise lay the foundation of the church in the authority of the scriptures. Ad Bohemos epist. 2.

11 Thirdly, the Pope challengeth authority aboue the scriptures, when he taketh vpon him to dispense with the word and law of God. For whosoeuer taketh vpon him to dispense with the law of another challengeth greater authority then the others, and it is a rule among themselues, In praecepto supe­rioris, non debet dispensare inferior, the inferiour may not dis­pense Antonin. part. 3. lit. 22. cap. 6. §. 2. with the commaundement of the superiour. That the Pope doth dispense with the lawes of God it is euident. For scarcely is there any sinne forbidden there, where with he doth not sometimes dispense, nay whereof hee will not, if it be for [Page 78] his aduantage, make a meritorious worke. Incest is an hor­rible sinne, forbidden by the law of God and by the lawe of nature. And yet there is no incest, excepting that which is committed betwixt the parents and the children, which hee hath not authority forsooth to dispense with: for as they say, hee may dispense against the law of nature. The Pope dispen­sed with Henrie the eightth to marie his sister in law, and 25. q. 6 autho­ritatem in gl [...]ss. with Philip the late king of Spaine, to mary his owne niece. Pope Martin the fift dispensed with a certaine brother that Antonin. sum. 3. part tit. 1. cap. 11. §. quod Papa. sum. an­gel. di [...]t. Papa. maried his owne sister. And Clement the seauenth licensed Pe­trus Aluara [...]lus the spaniard for a summe of money, to marie two sisters at once &c. Disobedience to parents, periury that is breaking of lawfull oathes, rebellion against lawfull prin­ces, murdering of a sacred prince, are condemned by the lawe of God as haynous offences. But if children shall cast of their parents to enter into a Sodomiticall cloister, if the Pope shall absolue the subiects from their oathes and forbidde them to obey their princes, if he shal excommunicate a lawfull prince, or suborne a wicked traytour, to murder his soueraigne: then disobedience to parents, periurie and rebellion in subiectes, murthering of sacred Princes, is not onelie a warran­table but also a meritorious acte. For as you haue hearde Papa ex iniustitia potest facere iustitiam. The Pope of sinne can make righteousnesse. And that the Pope may thus dis­pense with the word of God, his canonistes and diuines doe diuersely dispute. One saith, Michael Medina, Chri­stian. paraenes. lib. 7. c. 17. Gratian. part. 1. pag. 76. Potestas in diuinas leges ordina­riè in Romano pontifice residet. Power ouer the lawes of God re­maineth ordinarily in the pope of Rome. Others say, Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum. 16. q. 1. de decimi [...], in [...]loss. Dist. 34. c. Lector. 15 q. 6. authoritatem. Priuilegium contra ius diui­num concedi potest. The Pope may dispense, or grant a priuiledge against the law of God: Abb. Panorm. extr. de d [...]. cap. sin. that is, as another saith, hee may dis­pense against the law of God in particular, but not in gene­rall. Papa potest dispensare contra Apostolum, the Pope may dispense against the Apostle. Felin. de con­stitut. cap sta­tuta canonum. The Pope may dispense against the new testament vpon a greate cause. ^eThe Pope may dispense against the Epistles of Paule. And to put this matter out of doubt which is so doubtfullie handled by some [Page 79] popish writers, this question in summa angelica is determined and decided, out of diuerse authors approued in the church of Dictione, Papa. Rome, That as in the precepts of the second table the Pope cannot dispense vniuersally (for that were not to dispense with them, but wholly to abrogate the lawes themselues) but in particular cases vbi ratio legis desicit, where the reason of the lawe faileth: so hec may dispense with all the precepts of the old and new testament. But how shall wee know where the rea­son of the lawe faileth? This may partly be knowne by those examples in the scripture where God himselfe dispensed with his lawes. But where there is no example of Gods dis­pēsation in the like case, then it appertaineth to the Pope alone to declare, when and in what particular case the reason of the lawe faileth. And I sirmelie beleeue (saith the authour of that booke) that if any man, crauing a dispensation in any case against the lawe of God, interpose not importuni­tie of reward or suite, but simplie put himselfe into the hands of the Pope by declaring his case, that God will not sufter his vicar to erre in dispensing. So that whereas the lawes and commandements of God are to bee vnderstoode with this exception onely Nisi Deus ipse aliter voluerit, vn­lesse God himselfe otherwise appoint, because hee alone may dispense with his owne lawes: notwithstanding by the po­pish diuinitie they are to bee vnderstood with this exception, vnlesse the Pope otherwise appoint: that is, wee are bound to keepe euery commaundement of God, vnlesse the Pope inter­pose his authoritie betwixt God and vs (as the tribunes of the comunalty among the Romanes were wont to intercede a­gainst other magistrates) and exempt vs from the obedience thereof.

12 And as the Pope may dispense with all the lawes of God, so in the last place, hee may and doth take away some, and abrogate others. Papa potest tollere ius diuinum ex Felinus de maior. & obed. cap. sin. parte non in totum: the Pope may take away the law of God in part, but not in whole. Thus hee taketh away the second com­maundement out of the decalogue, because with it his Idola­latrie cannot stand: and to make vp the full number of ten he [Page 80] diuideth the last commandement into two, against all reason and authority of antiquitie. But that commandement concer­ning images and diuerse others the Pope also abrogateth by his countermaunds. God forbiddeth vs either to worshippe or to serue any but himselfe. Mat. 4. 10. 1. Sam. 7. 3. Ex. 20. 3. The Pope commaundeth vs to worshippe Angells and Saints, yea and the reliques of Saints. God forbiddeth the making and worshipping of images, the Pope commaundeth the con­trary. God condemneth stewes, the Pope alloweth them, yea Six. 4. Concil [...]trid. sess. 5. one of them built a famous stewes. God condemneth concu­piscence as a sinne, the Pope alloweth it for no sinne. God commaundeth all the faithfull to drin [...] of the cup in the Lords supper: the Pope forbiddeth the same. God commaundeth e­uery soule to be subiect to the higher powers: the Pope exem­pteth his cleargie a iugo seculari, from the secular yoke. God commaundeth all to mary, who haue not the gift of continen­cie: the Pope forbiddeth all his cleargie, though neuer so in­continent, to mary. Besides, it is euident that the Popes lawes in the church of Rome are in greater estimation thē the lawes of God, the obedience of them beeing more straightly vrged, and the disobedience thereof more seuerely punished, then of Gods lawes. As for example, it is more safe for a man in the church of Rome to bee a meere Atheist & a worshipper of no God, then not to bee a worshipper of their God of bread, though otherwise a good Christian: better for a priest to bee a So domit, then to mary: better to bee a drunkard and whore­monger then to eat slesh in Lent: better with the begging fri­ers Anno. 1254. Matth. Paris. 1254. to set foorth a new gospell (which they called the gospell of the holy ghost and the eternall gospell, wherein they taught that Christ is not God, and that his gospell is not the true gos­pell, Na [...]r. t. 2. 3 [...]6. and no more to be compared with their gospell then the Bal. in lib. de vitis pontif. in append. [...]. Fox. nutshell is to be compared with the kernel) then for that lear­ned man Guilielmus des. Amore to write against them and their gospell, for him the Pope disgraded and deposed from al his dignities when he would not suffer them to be disgraced: him he sent into exile, when hee retained them in his high fa­uour. Yet because he had rather be Antichrist, then seeme so, [Page 81] he caused the friers Gospel, when it was complained of, to be burnt, yet secretly; that his Friers might not be disgraced nor scandalized. Better for priuate men to reade any bookes of ri­baldry or any villany whatsoeuer, then to read any parte of the scriptures in their owne tongue. To these, many other par­ticulars might be added wherin the Pope aduanceth his owne lawes aboue the commaundements of God, and his owne au­thority aboue the authority of the Scriptures. Let vs there­fore humbly conclude according to the popish humilitie, that as the Pope is aboue the Church, so the Church is aboue the scriptures. Humiliter confitemur (saith a Papist) ecclesiae au­thoritatem Ioan. Maria verractus apud Iuellum. esse supra Euangelium: We humbly cōfesse that the authority of the church is aboue the gospell.

13. To his propheticall office let vs adde his priesthood. Amicij epistol. dedi. ad Gre­gor. 13. For the Pope forsooth is Pontifex Optimus Maximus (an epi­thet which the Heathen giue to their chiefe God Iupiter) hee is that great priest according to the order of Melchisedec, whose foote must be reuerently kissed of his Cardinals when Lib. carem. sect. 12. c. 5. hee rideth into any citie in his Pontificalibus, and the Bishop of the citie beginning this Antheme, Ecce sacerdos Magnus, c. fundmenta. de elect. in 6. Behold the great Priest. He is the Prince of Priests, and head of the Christian religion. He is that Priest of Priestes, who remitteth both fault and punishment both to quicke and dead: whereas Christ remitteth onely to the liuing: and (as they say) forgiueth the fault but not the punishment, neither doth this indulgent father graunt pardon alone for sinnes past, but also for offences to come.

14. But I hasten to his kingly office. For hee forsooth is the Paul. 4 ad du­cem Florentin. in bulla. King of Kings and Lorde of Lords, the Stenchus. & Sim. Begnius in orat. in concil. Lateran. sess. 6. Lion of the tribe of Iuda, to Lib. 1. carem. sect. 7. Pius 5. in bull. ad re­gem & reginā matrē Galliae. Antonin. in sum. part. 3. tit. 22. ca. 5. §. 1. & 5. & 6. Psalm. 8. Heb. 2. 8. whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth, yea and vnder the earth. For as hee hath a triple crowne, so hee hath a triple Empire, in heauen and in earth, and (where Christ hath none) in purgatory. His power is greater then all other created power, extending it selfe in some sorte vnto things Coelestiall, terrestriall and infernall: So that of his power that may be verified which is said in the Psalme of Christ, [Page 82] & that aptly because he is Christs vicar, Thou hast put al things vnder his feete. The beastes of the field, that is, men liuing on the earth: the fishes of the sea, that is to say, the soules in pur­gatory: the foules of heauen, that is to say, the Angels and the soules of the blessed. Another wrote and taught that the Pope Nicol. Egmun­danus apud Bal [...]m. is the Lorde of things in heauen, on the earth, and vnder the earth. In heauen, for as you haue heard he hath power ouer the Angels and Saints, and soules departed. Papa angelis praecipit, Camotensis. & potestatem habet in mortuos, The Pope cōmaundeth the An­gels, and hath power ouer the dead. In earth, for he is, Epist. ded. A­micij ad Gre­gor. 15. praefix. Capistr. Totius or­bis Dominus, the Lord of the whole earth, hauing De Maior c. vnam sanctam. caelestis & terrestris potestatis Monarchiam, The Monarchy of the heauēly and earthly power, Extra de sta­tu regular. pe­ricu [...]. in gloss. obtaining the kingdome of the whole world, vnto whom forsooth belongeth that prophecie, Lib 1. caerem. sect. 7. & capi­stran. fol. 57. Domi­nabitur à mari ad mare & à flumine vs (que) adterminos orbis: He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the riuer vnto the endes of the world: his Capistran. [...]. 2. fol. 24. Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. §. 8. Alexander di­s [...]buted the newe founde world, betwixt the kings of Spaine and Portugal. Lib. 1. caerem. sect. 1. c. 4. Cardin. Epis­copus. Hostien­ [...]. power reacheth ouer all the faithfull principally, & secondarily also ouer the infidels: for vnder his feete, that is, vnder his iurisdiction are put the beasts of the field that is the Paganes, oxen that is Iewes and Heretickes, and sheepe that is Christians, and it extendeth it selfe vnto all the partes of the world, not onely knowne but also vnknowne, insomuch that the parts of the new found world are at his disposition to di­stribute and bestow. And that the Paganes are subiect to the Pope it appeareth, because the Pope ruleth the world in steede of Christ. But Christ hath ful iurisdictiō ouer euery creature. Seing therfore the Pope is Christes vicar, no mā may lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience, euen as none may lawfully withdraw himselfe from the obedience of God. Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. §. 8. The Deacon which inuested the Pope was wont to vse these words, I inuest thee into the Papacy, Vt praesis vrbi & orbi, That thou mayst rule both the citie and the world. And likewise the Cardinall Bishop that anointeth him, vseth this forme of words, Egot [...]inungo in pontificem vrbis & orbis. Now this Cupers. de ec­ [...]les. pag. 337. Empire or Monarchy which the Pope hath ouer the whole world is twofold, for hee hath the two swordes as it is stoutly [Page 83] proued out of the gospell, where one of Christs disciples saith, Boniface 8. de maior. c. [...]am sanctam. Ecce duo gladij, behold two swordes, ciuill and Ecclesiasticall. For as Pope Nicolas saith, Christ us beato aeternae vitae clauige­ro terreni simul & coelestis imperij iura [...]commisit. Christ hath Dist. 22. c. 1. omnes. giuen to blessed Peter the key bearer of eternall life (and so to Io [...]. de Pari­sijs de potestat. Pap. cap. 20. Ioan. Maior. 4. sent. q. 2. dist. 20. the Pope) the right both of the carthly and heauenly Empire. Ciuill, as hath bene shewed ouer al Kings and rulers, in respect whereof hee writeth himselfe King of Kings, for all secular power is immediatly giuē to the Pope: and he is aboue kings euen in temporall matters, yea hee alone is the true Lorde of temporall things. Wherefore Pope Boniface the eight, sent vnto Philip the French king and tolde him, That he was Lord Martinus Po­lonus. & in e­pist. ad eundē, s [...]ire te volu­mus, quòd in spiritualibus & temporalibus nobis subes. Ni­col. Gillius. an­na [...]ium gallic, scriptor. both in spirituall and also in temporall matters, throughout the worlde. And therefore that the King should holde his king­dome at his hande, and honour and worshippe him, Vt dominum regni sui, as the Lorde of his Realme. Stenchus. for otherwise to thinke and holde (hee said) it was Heresie. And as touch­ing the Romane Empire, the gouernment thereof belongeth to the Pope, being Gods vicar on earth: as vnto him by whom kings doe raigne. And surely whosoeuer denieth the temporall sworde to be in the power of Peter, doth full ill attende to the Caeremon. lib. 1. cap. 2. worde of the Lorde, saying vnto him, Put vp thy sworde into the sheath. And did not the Lorde I beseech you (as some of the De maior. & obed. cap. v [...] sanctam. Popes fauourits full solēnely dispute) cōmand Peter Luk. 5. 4. to launch into the deepe, that he might signifie the height of power Ioan. Capistr. de Pap. & ec­cl. author. 1. 2. sol. 21. & 122. duc in al [...] designaret alti­tudinem pote­statis &c. s. 15. in Peter. And againe, Why did the Lorde sende Peter onely to the Sea to fishe with an angle or hooke, but that he would insi­nuate that he intended to set Peter ouer the whole surging Sea of this tempestuous worlde? and why doth he commaunde him to fishe with an iron hooke, but that he was disposed to commit vnto him the sworde both of the spirituall and temporall Empire? Hereunto wee may adde that worthy dispute of Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 17, That the Similiae argu­menta habet [...]. de turr [...]. in sum. & al [...]. Subtiliss. Pope being the vicar of Iesus Christ in the whole world, hath, in stead of the liuing God, the vniuersal iurisdictiō both of spiritual & temporal things. But the immediat administration of temporal [Page 84] things he receiueth not vnlesse in the regiōs of the Westerne Em­pire by reason of the graunt made to the church by Constantine. Now, that he vseth not the temporal administratiō in other coun­tries, but onely in the parts of Italy &c. this is not for want of authority, but that hee would nourish in his sonnes the bond of peace and vnity. For since the Empire was diuided, and of di­uerse in diuerse partes diuersly and tyrannically vsurped, the Church to auoid the scandal of the Iewes hath made her selfe tributarie with Peter &c. And as touching those which say the Pope hath dominion ouer the whole world, not in temporall mat­ters but in spirituallonely, they are like the counsellers of the king of Syria, who said 1. King. 20. their goddes are goddes of the moū ­taines and not of the valleis. For so they say the Popes are goddes of the mountaines, that is of spiritaull goods, but they are not goddes of the valleys, because they haue not the dominion of tem­porall goods. And in the same place he addeth; That from the sentence of all Kings and Princes men may appeale to the Pope. Astouching his ecclesiasticall authority which (as some Th. Aquin. in 2. sent. in fine. Antonin. part. 3 tit. 22. cap. 6. §. 6. say) is the foundation of the Church, hee is superiour and greater then all the residue of the vniuersall Church, and this is proued by seuen arguments, 1. Because hee is the Pastor of the vniuersall Church. 2. Because hee is the head of the 1. de turre­crem. in summ. de eccles. lib. 2. cap. 80. vniuersall Church. 3. Because he is that prelate which hath authority ouer the whole Church. 4. Because he is the prince of the vniuersall church. 5. Because he hath supreame power in the Church. 6. Because he alone hath fulnesse of power in the Church. 7. Because he is Christes vicar generall in the whole vniuersall Church. For in the Apostolicke See the Lord Dist. II. c. no­lite errare. hath placed the princehood of the whole Church, and there­fore worthily is he called Ecclesiae princeps ac rex regū torra, I. de turre­crem lib. 3. summ. cap. 9. The prince of the church & king of the kings of the earth; yea Amicij epist. dedic. ad Gre, gor. 13. praefix. Capistr. Princeps optimus maximus, D [...]st. 40. c. si Papa, et R. Cis. pers pag. 29. Ioan. Andreas in c. quanto de translat. Panorm. c licet. de elect. Of whō the saluatiō of the church vniuersall after God dependeth. He is the head, the roote, the Monarch, the foūtaine of ecclesiastical power, hauing the same consistory with God, & iudgemēt seat with Christ For so they write: I. de turrecrem. summ. lib. 2. cap. 8. & R. Cupers. pag. 29. n. 16. & 42. n. 14. Idem tribunal Christs & Pap [...] [...]erris: Inter Papam & [Page 85] Deum vnum & idem fit tribunal, vnumque & idem consistorl­um. Hee maketh lawes which bind the conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne, R. Cupers. pag. 62. n. 66. de constitut. c. licet in sexto. R. Cupers. pag. 29. n. 1. he is the liuing lawe, yea he hath all lawes in the closet of his breast, and hee can dispose aboue lawe and retaineth the fulnes of power so as hee needeth no addition, I de turre­crem. l. 3. c 64. he alone hath the fulnesse of power, as beeing the prince of the churches lawes. And euen as the first moouer R. Cupers. de eccl. pag 166 n. 28. gouerneth the church triumphant, so doth the Pope rule the church militant. For seeing in the church Clement. lib. 5. de haereticis. c. ad nostrum in gloss. triumphant there is one soueraigne prince to whose obedience that whole church is most perfectly subiect, that is to say, God: it followeth necessarilie that one soueraigne prince ruleth ouer the whole militāt church, that is to say the Pope, whose cōmandemēts all are bound to obey. And thus much of the Popes power, in heauen and in earth: in respect whereof it is saide that the iurisdiction and care of the Antonin. sum part. 3. tit. [...]2. §. 1. whole world is committed to the Pope, not onely as by the name of the world is imported the earth, but also as by the name of the world is imported heauen, because he hath receiued iurisdiction ouer heauen and earth.

16 There remaineth the third part of his kingdome which hee hath in purgatorie. For as one of their approued authours Angelus Pari­siensis. saith, Purgatorium est peculium Papae, Purgatorie is the Pope's peculiar: where, as also in hell he hath so great authority, as that by his indulgences he is able to deliuer thence so many soules Fulm brut. ex. bulla Cle­ment. 6. as it pleaseth him, and to place them in heauen and in the seats of the blessed. Insomuch as this is become a probleme in the church of Rome, whether the Pope may empty all purgatorie wholy and at once: and by Antoninus the Archbishoppe of Flo­ence it receiueth this determination vnder a threefold di­stinction, namelie, that in respect of his absolute iurisdiction the Antonin. part. 3. tit. 2 [...]. cap. 5. §. 6. & 7. Pope may be communicating his indulgences absolue all that are in purgatory from that paine, and so make a gaole deliuery. For seeing Gregory the Pope by his prayer absolued Traian from the paine of hell which is infinite, therefore much more may the Pope by communication of indulgenoes absolue all that are in purgatorie from that punishment which is but finite. And for­asmuch as Christ may take away all paine, therefore the Pope [Page 86] also who is his vicar may. This the Pope may doe in respect of his absolute power. But if you regard the orderlie execution thereof, in that respect the Pope may not nor ought so to doe. Neither in deede is hee pleased to let out any from the paines of purgatorie vnlesse he bee well pleased for his indulgences and pardons. Howbeit I must needs confesse, it was a cheape yeare of soules when Leo the tenth sent Torelius about with Bal. in vita Leonis 10. & 1. Fox. his pardons, offering to euerie one for the payment of ten shillings (but not a penny vnder) to sette at libertie the soule of any one which they should name in purgatory And lastly if you respect Gods acceptation, that is, whether God would take it well that the Pope should release all that bee in purgatory at once, or not, Antoninus answereth, he cannot tell. And to con­clude this kingly office of the pope with that venerable accla­mation of the reuerend fathers in the councell of Laterane, Thou art all and aboue all, Sess. 10. in orat. Steph. Pa­tracensis. to thee all power is giuen in hea­uen and in earth. And againe, Sess. 10. in orat. Steph. Pa­tracensis. In the pope is all power aboue all powers in heauen and in earth. And thus it appeareth euidently that the Pope is Antichrist, not onely because he is [...], that is an aduersary opposed vnto Christ, as was proued in the former chapter, but also because he is aemulus and as it were a counterchrist, who seeking to match our Sauiour Christ, ad­uanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is wor­shipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God as god, shewing and demeaning himselfe as though he were a God vpon earth.

Chap. 6. Of other vices or sinnes of Antichrist.

1. NOw are wee to intreate of other vices and sinnes of Antichrist. For albeit by the application of the two former noates con­cerning the opposition of Antichrist vnto Christ, and his incredible ambition in ad­uancing himdelfe aboue all that is called [Page 87] God, it plainely appeareth that the Pope of Rome meriteth to be called by that peculiar title of Antichrist the man of sin, because those two notes wherein the Apostle insisteth as suf­ficient 2. Thess. 2. 3. 4. proofes thereof, doe most properly agree vnto him: notwithstanding, many other notorious sinnes of the Popes may be produced for the further euidence of this truth. Of which sins some are common to very many of them, and some are common to them all. For howsoeuer the crimes and enor­mities of such deepe dissemblers, as these Antichristian Popes haue beene, were many times either not commonly knowne to the world, or beeing knowne were not communicated to posterity, the writers of those times being for the most part the seruile flatterers of Antichrist: yet notwithstanding many of them were knowne, & of those which were knowne many are recorded to haue beene guilty of fearefull crimes, besides those which either were not knowen or not recorded. For to begin with their horrible impiety towards God, haue not many of these most holy fathers bewraied themselues to be very Athe­ists and scorners of religion? Such were those which before I Chap. 4. §. 8. named, Iohn the 24. Alexander the 6. Sixtus 4. Paulus 3. Cle­ment 7. Iulius 2, & 3. Leo 10. and besides them Iohn 12. aliàs 13. who vsed to blaspheme God, & at his dice to call vpon the Luitprandus lib. 6. Fascic, temp. diuell, & in his feasts to drinke vnto him. Many of them also (as cōmonly those which renoūce god betake thēselues to the di­uell) haue bin knowne sorcerers & necromancers, besides those which were not known. It is recorded euen by Popish authors of Syluester the 2. that he did homage to the diuell, & that by the diuel he was placed in the Papacy, to which end he had be, Fascic. tempo. Stella. Platina. &c. taken himselfe both in body & solue to the diuell. Such a one was Gregory 7. as Cardinal Benno testifieth, & such also were al the Popes frō Syluester the 2. to Gregory the 7. But amōg them Benedict 8. aliàs 9. who before his Papacy was called Theophy­lact is most worthy to be remēbred. For he was wont in woods & mountaines to sacrifice to the diuell, & by magicall art to al­lure women vnto him: he kept a sparrow which brought him newes frō alcoasts And when he had sold the Papacy to Gre­gory the 6. for 1500. pound & thought by soloery to recouer it [Page 88] againe as he first had gotten it, and to that end consulted with the diuell, he had his neck wrung in sunder; his successor Gre­gory the sixt, beeing a sorcerer as well as he, and now as it may seeme in greater fauour with the diuell then hee: and to these three which I haue named some twentie more may be added. But now I come to speake of their sinnes against the second table.

2 For many of them haue beene murtherers and otherwise barbarously cruell. As for example Gregory the seauenth, who poisoned six Popes to make himselfe a way to the Papacie, and sought to murther Henry the Emperour as hee was at his Bal. ex Mario Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. prayers in the church. Innocentius the fourth sought to poison Conrade the Emperour. Clement 6. caused the Emperour Lewis of Bauaria to be poisoued. King Iohn was poisoned by a monk when the Pope had giuen sentence that he should be deposed, and so was Henrie of Lucemburgh euen in the eueharist, and that as some report by the appointment of the Pope. By the Gregory. 13. Pope was Parry suborned to murther our gracious Queene Elizabeth, so was the Iacobine that murthered Henry the third Sixtus 5. king of Fraunce. In the church at Florence a massacre was in­tended, and Iulianus Medices murthered by the appointment Volaterran. geograph. lib. 5. & Politianus de coni [...]ratione Pactiana. of Sixtus the fourth, the eleuation of the sacrament beeing made the signe or watchword when this murther should be­gin. Alexander the sixt for 200000. crownes poisoned the great Turks brother who was at Rome: he also, or as some say his sonne appointed his seruaunts to minister poyson to cer­taine Cardinalls and Senatours whom he had inuited: but the seruitors mistaking the cuppes and giuing him of the same, dis­patched him, together with the rest. Paulus the third poisoned his mother and his nephew, that to him might descend the Bal. de Rom. Po [...]t. actis. whole inheritance of the Farnesian family. Hee poisoned his sister whome he vsed as his harlot, because shee fancied others more then himselfe: and that he might more freely abuse his owne daughter Constantia, hee poisoned Bosius Sfortia her husband. He poisoned one Bishop and two Cardinalls because they inclined to the gospell. I might be long in this argument, but these may serue for a tast. But if besides these you desire [Page 89] to heare some other examples of their cruelty, you may remē ­ber how Stephen the 6. caused the body of Formosus the Pope to be taken out of the graue, and hauing cut of two of his fin­gers & cast them into the Tiber, he buried the body amōg the Laity: which body eight yeares after Sergius the 3. causeth a­gaine to be taken out of the graue, and hauing cut of the other 3. fingers, he casteth thē & the body it self into the said riuer, & condemned him and all his actes, which other Popes not with­standing as Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. Iohn 10. ratified & appro­ued. Likewise Boniface 8. caused the body of Hermannus of Ferrara, who before had bene canonized for a Saint, after 30. yeares to be pluckt out of his graue, & to be burnt. Vrbanus the 6. cast seuen Cardinals into prison because they fauoured Cle­ment the 7. and in spite of him put fiue of them into sackes and drowned thē. And this is some part of their behauiour among themselues. For of their cruelty toward the Saints and Mar­tyrs of Iesus who is able sufficiently to intreat?

3. To their cruelty I wil adde their perfidious treachery, & traiterous practises, especially towards the Emperours & Prin­ces of Christendome. For first, the Emperors of Greece, by the Popes rebellious opposition against their soueraigne Lords in the vngodly defence of images, were bereaued of their domi­nions in the West. By which meanes the Empire being rent a­sunder & weakened, way was made for the Turke. And how­soeuer at the first they seemed to honour their newly erected Emperors in the West whom they created for their owne de­fence, yet afterward they neuer ceassed vntill they had gotten superiority ouer them. And euer since it hath bene their pra­ctise to strengthen and aduaunce thēselues and their owne See by weakening and deiecting the Emperour and all other Chri­stiā princes. And this they had effected by diuerse diuelish pol­licies. As first they haue vsed to picke quarels against them, & vpō any pretext or colour of a iust quarell to excōmunicate them & to absolue their subiects from their obedience. And if by these meanes they would not be brought into subiection, then to depose thē if they could, & to set vp others against thē. And if other means failed, to raise vp warres against them, & to send forth Croisades into all Christendome with large indul­gences [Page 90] & promises of heauen to all that would fight their bat­tels. And besides this, they haue also forbiddē al other chris [...]iās to vse any trafficke with them & their subiects: and not onely that, but they haue exposed the princes themselues, sometimes their subiects also, to the violēce of murderers, & their coūtries & kingdoms as a prey to spoilers, warrāting any to bereaue the prince or the subiect of their liues, & to take their kingdome as a prey. Thus besides many others was Hēry the 4. Emperour vsed by Gregory 7. & Paschalis the 2. who not onely excōmu­nicated the worthy Emperor, absolued his subiects frō obedi­ence, but also both vnder hād suborned such as should murder him, & openly set vp against him in the Empire, first Rodolphus the duke of Sueuia, and then his owne sonne: & in the end the good Emperour being deposed, imprisoned, & dead in prison, his body might not for 5. yeares be vouchsafed christian burial. Thus was Otho 4 vsed by Innocentius 3. & Lewis the 4. by Iohn 22. Benedict 12. & Clement the 6. by whose meanes also he was poisoned. Thus diuerse kings of France, besides him that now is, haue ben intreated. But especially Lewis 12, a good king, by Iulius the 2. a notable Antichrist. For he not only excōmunica­ted Lewis, & interdicted his land, but also stirred vp al Christi­ans against him, promising great indulgence and pardon of all sinnes, to euery one that should by any meanes whatsoeuer kil any French man. In his owne person also hee went to warre a­gainst him, & as he being armed brought forth his army on the bridge ouer Tiber, he cast his keies into the riuer, and drew his sword, vsing this speach in the hearing of many thousāds, seing Peters keyes doe nought auaile vs, I will therefore vse Paules sword. And to conclude, thus also haue our Kings beene dealt with, as king Iohn, & Henry the 8. & our gratious Q. Elizabeth, whom (to omit the other) the Popes haue excōmunicated, ab­solued her subiects frō obediēce, as much as in thē lieth depo­sed her from her crowne, exposed her to the violence of her se­cret & opē enemies, raised rebellions against her, suborned cut­throats to murder her, sent forces into Irelād to win that king­dome frō her, stirred vp the Spaniard & aided him against her, & lastly by an Antichristian deuotion giuen her realme of Ire­land to the Spaniard. But whō Antichrist cursed, Christ blessed: [Page 91] insomuch that hauing through the Lords goodnesse ouerliued 8. Popes, since she came to the crowne, in the end after a long and happy reigne she died in peace. Another practise of Anti­christ hath beene this, to bereaue the right owners of their crownes & kingdomes, & to set vp others which had no right, that they being aduāced by his meanes, should be obliged as vassals & feed men vnto his See. And to this end, when cōtenti­ons haue risen betwixt Christian princes, he hath not only nou­rished the same, but also taken part with the one against the o­ther; that the one being by his means vāquished & ouercome, the other may acknowledge the Pope for his good Lorde. To this end was the title of the Romane Empire translated frō the Greeks to the French in Charlemaigne, & from the French to the Almaines in Otto, whom the Pope caused to sweare ho­mage & fealty to him. To this end was Pipin crowned king of Fraunce, & Childerick deposed & shorne a Monke. But I shall not need to insist in the enumeration of examples: for scarcely is there any kingdome in Europe, if any at all, which the Pope Vide Fulm. brutum pag. 74. hath not in former times by these and other meanes made sub­iect & tributary to his See, vsing the kings as his vassals & ma­king thē sweare homage vnto him. A third stratageme which the Popes haue vsed to weaken the Emperours and princes of christendome, & strengthen themselues, hath bene this, to per­swade them to goe with their forces & chiefe of their strength into Palestine for the recouery of the Holy lād from the Turks and Saracens; that in their absence he might worke his will in any part of Europe, not fearing their strength if they should returne, being weakened by those warres; but rather hoping they should not returne to make resistaunce. And to this purpose consider onely the dealing of Alexander the 3. and Gregory the ninth, with the one and two Frederickes the Em­perours. For Alexander the third fearing the power of Fre­dericke Barbarossa, by Hartmannus the Bishop of Brixia, perswadeth him to goe with his armie into Palestine for the recouery of the holy Lande: the Pope in the meane time sendeth a picture of the Emperour to the Soldan, perswading him, that by some secret ambushment hee would apprehend him; which happened accordingly. The Emperour being [Page 92] released by the Soldan, after his returne commeth to Venice, where the Pope as you heard before treadeth on his necke &c. The other Frederick being first excōmunicated by Gregory 9. Bal. ex Mario & Matth. Pa­ris. because he went not to Palaestine according to his appointmēt, at the length to satisfie the Popes pleasure, he tooke his voiage: and hauing recouered Ierusalē & other places from the Soldan, and made truce with him for 10. yeares, he sendeth these glad ridings to the Pope. Who hauing receiued the letters causeth the messengers to be slaine, and giueth out that the Emperour was dead. For the Pope hauing a moneths mind to the king­doms of Sicilia & Apulia, wherof Frederick was the true heire, desired according to Saules old pollicie against Dauid, to haue him dispatched by the infidels, & to that end was so earnest to haue him gone. For in his absēce he seized on those kingdoms, & wrote to the Soldan that he should in no case restore Ierusalē vnto the Emperour. And when as the Emperour was retur­ned, the Pope excommunicateth him againe, because hee had made truce with the Soldan, and would not absolue him vntill he had paid for his absolution on 100000. ounces of gold.

4. But now the filthy leachery of these hollow fathers, who would seeme so chast as that they condemne marriage in their clergy, offreth it selfe to be spoken of. For although it be a rule amōg them, Si non castè, tamen cautè, If not chastly, yet charily, Nicol. 1. & one of their Popes professeth Honestius esse pluribus occultè implicari: quàm apertè in hominum vultu & conscientia cum vna ligari, That it is more honest to haue to doe with many wo­men in secret, then openly in the face and notice of men to be tied to one, whether in marriage or otherwise: and therefore in all likelyhood, a smal part of their vncleannes (which they sought by al means to cōceale) is knowē to the world: yet notwithstā ­ding very many of them haue bene detected and knowne to be most filthy fornicatours and adulterers, besides Iohn the 8. or rather Ioane who was a harlot in mans apparell, and was deliuered of a childe in open procession. In this bedrole of whoremōgers & adulteres (besides those which I either know not or doe not remember) are numbred, by diuerse authors, these which follow, Sergius 3. who by the notable strumpet Marozia begot Iohn 12, Zando, who in fornicatiō begot Iohn [Page 93] the 11. and spent his time among harlots. Both these Iohns beeing as bad or worse then their fathers. Iohn 13. also was so giuen to whoredome as that he is said to haue turned the pal­lace of Laterane into a stewes. And being at the length taken in adulterie, by the husband of the adulteresse hee was woun­ded to death. Such were Iohn 14. & 19. & 21. & 24. Likewise Benedict. 6. & 9. who by sorcery allured women vnto him, and made them follow him vp & downe like Cades. In like man­ner Benedict 12. who kept many strumpets, and among others the sister of Frauncis Petrarch whom by great rewards he had purchased of her brother Gerhard. Such were Christopherus 1. and Calixtus the 3. Gregory the 6. and the 7. called Hildebrand, who as also Victor the 3. were very inward with Mawde the countesse. Innocentius 4. had many bastards, and so had Inno­centius the 8. who also vsed to paint his face. Nicolas 3. by his concubine begat a child which in nailes and haire was like a Bear, which some impute to the pictures of beares which hee being of the Vrsine family had caused to be made in his house. And therefore Martin 4. who kept the same concubine, fea­ring the like mischance, caused the pictures of the beares to be taken away. Boniface the 8. kept many harlots, & had by them diuerse nephewes, for so they call their bastards. Clement 5. was a common whoremonger and patron of harlots, and so was Clement 6. Clement 7. & 8. was worse then so: and Cle­ment 8. that now is, hath beene no better then he should bee. And such were Pius the 4. who died betwixt 2. harlots, & Six­tus 5. of late memory, &c.

5 These are ordinary matters in the Romish votaryes, a­mong whome those Popes may be counted for men of the chaster sorte, who haue offended onely by fornication and a­dultery. But, as very many of their votaries, so also diuerse a­mong the Popes haue fearefully sinned against nature by in­cest and Sodomie. Neither are we to maruell thereat, seeing they doe not onely embrace the meanes of lust, as idlenesse, fulnesse of bread, and abundance of worldly delights and car­nall pleasures, but also reiect the remedie appointed of God, which is mariage; but especially because they beeing Idolaters [Page 94] are by the iust iudgement of God giuen ouer to their lustes and to a reprobate sence, insomuch that they commit abomi­nations against nature. It is recorded of Iohn the 13. and 23. aliàs 24. that, besides all other their whoredomes and adulte­ries, the one committed incest with Stephana his fathers con­cubine; and the other with his brothers wife. Alexander the 6. not contented with diuerse other strumpets which he kept, by whome he had 6. bastards, committed incest with his owne daughter Lucretia. Hee also gaue leaue to Cardinall Mendo­za to abuse his owne bastard sonne in incestuous Sodomy and Sodomiticall incest. Paulus the third committed incest with two of his nieces, prostituted one of his sisters to Alexander 6. to get a Cardinallship, and poisoned another because shee af­fected some other of her louers more then himselfe, neither did hee abstaine from his owne daughter Constantia. Of Pius 5. it is saide that he kept incestuous companie with his owne sister. Sixtus 4. was not onely a filthie whoremonger and Sodomite himselfe, but also to incite and encourage others to the same filthinesse, hee built a famous stewes not one­lie of women, but also of males also. And hee gaue li­cence to the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and to all his familie; that they might in the three hote moneths of the yeere free­ly vse Sodomie. Iulius 2. abused vnto Sodomie, besides o­thers, two young noblemen of Fraunce, whome Anne the Queene had sent to Rome and committed to a Cardinall to bee informed. Iulius the 3. made his Ganymedes a Cardi­nall, and neither did he as some write abstaine from com­mitting Sodomie with the Cardinalles themselues. His Le­gate at Venice (a fit couer for such a potte) Ioannes a Casa. Archbishoppe of Beneuentum, set foorth a booke in Italian metre in commendation of this sin, for which the Lord de­stroyed Sodom and Gomorrhe with fire and brimstone from heauen. Such sinners against nature were, as authors testify, Be­dict 1. Clement 7. Iohn 13. 14. & 24. Leo 10. and Paule 3. whose bastard sonne Petrus Aloysius I cannot passe ouer with silence: For hee treading in his fathers steppes, and beeing greatly loued and aduanced by him, besides incest with his [Page 95] sister Constantia, and rapes with other women, and buggerie with diuerse men, he forced a Sodomiticall rape vpon Cosmus Cherius a worthy Bishoppe, vsing the helpe of his men to hold him by violence, whiles he committed that outragious act. But it is shame to speake that which they are not ashamed to doe.

6 And yet this is not all that is to bee alleadged against the Popes, that diuerse of them haue beene Atheists, many of them sorcerers, murtherers, traytors, Adulterers and Sodomits. For many of them haue beene most foule monsters (as some of their owne writers call them) compounded of these and other horrible crymes. Such, besides others, were Sixtus 4. Iohn 24. Alexander 6. Clement 7. and Paule 3. &c. Neither may it be obiected, that although diuerse Popes haue beene men of sinne, yet many of them haue beene holy men and Saints of God, and consequently not Antichrists: For howso­euer all the Romane Bishoppes of the first 600. yeares are re­uerenced as Saints and so called of Popish writers, as Saint Syluester, Saint Leo, Saint Gregory &c. a very few onely excep­ted, yet a very fewe of them which haue liued this thousand yeares are euen by Popish flatterers esteemed Saints: and those fewe which be, are honoured among them not for any true ho­linesse, Onuphr. Pon­tif. Romani. Chronologia praefixa chate­chismo Canisij. but either for the Antichristian aduancing of their See, or for some supposed miracles which were no better then the lying signes & wōders of Antichrist. But so far indeed these A­postaticall Popes haue been from being Saints in the sight of God, that all of them haue deserued to be called men of sinne, sons of perditiō, outlawes, although some of them were not so wicked as the rest. Men of sin, because besides those peculiar sinnes wherewithall euery of them were seuerallie infected, the whole order or successiō ofthem hath been guilty of many other crimes also, as cōmō to them al, diuerse wherof the holy ghost hath set downe as noates of Antichrist. As namely those which I haue already proued, to be in the Pope, heresy, opposi­tiō or enmity to Christ, apostasy, hypocrisy, satanical pride. For if the Pope be an heretick or false prophet teaching the doc­trines of diuels, if a notorious hypocrite, if an apostate, yea the head of the catholike apostasy, if an aduersary opposed vnto [Page 96] Christ, though a couert and disguised enemie, if the king of pride aduancing himselfe most insolently aboue all that is cal­led God, as we haue proued him to be, then wee neede not doubt, but that in respect of these sins though he had no more, he deserueth to be called the man of sin.

7 But vnto these, diuerse others may be added, as first and principallie the idolatrie, superstitious and counterfaite religi­ons of the Pope and church of Rome. For the whore of Baby­lon, whereby is signified the Antichristian state, is described in the scriptures not onely as a spirituall adulteresse, but also as the mother of all fornications and abominations in the earth, which with the golden cuppe of her fornications, that is idola­tries Apoc. 17. and superstitions, hath made drunke the kings and inha­bitants of the earth. Now the idolatry of the Pope and church of Rome is manifold and grieuous. As first, to the bread in the sacrament, which beeing a small creature they worship as their maker and redeemer, neither doe they thinke that they can worshippe it enough, and therefore in the worship thereof the chiefe part of their solemne seruice consisteth. Secondly to the crosse and crucifix, and images of the trinitie, all which as they teach are to be worshipped with diuine worship, and are so worshipped among them. Thirdly, to the blessed virgin Mary, who hath beene worshipped among them as much or rather more then God. Her they call their Lady and goddesse, and queene of heauen. In her they repose their trust and assiance, to her they flie in their necessitie, of her they craue all good things, and from her they expect remission of sins and eter­nall saluation, in honour of her they haue deuised and vsed di­uerse seruices, as offices, letanies, [...]osaryes, psalters &c. full of blasphemous idolatries. Fourthly to Saints departed, who haue succeeded the tutelar gods of the heathenish Romanes, there beeing almost no cuntry, city, parish, trade or profession which had not their seuerall Saints to patronize them, no disease nor other calamity in themselues or their cattell for which they had not their peculiar saints, as it were Auerruncos deos to turne away those euills from them. In the merits of Saints they trust for remission of sinne and for eternall life. Them [Page 97] they adore, to them they pray, and not onely them doe they worship but their images also and reliques. Wherein the Pa­pists are more grosse idolatours then the very heathen. For the Gentiles did not worship the images themselues, but the per­sons represented by them: but the Papists hold that the very same worship is due to the image which belongeth to the per­son whom it resembleth. To these notorious idolatries we may Papa solus no­uas religiones creat, & ap­probat. adde their diuerse counterfeit religions and orders deuised or authorized by the Pope, which are so many by-pathes mislea­ding men out of the onely true way which leadeth vnto hea­uen, Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 21. & besides them innumerable traditions, superstitions, trū ­peries and fooleries. Vpon all which notwithstanding the fond people of al natiōs, in these parts of the world, haue so strāgely doted, as that they may most truely be said to haue bene besot­ted and made drunke with the wine of the whore of Babylons fornications, that is to say, with the idolatries and superstitions of the Church of Rome.

8. Vpon their spirituall adultery, that is to say, their mani­folde & grosse idolatry, hath followed their carnall adultery & vncleannesse. For seing by their idolatry they had dishonoured Rom. 1. 24. God, as the Gentiles did, therefore the Lord hath giuen ouer them also to their harts lustes vnto vncleannesse. Neither haue they onely beene guilty of vncleannesse in themselues, but also the causes thereof in others; whiles they extenuate the sinne of fornication as though it were but a veniall sinne, and recken Cap. at si cleri­ci extra, de iu­dic. adultery among the lesse and lighter offences: whiles they dispense with these sinnes and giue men leaue to committe them without controlment, or else assigne vnto them ridicu­lous punishments: but especially whiles they forbidde ma­riage vnto all their clergy, and mainteyne open stewes. For in forbidding mariage they open a gappe to all vncleannesse. Tolle de ecclesia (saith Bernard) honorabile coniugium & tho­rum In Cant. serm. 66. immaculatum, nonne reples eam cōcubinarijs, incestuosis, se­mini [...]uis, m [...]llibus, masculorū concubitoribus, & omni deni (que) ge­nere immundorum? Take out of the Church honorable mariage and the bed vndefiled, and doe you not fill it with keepers of con­cubines, incestuous fellowes, Gonorrhaeans and Sodomites, & in [Page 98] a word with all kinde of vncleane persons? For proofe hereof read but the actes of English votaries, who yet may not be cō ­pared [...]. Bale. with those of hotter countreis: remember the suruey taken here in England before the dissolution of Abbeyes, Vid. praesat. I. [...] [...] libri sui de ac­ti [...] Pontif. wherein our irreligious houses were found to be little better thē stewes of both sorts; not to speake of their secular Priests who were knowne for the most parte to haue beene the towne-bulles were they dwelt. Neither will I tell you of the innumerable murders of infants, besides those which died in their mothers wombes to preuent their parents shame. As for common stewes, they are mainteyned not onely in o­ther popish countreys and cities, but euen in Rome it selfe, and not onely maintained by the Pope, but maintainers also of the Pope, to whom they pay as if hee were their bawde a yearely pension, which amounteth sometimes to 30000. sometimes to 40000. Ducates. It is said of Paulus the third that in his tables he had the names of 45000. curtizans, which paid a monethly tribute vnto him. Which, besides his patro­nizing of filthinesse, argueth his coueting of filthy lucre, of which wee are also briefly to speake. For of him in respect of these two vices, filthinesse and couetousnesse, it was said in old time,

Neither doth the whole world suffice his couetousnesse, nor all harlots his l [...]chery.

9. Of the insatiable anarice of the Pope and court of Rome many instances might bee giuen. For they haue found out innumerable waies and meanes to scrape together in­credible summes of money out of all countries, without mea­sure or modestie, without shame or shewe of honesty. But it shalbe sufficient by application of Peters prophecy concer­ning [...]. Pet. [...]. 3. false teachers in these latter times, to shewe, that through couetousnesse they haue with fained wordes and doctrines of their owne coyning made merchandize of al those that would [...]earken vnto them. As sor example, they haue fayned that [Page 99] Peter was ordained of Christ the Monarch of the whole Church, that to him was committed the right both of the spirituall and temporall Monarchy: that in this Monarchy the Pope succeedeth Peter, as Christes vicar generall, as the vniuersall Bishoppe, as the Lorde of the whole earth. They haue fayned a donation of Constantine wherein hee should not onely giue the Citie of Rome to the Pope, but also re­signe vnto him the whole Empire of the West. Vpon these groundes they haue obtained both of Princes and Prelates, what their greedy couetousnesse armed with such authoritie shamed not to demaund. England, Fraunce, Germany and other countreys haue beene exceedingly; or, as some speake, Ludouic. 9. [...]. an. 1228. tit. de tall [...]. miserably impouerished by the intollerable exactions of the Pope and his Court. For first, the first fruites hee claimed of all spirituall promotions: which in these partes of Europe sub­iect Iewel. ex lega­tione Hadrian. 6. excus. VVi [...] ­tembergae. 1538 to that See, did amount vnto two millions and foure hun­dred and three score thousand, eight hundred fourty and three Florenes. The first fruites of the spirituall liuings in Fraunce, and the charges of obtaining the same liuings, haue beene ob­serued Fulm. brut. ex postulatis sena­ [...]us Paris. Lu­do [...] 1 [...]. de­lat [...]. art. [...]2. &c. in three yeares, to amount vnto nine hundred fourtie and sixe thousand, six hundred sixty and six french crownes. By the same title hee tooke vpon him to bestowe or rather to sell openly and without shame the liuings of the church: and not onely when they were void, but also before hand, and that to diuerse men. Insomuch that sometimes ten, sometimes twelue haue purchased aduousons or reuersions of the same Ibid. art. [...]. preferments against the next auoidance. But which of all them, whē the liuing fell, was to haue the benefit of the Popes graunt, that was to bee decided at Rome: whither they were to their great charge, but to the enriching of the Romish Harpies, to repaire. This gainefull trade may well bee called making Merchandize of men: for together with the benefi­ces the poore people were bought and solde. In respect here of Blondus saith, That all Europe almost sendeth tributes Rom. in [...]. lib. 3. to Rome, greater or at least equall to the reuenewes of the olde times, Dum singulae ciuitates à Romano pontifice bone­ficia sacerdotalia accipiunt, Whiles the spirituall promoti [...] [Page 100] in euery Citie are receiued from the Pope. Moreouer his yearely perquisites of elections, preuentions, dispensations, li­censes & many such like merchandises the titles wherof, with their taxes or prices, are set downe in the booke called Taxae cancellariae Apostolicae, are thought to surmount nine hundred thousand Florenes: not to speake of his smoke-farthings & Pe­terpence, which neuerthelesse did arise to no small summe. But besides his ordinary taxations, his extraordinary exactiōs were intollerable. For hee hath not beene ashamed to demaund the tenths of all spirituall liuings, in some whole realmes, for many yeares together: yea sometimes the third part of their liuing Mat. VVest­monast. a [...]. 1301. Mat. Paris. an. 1246. Syl [...] [...]otorum commu [...]. In pr [...]fat. in lib. Steph. Gardiner. de vera obedient. V [...]d: Muscull loc. comm. de [...]ccl. ministr. tit. Nundinati [...] Rom. pontif. & Fulm. brut. pag. 62. Io [...] Mon [...] ­chus. that were resident, and the halfe of theirs that were non resi­dents, & that for diuerse yeares: & sometimes also all the mo­ney and goods of them that deceassed. Out of Fraunce alone in the time of Martin 5. the Pope and court of Rome receiued 9. millions: In England the Popes pray was almost as great as the reuenewes of the crowne, as Bonner testifieth.

10. But his most odious merchandise is his setting to sale all maner of sinne, which is called Taxa poenitentiaria apostoli­ca, wherby is promised impunity to euery one who hauing cō ­mitted any sin, be it neuer so grieuous, paieth according to the rate for his absolution: as namely for adultery, incest, Sodomy, the abominatiō not to be spoken of cōmitted with beasts, wil­full murder, pari [...]ide, periurie, and such like. Hereof a notable Canonist writeth thus,

But with what difference I pray you were these crimes ra­ted? Forsooth hee that would bee absolued from adultery or incest, it must cost him foure Turons: if from both togither, it must stande him in six Turons. And what if a Priest busy the body of a party excommunicated in Christian bu [...]all, or if hee chaunce vpon ignoraunce to say Masse in a place in­terdicted? Either of these faultes must coste him fixe Tu­ [...]ons and two Ducates. And here it is to bee noted that [Page 101] the Pope in a couetous pollicie forbiddeth many things which GOD doth not forbid, namely to this ende that the straiter his prohibitions are, the oftner hee may haue occasi­on to dispense there with. As for example, he forbiddeth mari­age in kinsfolke vnto the seauenth degree: but for money he will dispense therewith in all degrees of kindred, excepting that which is betwixt the parent and the child.

11 They haue with fained words through couetousnesse perswaded the world, that the Pope hath all lawes in the clo­set of his breast, that hee is the supreame iudge in all causes Antonin. sum part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 17. and controuersies, that to him lieth appeale from all iudges whatsoeuer, and that immediately. By which chanels haue flowed abundance of riches into the sea of the Popes treasu­rie. And fitly is it compared to the Theodoric. Niem. tract. 6. c. 37. sea whereunto all riuers flow, and yet doth not ouerflowe. It is lawfull, saith one of their owne lawyers, to appeale from any to the Pope immediatelie: which (saith he) they haue prouided that they might drawe con­trouersies Petr. Ferrari­ens. inform. sent. indesin. §. sed ad quēcun­que. vnto their court, and so might satisfie their owne aua­rice, which notwithstanding they shall neuer doe, noting that it is vnsatiable. And heereunto appertaineth that acclamation of one of their owne chronographers: for, hauing shewed that searcely there was any spirituall promotion which was not Abbas vr­sperg. pag. 321. become litigious, & the cause brought to Rome, but not with empty hand; Reioyce saith he our mother Rome, for the floud­gates of the treasures in the earth are opened, that vnto thee may flowe riuers, and heapes of money in great abundance. Re­ioyce o [...]er the iniquity of the sonnes of men, because in recom­pence of so great ouills there is a price or roward giuen vnto thee. Be glad for thy helper discord, which hath burst out of the bot­tomlesse pilte of hell, that vnto thee many rewards of mony might be gathered in heapes. Thou hast that which thon alwayes thir­sted after: sing a song, for by the wickednesse of men, and not by thy religion thou hast vanquished the world. Vnto thee doth not the deuotion of men or pure conscience drawe them, but the com­mitting of manifold crimes, and the decision of controuersies procured by mony. Furthermore with fained words they haue taught, that there is a p [...]gatory, wherein the soules of many [Page 102] of the elect are tormented for a time: that out of this purga­tory the soules may be deliuered by the prayers of the liuing; especially, by the satisfactorie prayers of those whome they call religious, by masses and trentalls of masses, by the works of supererogation and merites of others applied vnto them. By this conceipt, which was the foundation of religious hou­ses, the Popes cleargie had gotten the chiefest possessions of all Europe into their hands. Monasteryes (saith one of their owne writers) were founded in times past, for de­uotion, Petr. Ferrari­ens [...]in form. li­bell. quo ag [...]tur ex substit. §. ex suo corpore. though now adayes for rapine and couetousnesse: in­somuch that they haue at this day destroyed the world, and brought to nothing the state of the Empire and of all lay men. Wherefore all such places, as are or shall be made, may worthilie bee called [...]ettes framed to catch lay mens goodes. In this small land of ours the reuenewes of the irreligious houses, which were dissolued, did arise according to the olde rents (which are scarce the tenth part of the true valewe) to the summe of a hundred thirtie foure thousand six hundered and three pounds, two shillings fourepence halfepennie. Neither are the Popes owne reuenewes ari­sing from these grounds to be omitted. For purgatory forsooth is his peculier, and the merites of Saints and works of super­erogation which are the treasure of the church, are in his disposition. So that by his applying thereof to whom [...]ee pleaseth hee can either shorten their time in purgatorie, or wholy set them at libertie by his indulgences and pardons accordingly as hee is paide for the same. And yet there are many more deuises and sained words, whereby the Pope maketh merchandise of men for the enriching of himselfe and his clergie. As by his iubileyes, and canonizing of Saints, by his promising of remission of sinnes and eternall life to those that will fight his battailes or execute his wicked designes: by his doctrines of merites and works of supererogation, of in­uocation of Saints, of adoration of images and reliques, of pilgrimages, and in a word by all the doctrines almost of Poperie, I meane those, which bee peculier to the Pope and church of Rome, which are fayned words douised in [Page 103] diuellish pollicie to mainetaine their vnsatiable lust, ambi­tion and couetousnesse. By all this which hath beene saide it plainelie appeareth that the Pope most worthilie de­serueth to bee called the man of sinne: especiallie if you consider that in respect of diuerse of the aforesaide sinnes, hee is such a sinner as Ieroboam was, who caused all Israell to sinne. For hee is not onelie an apostate, but also the heade of the catholike apostasie: not onelie an hereticke, but the false prophet and brocher of popish heresyes: not onelie an idolatour and adulterer, but also the cause and authour of these abominations in all the Christian world, making all sorts of men drunke with the wine of his fornica­tions.

12 It remaineth therfore that we should consider whether the other two titles of Antichrist do belong to the Pope, name­ly that he is the sonne of perdition, and the outlaw or lawlesse person. As touching the former, there is no questiō to be made but that if he be the man of sin as hath been proued, hee is also the child of perdition, in that sence that Iudas is so called. Iohn 17. 12. And that hee deserueth most iustlie to bee cal­led the outlawe or lawlesse person it is most euident. Not onelie because hee is a transgressour of the lawe (for seeing euerie sinne is [...] A transgression of the law, therefore hee that is the man of sinne, must needs be [...] the out­lawe) but also because he professeth himselfe to be the sonne of Beliall, that is to say a man without yoke, who taketh him­selfe to be bound to no law, but chalengeth authority to break al lawes or at least to dispense with them. For first as touching the lawes & authority of men, Papa solutus est omni lege huma­na, that is, the Pope is not bound to any humane lawe. Legi non Casus Papales apud Hostien­sem &c. Innocent. 3. extr. de concess. praebend. c. pro. posuit. Bald. in c. ca [...] ▪ super de causi proprict. & possess. subiacet vlli, he is subiect to no law. And according to the fulnes of power he may, as himselfe professeth, de iure supraius dispen­sare, dispense with the law aboue lawe: yea hee may doe all things, supraius, contraius, & extraius, aboue lawe, against lawe, and without lawe. And therefore of all others most worthilie called the outlawe. And as for humane authority: he is to iudge all, but to be iudged of none. Nec totus Cler [...]s, [Page 104] nec totus mundus potest Papam iudicare aut deponere. Not the Petr. de palu­de, de potestate Papae art. 4. whole cleargie, nor the whole world may iudge the Pope or depose him. Neither doth he indeede subiect himselfe to the lawe of God. For, hee not onely taketh vpon him to dispense with the word and law of God, as you heard before, but also thinketh hee may lawfullie breake the lawes of God. Hee hath beene made to beleeue that he may do all things, euen vnlawful things, Francisc. Za­barella. and that he is more then God, as Zabarella saith. And therefore some of them, when they haue beene admonished of their wicked practises, haue vsed to answere, Am not I pope? there­by Ioan. 23. signifying, that beeing Pope he might doe what hee list. Neither is he indeed subiect to any other lawe but to his own will or rather lust. In ijs quae vult, est es proratione voluntas, In Extr. de tran­sat. episc. c. quanto in gloss. inter casus pa­pales. Dan. 11. 16. R. Cupers de ecclesia pag. 29 num. 1. & 62. vum. 66. de constitutionib. c. licet. in sexto. Hostiens. Francisc de Ripa. R. Cupers. pag. 68. num. 32. & d [...]st. 40. non nos in gloss. Extra de con­cess. praebend. c. proposuit in gloss dist. 40. non nos in gloss. Ioan. de Pari­siis c. 20. Concil. com. l. in purgatione Sixti. Dist. 40. Non os in gloss. those things which he will, his will is vnto him for reason. Legi non sub [...]acet vlli: Iudiciumque est pro lege suum, He is subiect to no law: and his iudgement is in stead of law. So that of him is ve­rified that prophecie concerning Antiochus the type of Anti­christ, that he would do what him listed, and that his wil should be to him for a law. To this purpose his followers say, that he is lexviuens, a liuing lawe, and hath all lawes in the closet of his breast, that he can of wrong make right, of vniustice righteous­nesse, that to him all things are lawfull. That the Popes power is absolute, and extendeth as farre as him listeth: that he may not be accused of Simon [...]e, nor murder, nor adulterie, nor any other crime, excepting heresie which they say elsewhere is not inci­dent vnto him. Nay his actions may not be inquired into, nei­ther may any man say vnto him, Sir, why do you thus? Yea it were no better then sacriledge to call in question the Popes facte, and to iudge of his actions est Ponere os in caelum, it is to set a mans face against heauen: to accuse him is to commit the sinne against the holy ghost, which shall neuer be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come. But what if it be apparant that he hath committed adulterie or murther, or that himselfe is a wicked man, as indeede many of them haue beene mon­sters of men? Forsooth the actions of the Pope must bee inter­preted in the good part. For if a priest when hee is seene to bee ouer-familiar with a woman must bee thought to blesse her, [Page 105] much mere is it to be presumed in the Popes behalfe. Or if they bee so blacke as that they will admitte no other colour, then the factes of the Pope must bee excused, as the murders Dist. 40. Non nos in gloss. of Sampson, the thefts of the Hebrewes, and the adultery of Ia­cob. And to the same purpose saith another, Euery facte of the most holy Father must be interpreted in the good parte, and Ioan. de Pari­s [...]s de potest. reg. & papal [...]. if it bee theft or any thing that is in it selfe euill, wee must interprete it to bee done by diuine instinct. And as touching his person, the Pope bee he neuer so wicked, is alwaies presu­med to be good. Quis enim sanctū dubitet esse quem apex Dist. 40. Non nos. Papa sem­per praesumitur bonus ibid. in gloss. tantae dignitatis attollit? In quo sidesint bona acquisita per me­ritum, sufl [...]iunt quae à loci praedecessore praestantur. For who would doubt that hee is holy (saith the Pope of himselfe) whom the height of so great honour aduaunceth? In whome if good things gotten by his owne merite be wanting, those suffice which are performed by the predecessour in the same place, meaning Pe­ter. And againe, There is a certaine spiritualty according to De maior. & obedient. c. vnā sanctā in gloss. state, when a man is in the most holy and most spirituall state, and in this state is the Pope alone. And therefore euery one must call him most holy Father. Seing therefore the Pope is the man of sinne, and a most notorious transgressour of Gods lawes, seing hee holdeth himselfe bound to no lawe but esteemeth his owne lust for a lawe: seeing his transgressions of the lawe must not be called into question, but eyther must be commen­ded as vertuous actions, or, excused as done by diuine instinct, seeing himselfe though neuer so wicked must be deemed most holy in that he is Pope, it cannot bee denied, but that aboue all men he most deserueth to be called [...], the outlaw, or lawlesse person.

CHAP. 7. ¶ Of the miracles, or rather lying signes and wonders of Antichrist.

1. ANd thus much may suffice to haue spokē of the qualities and conditions of Antichrist: now we haue to intreat of his actions and effects. And first of his miracles as he calleth them, or rather, as the holy Ghost termeth them, lying signes and wonders. In speaking wherof I will not sticke to vse Bellarmines owne grounds. For wheras there are Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 15. three things (as he saith) mentioned in the Scriptures concer­ning the miracles of Antichrist, it shall appeare by the helpe of God, that all which the Scriptures haue foretold concerning this matter, doe most sitly agree to the Pope and church of Rome. The first is, that Antichrist and his followers should do many signes and wōders which they call miracles. For so saith our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 24. 24 (which prophecie, the Papists Mat. 24. 24. themselues vnderstand of Antichrist & his adherents) They shal worke great signes & wonders, insomuch that the very elect, if it were possible should be seduced. He saith, they shall worke great signes, & not he, (saith Bellarmine) because not onely Antichrist but his ministers also shall worke signes. And th'apostle spea­king of Antichrist, saith, his comming shalbe according to the 2. Thess. 2. 9. efficacy of Sathan in all power in lying signes & wonders. And likewise Iohn Apoc. 13. 13. affirmeth, that Antichrist worketh Apoc. 13. 13. great signes in the sight of men. And that this note agreeth to the Pope & church of Rome, it is most euident. For they aboūd with innumerable signes & wonders which they cal miracles. Insomuch that there is among them almost no Saint or Au­thour of any sect, who is not renowmed for many faire mira­cles: no temple or monastery of note, no image or reliques of saints vnto which the people went on pilgrimage, which was not famous for miracles: no doctrine which cannot be proued out of Scripture, that is to say, no point of popery which they h [...]uo not commended to the people and authorised by such signes and wōders as they call miracles. And in regard of these [Page 107] miracles (which they esteeme as a note of the true church) they contemne and despise all other churches, which doe not vaunt of miracles as they do.

2. And yet notwithstanding, al their miracles are nothing worth: First, because they serue to confirme vntruths as shalbe shewed, & therefore are not to be regarded. Secondly, because the vaine brag of manifold miracles amōg those that professe the name of Christ in these later times (wherein miracles need not for the confirmatiō of Gods truth, which heretofore hath bin sufficiētly cōfirmed) is so farre frō being a note of the true church, as that rather it is a plaine signe of false teachers, & an euident marke of the Synagogue of Antichrist. For their owne deuises indeed & doctrines of men do stil need signes & won­ders to cōfirme thē. But the truth of the gospell which we pro­fesse hath bin sufficiently confirmed by the miracles of our Sa­uiour Christ, & of his Apostles and Disciples. Whosoeuer ther­fore will not beleeue this doctrine, thus cōfirmed, neither will he beleeue though one should rise frō the dead to preach vnto Luke. 16. him. Againe miracles are graunted not for the beleeuers, but for thē that liue in infidelity. And as Augustine saith, Quisquis Tharasius in cōcil. Nicen. 2. adhuc prodigia, vt credat, inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium, qui mundo credeme nō credit: Whosoeuer yet seeketh after won­ders that hee may beleeue, is himselfe a great wonder, who when De ciuit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. the worlde beleeueth, doth not beleeue. And therfore in another place he saith, Contra istos mirabiliarios cautum me fecit Deus meus &c. Against these miraclemongers my God hath made Tract. 13. in Ioan. me wary, saying, There shall arise in the last daies false prophets working signes & wonders, that they might bring into errour, if it were possible, the very elect. Likewise Chrysostome, or whoso­euer Chrysost homil. 49. in Matth. was the authour of those learned Homilies vpon Mat­thew in the 49. Homily (where hee proueth that the true Church of Christ cannot now bee knowne or discerned by signes or other meanes, but onely by the Scriptures) hee saith, that now the working of signes and wonders is alto­gether taken away (namely among the true professours) and and the working of counterfeit miracles is more found among false Christians. And that, Peter in the history of Clement de­clareth, [Page 108] that vnto Antichrist shalbe graunted the power of wor­king full, that is to say, profitable signes, So that now wee cannot knowe the ministers of Christ by this that they worke profitable signes, but because they worke no signes at all. And the Papists themselues confesse, yea Bellarmine would seeme to set it downe as one of his grounds, that to Antichrist and his follow­ers shalbe graunted the power of working many and great signes and wonders. And therefore vnlesse the Pope and his followers did vaūt of their miracles, we should want one good argument to proue the Pope Antichrist. And thus it appea­reth that the first point concerning the miracles of Antichrist doth fitte the Pope, and so fit him, as that from hence he may be proued Antichrist. For vnto whomsoeuer in these latter times this properly and onely belongeth, to boast of their myracles, they are Antichrist and the synagogue of Antichrist. For the scrip­tures haue foretold that by Antichrist and his adherents many signes and wonders should bee wrought in these latter times. But to the Pope & church of Rome in these latter times this pro­perly and onely belongeth to vaunt of their manifold and great myracles. For the Iewes want them: the Turkes disclaime thē, professing that their religion must be propagated not by mira­cles but by force & armes. All other Christians which already beleeue the trueth, seeke not signes which they know among true beleeuers to be superfluous, and in others to be badges of Antichrist; therefore the Pope is Antichrist and the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist.

3. The second thing which the Scripture noteth, is, what maner of myracles they are which Antichrist was to worke. This the Apostle (saith Bellarmine) declareth in one worde, when hee calleth them Lying wonders, or as the wordes are, [...] signes and wonders of lying, that is most ly­ing 2. Thess. 2. 9. signes and wonders. Now they are called lying wonders either in respect of the end, which is to seduce men by confir­ming vntrueths; or in regarde of their substaunce, which is counterfeit. And thus Chrysostome expoundeth the words of th'apostle, [...], and he In 2. Thess. 2. saith lying wonders, that is either false and counterfeit, or else [Page 109] leading into falshood. Augustine likewise reciteth these two expositions, that they are called lying signes and wonders, be­cause De ciuit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19. he shall deceiue the senses of mortall men by counterfeite shewes and appearances, that he may seeme to doe that which hee doth not: or else because howsoeuer they shall bee true wonders, they shall drawe vnto lyes such as shall beleeue that they could not be done but by the power of God, not knowing the power of the diuell &c. First I say they are called lying signes in respect of the ende, which is to seduce men Mat. 24. 24. to make them beleeue lyes and to deceiue them 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Apoc. 13. 14. For this is the end whereunto the signes and wonders not onely of Antichrist, but of all false prophets, are referred Deut. 13. 1. 2. Out of which places of scripture we are to ob­serue that the Lord many times suffereth false prophets and Antichrists to worke strange signes and wonders for the triall of the faithfull, and seducing of those that will not beleeue the truth that they might be saued. If there arise among you (saith the Lord) a prophet or dreamer of dreames, and giue thee a signe Deut. 13. 1. 2. 3 & wonder, and the signe & wonder which he hath told thee, come to passe, saying, let vs goe after other Gods which thou hast not knowne, and let vs serue them: thou shalt not hearken vnto the words of the prophet, or vnto that dreamer of dreames. For the Lord your God proueth you, to know whether you loue the Lord your God with all your soule, and with all your heart &c. Our Sa­uiour Christ also hath forewarned vs, that in these latter times Mat. 24. 24. there shall arise false Christs and false prophets which shall shew great signes and wonders, so that if it were possible they should de­ceiue euen the very elect. In like sort, the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. no­teth that the comming of Antichrist shall be according to the 2. Thess. 2. 9. 10. efficacie of Satan in all power and lying signes and wonders, and in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse in them that perish &c. on whome God shall sende the efficacie of deceipt that they may beleeue lyes. Likewise Iohn the diuine prophe­cieth Apoc. 13. 13. 14. of Antichrist that he should do great wonders, whereby he should deceiue them that dwell on the earth. Hereby therfore it is euident, that false prophets and Antichrists many times haue power to worke great signes and wonders, not onelie in [Page 110] shewe and appearāce, but in deed and in truth. Whereby they, indeauouring to deceiue all and to make them belieue lies, are permitted both in the iustice of God to seduce the wicked, & in his mercy to try the faithfull. And therefore signes & won­ders as they haue not alwayes bin signes & tokens of true tea­chers & professors of the truth, but onely then when they haue Miracles are diuine testimo­nies whereby the Lord doth beare witnesse to his truth. Heb. 2. 4. bin wrought for the cōfirmation of the truth: So in these later times, the same being wrought for confirmation of vntruthes are vndoubted signes of the synagogue of Antichrist.

4 Let vs then consider whether such signes and wonders be wrought in the church of Rome. It is recorded of Gregory the 7. who was the first of the Popes which was openly acknow­ledged to be Antichrist, that as he was a notable sorcerer, so he wrought many signes and wonders: & among the rest he vsed to shake fire out of his sleeues. And of his votaryes, after he had forbidden mariage in the clergy, Auentinus writeth that vpon that occasion many false prophets did as it were cast mists, and by Annal. Boior. lib. 4. fables and miracles did turne away the people of Christ from the truth. And againe, False prophets did then arise, false Apostles, false priests, who by counterfeite religion deceiued the people, lib. 5. wrought great signes and wonders, and began to sit in the temple of God, and to bee aduanced aboue all that is worshipped. And while they endeuour to establish their owne power and dominion they haue extinguished Christian charity & simplicity. And since those times the church of Rome hath much boasted of her ma­nifold miracles, which haue beene partly deuised and partly wrought for the confirmation of such Antichristian doctrines & idolatrous superstitions as cannot be cōfirmed by the scrip­tures: as namely the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, and adoration of the breaden God, the heathenish doctrine of pur­gatory, and superstitious prayer for the dead: the idolatrous inuocation and worshipping of Saints, the more then heathe­nish adoration of images & rotten reliques: the Antichristian aduancing of the Pope aboue all that is called God or wor­shipped: and such like doctrines of diuels & lyes of Antichrist, for the confirmation whereof the miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome haue bin inuented. But how many miracles [Page 111] soeuer they produce for the countenancing of such vntruthes, they are so many arguments to proue their church Antichristi­an, & their Pope Antichrist. Because as Antichrist and his fol­lowers were in these latter times to abound with signes & wō ­ders, but alwayes such as serue to lead mē into error: so neither Turks nor Iewes, nor any other churches of Christians, but on­ly the Pope and church of Rome, do vaunt of miracles: and yet all their miracles are such as serue to deceiue men, & to make them beleeue vntruthes. And therefore although they were in respect of their substāce neither counterfeit nor fabulous (as in deed the most of the miracles in the church of Rome are) yet were they to be esteemd as notes & signes of false prophets & Antichrists, because their end is to seduce mē, & confirme lyes.

5 Secondly they are called lying signes in respect of the sub­stance, being (as Augustine speaketh) vel figmenta mendacium De vnitat. eccl. 16. hominū, vel portenta fallaciū spirituū, either fictions of lying men, or wonders of deceipt full spirits. And such are the miracles whereby the aforesaide points of Poperie are warranted and confirmed. And of them there are three degrees. For many of them were such fabulous fictions, ridiculous fables, incredible lyes, (whereof their legends and festiualls are full,) as none would euer beleeue, were they not intoxicated, & made drunk with the whore of Bylons cuppe of fornications, and also giuen ouer of God to beleeue lyes. And these loud lyes and more then poeticall fictions were in such request in the church of Rome, that the records of them (I meane their legends & festi­ualls and such like fabulous treatises) were both publickly and priuately read in the vulgar tongue, whē as the holy scriptures were kept frō the people in an vnknown lāguage. The 1. degree then is of such miracles as neuer were indeed, nor yet in appa­rānce, but in the opiniō only of men besotted & giuen ouer to beleue incredible vntruths. The 2. is of such as were phātastical & in apparāce only as being crafty cōueiāces of deceitful men, or iugling tricks of legerdemaine. As for example, the nodding or mouing, the smiling or frowning, the sweating or speaking of images, the apparitiōs of souls deceased, the manifold cures supposed to be wrought by saints departed or their images & [Page 112] & such like. For of these two sorts there be innumerable won­ders recorded, in their legends and festiualls & liues of Saints, which are either altogether fabulous, as beeing reports of things which neuer were not so much as in apparāce [...]or if any such things haue bene done in the sight of men, they haue bin either praestigiatory conueyances of wicked men, or mere illu­sions of the diuell. The third degree is of such as were lying miracles in respect of the forme (as Bellarmine speaketh) al­though true in respect of the matter. For howsoeuer they were things truely done, yet they surpassed not the whole strength of nature: whereas true miracles are supernaturall, neither can bee wrought by any naturall causes whether knowne or vn­known, but onely by the omnipotent power of God. And such lying signes are the principall miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome. Neither is the Pope and al his adherents a­ble to produce any one true miracle wrought by the finger of God for the confirmation of those doctrines which are pecu­lier to that church, that is, to speake more plainelie, for the proofe of any point of popery. But all their miracles as they are lying signes and wonders in respect of their ende, so also in re­gard of their substance, being either merely fabulous and ther­fore such things as neuer were not so much as in shewe and ap­paraunce: or merely phantasticall, that is such things as were in shewe onely and not in truth: or merely natural and therefore but counterfeite miracles effected by the power of the di­uell.

6 Some of their owne writers confesse, that sometimes there is great deceiuing of the people in fained miracles by the Nicol. Lyran. in Daniel. 14. priests and their adherents for temporall gaine. And another saith, in the sacrament appeareth flesh, sometimes by the conuey­ance of men, sometimes by the operation of the diuell. I once did Alexander de Hales. see an image of Saint Nicolas as it was said, when it with ma­ny others was burnt in the market place at Chester by the ap­pointment of my father then Bishoppe there, which was made with such a deuise that if one standing behind did pull a cer­taine string which was in the back part thereof, it would moue the hand as if it blessed the people. But that it may appeare that [Page 113] in the Church of Rome were lying miracles, and that the Po­pish people were giuen ouer to beleeue lyes, I will for a taste recite a fewe examples out of their owne records. Their Gol­den Legend (so called because as gold excelleth all other met­tals so that Booke Viz. in lying. excelleth all other bookes) in the inuentiō of the body of S. Fremin the martyr, reporteth that after the Sunne had miraculously sent his beames through a stone wall vpon the graue, and thereupon they had digged there to find the body, there issued thence such a sweet smel as they weened they had beene in Paradise. Which odour spread it selfe not onely through the citie of Amiens where the body lay, but al­so vnto diuerse other cities. The sweetnesse whereof as it mo­ued the people of diuerse cities to bring their oblations to this glorious Saint: so it cured some a farre off (as the Lord of Bau­gency) from their diseases. But when this body was taken vp and caried in the citie of Amiens, straunge wonders were wrought. For then (that I may vse the wordes of the English Legend) the elemēts them moued, by the miracle of this Saint. The snow, that was that time great on the earth, was turned in­to powder and dust by the heat that was then: and the yse that hung on the trees became flowers and leaues: and the medowes a­bout Amiens flowred & became greene. And the Sunne which by his nature should goe lowe that day, ascended as high as shee is on S. Iohns day at noone in the s [...]mmer. And as men bare the body of this Saint, the trees enclined and worshipped the body, & all maner sicke men of what malady they had, they receiued health in the inuention of the blessed body of S. Fremin &c. In the Legend of S. Patricke the Irish Saint, by whose praier forsooth all venemous beastes were banished out of Ireland (for you may not thinke it was so before) wee read and reading smile, that on a time a sheepe being stollen, hee admonished all the people that whosoeuer had stollen it should within seuen daies restore it to the owner. The 7. daies being expired, the sheepe was not restored. Then (saith the Legend) S. Patricke com­maunded by the vertue of God, that the sheepe should bleate and crie in the belly of him that had eaten it. And so it happened that in the presence of all the people the sheepe cried and bleated [Page 114] in the belly of him that had stollen it.

7. In the Legend of the Annunciation of our Lady, wee are told of a noble Knight, who betooke himselfe vnto an Ab­bey: and because hee was vnlearned, there was a Master as­signed vnto him. But either hee was so dull or the inuenter of the tale so doltish, that in a long time hee could learne no more but these two words, Aue Maria. Which words as he alwaies had in his mouth whiles he was aliue, so they grew out of his mouth when hee was dead. For these wordes (saith the Legend) he had so sore imprinted in his heart that alwaies hee had them in his mouth, wheresoeuer hee was. At the laste hee died, and was buried in the Church-yarde of the brethren. It happened after that vpon his graue their grew a right faire Flowre de lyce, and in euery flower was written in letters of gold Aue Maria. Of which miracle all the brethren were marueyled, and they did open the sepulchre, and found that the roote of this Flowredelyce came out of the mouth of the said Knight, and anou they vnderstood, that our Lord would haue him honoured for the great deuotion he had to say these wordes, Aue Maria. Likewise in the booke of the conformities of S. Francis, which Booke I could wishe were more common, that Popery might appeare vnto all in her colours, there is a miracle recorded for the proofe of transubstantiation; that on a time frier Fraun­cis saying Masse did finde a spider in the Chalice, which hee would not cast out but drunke it vp with the blood. After­ward rubbing his thigh, & scratching where it itched, the spi­der came whole out of his thigh without any harme to either. But if the bread and wine after consecration bee turned into the very body and bloud of Christ, then more maruellous and I am sure more true is the story of victor the Pope, and An. 1154. Wil­liam Archbishop of Yorke, and Henry of Lucemburgh the Emperour, all which were poisoned, the two first with that which was in the Chalice, and the Emperour with the hoste which a Monke had poisoned. And to these many more worthy miracles of the Church of Rome may be added. But you-will say, that howsoeuer their are many miracles where­in the Church of Rome glorieth, yet notwithstanding those [Page 115] speciall miracles which are assigned to Antichrist in the Scrip­tures, haue not beene wrought by the Pope or any of his fol­lowers.

8. This is indeed the third thing which Bellarmine obser­ueth, that whereas there are three examples of Antichrist his miracles, specified in the Scriptures: yet none of them haue bene wrought either by the Pope or any other in the church of Rome. But I answere, that of these three miracles one a­greeth not to Antichrist, as shalbe shewed hereafter, and the Lib. 2. cap. 15. other two agree to the Pope. For howsoeuer Bellarmine and other Papists from these groundes doe argue, that the Pope The authour of the Ward­word. is not Antichrist: yet from thence may the contrary be ga­thered. The former of these miracles is, that Antichrist or at least his ministers shall make fire come downe from heauen. The second, that hee shall cause the image of the beast to Apoc. 13. 13. speake. These two miracles Bellarmine vnderstandeth literal­ly, and from thence argueth thus; Antichrist or his ministers, shall make fire come downe from heauen, and shall cause the i­mage of the beast to speake. But neither the Pope of Rome at any time, nor any of his followers haue caused fire to come downe from heauen, nor yet made the image of the beast to speake, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The argument is groun­ded on Apoc. 13. 13. literally vnderstood. For such is the absurde peruersenesse of the Papistes, that in other partes of Scripture which are simple and playne they doe hunt af­ter mysticall and allegoricall sences: but in this Booke of the Reuelation which is moste mysticall and allegoricall, without all reason they insiste in the literall sence. As for ex­ample in that thirtenth chapter, where the holy Ghost spea­keth of the marke of the beast, which the followers of Anti­christ should receiue on their foreheads & on their right hāds, they grossely vnderstande this of a reall and visible marke wherewithall men of all sortes should suffer themselues to bee branded as the slaues or cattell of Antichrist. Where the ho­ly Ghost speaketh of the image of the beast, which Antichrist puttoth life into and causeth to speake, they vnderstand it of a materiall image animated and made to speake. Where the [Page 116] holy Ghost speaketh of fire to come downe from heauen, they vnderstande it of materiall fire brought downe from heauen. Which course whosoeuer followeth in expoūding the prophecies in the Reuelation, must neuer looke to see them verified in the euent. The which I speake, not that literally they doe not agree to the Pope, but because (the mysticall sence being the more like to bee true) our aduersarie groun­deth his argument wholy vpon the literall interpretation. But I will make it plaine that both these miracles agree to the Pope not onely in the mysticall sence, but also in the literall. And to that purpose let vs consider these miracles se­uerally.

9. And first as touching that of fire, which Antichrist shall cause to descende from heauen, if it bee literally vn­derstood, you shall perceiue that it agreeth to the Pope, be­cause in diuerse Popish miracles there hath beene (as they say) fire brought downe from heauen. But seing the place is ra­ther to bee vnderstood mystically and allegorically, as well as other prophecies of the Reuelation: wee are not therefore by the comming downe of fire to vnderstand literally a reall des­cending of materiall fire, but that which mystically in the Scriptures is meant by the cōming downe of fire from hea­uen. You are therefore to bee infourmed that descending of fire from heauen, in the Scriptures signifieth three thinges: 1. Gods approuing of the religion and sacrifices of his ser­uaunts: 2. His sending downe of the graces of his spirit vpon his children: 3. His vengeaunce executed from heauen vpon his enemies. For the first, it is cleare that the Lorde infor­mer times vsed to testifie his approbation of the religion and sacrifices of his seruaunts, by sending fire from Hea­uen to consume their sacrifice: in which respect hee is said to answere them by fire from heauen. Leuit. 9. 24 1. Chron, 21. 26. 2. Chron. 7. 1. wherunto some adde Gen. 4, 4. Iud. 13. 19. Whē as therfore the people of Israel halted between Iehouah and Baal [...] Elias to proue that Iehouah whom he worshipped was the true God, and his worship the true religion; by praier miraculously caused fire to come downe frō heauen to cōsume [Page 117] the sacrifice, 1. King. 18. 38. Whosoeuer therefore doth by such signes and wonders confirm that doctrine and religion which 1. King. 18. 38 he professeth, as though God aunswered him by fire from hea­uen, he may be said to cause fire to descend from heauen, in the sight and opinion of men; who thinke such miracles to bee wrought by the finger of God, according to this example of Elias, that is, so to haue confirmed his religion in the opinion of men, as if hee had with Elias fetched fire from heauen. If therfore the Pope of Rome or his ministers haue, by as strange signes and wonders in the opinion of men, confirmed their re­ligion, as though God from heauen approued thereof, as hee was woont to signifie his approbation in answering by fire frō heauen: they may be sayd to haue made fire to come down from heauen, although they neuer had caused materiall fire to descend. But if besides many other strange signes and won­ders which they call miracles, they haue confirmed their su­perstitious religion and Antichristian doctrines by bringing fire from heauen; then can it not be denyed but that this place doth most fullie and properly agree vnto them. But you must remember how Saint Iohn saith in the sight of men, not that they haue done so indeede, but only that they haue made men beleeue so.

10 As for example, to proue that their sacrament of the al­tar after the words of consecration is the very body of Christ, and to be worshipped no otherwise then Christ himselfe, wee haue a narration in their festiuall which was wont solemnelie to be read in the church on Corpus Christi day: the words whereof I will recite vnto you. Also we find (say they) that in Deuonshire beside Exbridge was a woman lay sick and was nigh dead, and sent after a holy person about midnight to haue her rights. Than this man in all hast that he might, arose and went to the church, and tooke God [...] body in a box of Iuor [...], and put it in­to his bosome, and went foorth towards this woman. And as hee went through a forest i [...] a faire m [...]de that was next his way, it happened that his box fello [...] of his bosome into the ground: and he went forth and wist it not and came to this woman and hearde her confession. And then hee asked her if she would be houseled, [Page 118] and she said, yea sir. Then he put his hand in his bosome & sought the box. And when he found it not, he was full sorie and sadde. And saide, dame, I will goe after Gods bodie and come anon agine to you, and so went foorth sore weeping for his simple­nesse. And so as hee came to a willow tree hee made thereof a rodde, and stripped himselfe naked, and beat himselfe that the bloud ranne downe by his sides, and saide thus to himselfe; Ah thou simple man! Why hast thou lost thy Lorde God, thy maker, thy former and creatour? And when hee had thus beate himselfe, hee did on his clothes and went on foorth. And then hee was aware of a pillar of fire that lasted from earth to heauen, and hee was all astonied thereof, yet hee blessed himselfe and went thereto. And there lay the sacrament fal­len out of the boxe into the grasse, and the pillar shone as bright as any Sunne, and it lasted from Gods bodie to heauen. And all the beastes of the forrest were com [...]n about Gods bodie, and stoode in compasse round about it, and all kneeled on foure knees, saue one black horse that kneeled but on that one knee. And that blacke horse was a feend of hell, who had turned himselfe into that shape that men might steale him, as diuerse had done and were hanged for him, &c. If any man obiect that all this narration is a foolish fiction, I aun­swere that this was as verilie beleeued as it was solemnelie read. And therefore to countenaunce their abominable i­dole of the masse, they haue in the sight, that is, in the iudge­ment, opinion, and beliefe of men, caused fire to come downe from heauen that it might point out the body, & from it reach to heauen.

11 To winne credite to such Saints as they haue cano­nized, and consequently to cause men the more deuoutlie to pray vnto them, to adore their images and reliques, to goe on pilgrimage to them, they haue coyned in the life or legend almost of euerie Saint, straunge and incredible miracles. And this is the ordinarie conclusion of many le­gendes, Then let vs pray to this worthie Saint, or glorious martyr, that he will pray to God for vs, [...]hat by his merites we may haue pardon and forgiuenesse of o [...]r sinnes, or something [Page 119] to the like effecte. Wee reade of diuerse of their Saints, who when they haue beene beheaded haue caried their Saint Iustinian the monke. Saint Osi [...]a. Saint Fulcien and Saint Vic­torice. heads in their hands, some one mile, some two miles. And it is a wonder that, hasting from so sharpe a banquet, they did not leaue their heades behind them for haste. Among manie other miracles they tell vs of fire also which they haue caused to come downe from heauen in the sight, that is iudgement and opinion, of men besotted and giuen ouer to beleeue their monstruous vntruthes. In the life of Pro­the and Iacinct, they make fire to come downe from hea­uen to kill Melancy the false accuser of Eugenne. They haue brought downe a pillar of fire reaching from heauen vnto the earth where the bodie of Saint Edward the Martyr lay. Vpon the head of Saint Martin as hee was saying masse they haue fetched downe a tongue of fire from heauen to make him equall as they say to the Apostles. In the fable of Saint George they make fire to come downe from heauen to burne the idoles with their temple and priestes. In the life of Barbara wee reade that when her owne father beeing her persecutour had drawne his sworde to slay her, shee was miraculouslie taken vp in a stone and caried into a moun­taine; where two shepheades were feeding their sheepe. And when one of them had bewraied her to her father, and shee in her charitie had cursed him, anone his sheepe became locustes and hee consumed into a stone. Then her father hauing apprehended her deliuered her to the iudge, who put her to death. Whereupon they bring downe fire from heauen to consume her father. Their doctrine of purgatorie and prayer for the dead, is confirmed by ma­nie wonders and strange apparitions of soules departed, beg­ging masses for their deliuerance out of purgatorie. And in like manner it is reported that when Birstan the Bishoppe of Winchester staying all night in the churchyard, as his manner was, said ouer his psalmes for the soules departed, comming to these words requ [...]scant in pace let them rest in peace, he heard the voice of an infinit number out of the graues crying, Amen. But to this purpose also in their legend they haue made fire [Page 120] to descend from heauen. When as they tell vs of a certaine Bishoppe, who, appearing in the clouds of heauen to another here vpon earth, did let some fire drop vpon him to giue him a tast of the torments in purgatorie. Besides these examples ma­ny other might bee found if they were woorth the seeking in their fabulous writings, as also in some other of their storyes which testifie that diuerse times in the church of Rome, fire hath beene brought downe from heauen. But these which I Ioan. Linturius in appead. ad fascic. tempor. haue recited may suffice: in seeking and setting downe wher­of I should haue thought my time and paines not wel bestow­ed (such are the ridiculous fooleries of popery, wherewith the churches in the time of darknesse haue beene pestered) sauing that I considered that the more incredible the report is of Po­pish miracles, the more euidently it is proued, both that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists the followers of Antichrist, vpon whome God hath sent strong illusions that they might beleeue lyes. In the first sence therefore the prophecy Reuel. 13. doth fitte the Pope and church of Rome, who by greate signes and wonders do so confirme their Antichristian errours and superstitions in the sight, that is, in the iudgement, opinion, and beliefe of men besotted and made drunke with the whore of Babylons cuppe of fornications, as though God did seeme to approoue thereof in aunswering by fire from heauen. And this interpretation seemeth to be confirmed by the words; for it is not directly said that Antichrist should cause fire to come downe from heauen, but onely thus, that he doth great signes, insomuch that fire descendeth from heauē in the sight of men. That is, insomuch that in the iudgement of men God seemeth to answere him by fire from heauen, and to beare witnesse to his doctrines by miracles wrought by the finger of God.

12 But descending of fire signifieth also the bestowing of the grace of Gods spirit which is called fire Mat. 3. 11. Act. 2. 3. In which sence the Pope may bee saide to make fire come downe from heauen, but wee must adde before men, that is in their opinion and conceipt. For he forsooth, as the church of Rome beleeueth, giueth not onely the graces of the spirite to men, but also the power of sanctification both to men and also [Page 121] to some creatures of his owne, as to his Ag [...] Del, and his holy water sprinckle &c. And in this sence doth Primasius expound this place. Thirdly, the comming downe of fire sig­nifieth the wrathfull vengeaunce of God executed vpon his e­nemies, which often in the Scriptures is called fire, to wit, the Apoc. 20. 9. fire of Gods wrath. As Elias therefore brought fire from heauen to consume the two Captaines and their fifties: so Antichrist, according to this interpretation, shall with a di­uine reuenge, as it were with fire from heauen, take vengeance vpon his aduersaries, but here also we must adde before men, who shall thinke that those against whom Antichrist shal send the thunderbolt of his wrath, are punished with a Diuine re­uenge, and as it were with fire from heauen. This also is veri­fied of the Pope of Rome, who with a diuine reuenge (as he forsooth is Deus vindictae, The God of reuenge) pursueth his R. Cupers. de eccl. pag. 61. num. 52. enemies, but especially with the thunderbolt of excommuni­cation as themselues doe call it. Which as it is terribly sent from this Iupiter of Rome, so is it fearefully executed with Gregor. 7. in e­p [...]st. ad Ger­man. apud A­uentin. lib. 5. putting out and casting downe of lights from aboue, as if the fire of Gods wrath were at their commaunde, or as if with Gregory the seuenth they could shake it out of their sleeues. And well may this be reckened among the wonders of Anti­christ. For it were more then a wonder, that Kings and Empe­rours should by excommunications from the Pope bee either so daunted in themselues or abandoned of their subiectes as some haue beene, but that the Popes haue professed and their followers haue beleeued, that God himselfe doth whatsoeuer is done by the Pope, who being Canonically elected is a God vpon earth, and hath the same consistory and iudgement seate with God himselfe, whose vicar he would seeme to be; & con­sequently that those Kings and Emperours were deposed of God, who were excommunicated by the Pope: whereas o­ther Princes and people that are not made drunke with the cuppe of their fornications haue esteemed their bulles of ex­cōmunication as Bullas that is bubbles, & the fire of vengeāce which they cause to descend in the sight of men, as painted fire, or as the thunder and lightning of Salmoneus, who (as the [Page 122] Poet describeth him not vnlike to the Pope) Flammas Iouis Aeneid. 6. & sonitus imitatur Olympi, Imitateth the lightenings of Iupi­ter, and the thunder of heauen. But howsoeuer it is, whether this descending of fire from heauen is to be vnderstood literal­ly or mystically, the prophecy of the holy Ghost concerning this first miracle of Antichrist is verified of the Pope and church of Rome, who haue caused fire to come downe frō heauen according to the literall sence: & according to the al­legoricall interpretation they haue so confirmed their doc­trines by signes & wonders, as if God had answered them by fire from heauen: and secondly they haue taken vpon them to bring downe the fire of Gods spirite, and to bestowe his grace as it pleaseth them: and lastly, they haue according to the example of Elias with a diuine reuenge & as it were with fire from heauen, taken vengeaunce of their enimies; not to speake of his punishing with fire all those that will not adore him.

13. And thus much may suffice to haue spoken of the first miracle. The second miracle (saith Bellarmine) is, that Antichrist or his ministers shall make the image of the beast to speake. But neuer Pope nor any minister of his did make an image to speake: therefore, saith hee, the Pope is not An­tichrist. But I answere that this prophecie euen according to the Popishe interpretation agreeth to the Pope and his followers, among whom it hath beene an vsuall practise to put life as it were into images in the sight and opinion of simple men, making them to sweate, to smile, to srowne, to nodde, to becke and many times to speake, which might happē with­out a miracle, for the Diuels sometimes did speake in the i­mages of the Heathen. Notwithstanding wee are not after a Popishe, that is to say, a grosse maner, but after a propheticall and spirituall maner to vnderstand this mysticall prophecy of the holy Ghost concerning the image of the beast. For if wee vnderstand the beast it selfe mystically, as needes wee must, or else wee shall make but a beastly interpretation of it: so wee are in like sort to expound the image of the beast with the life and speach thereof. The beast it selfe signifieth the Roman [...] state especially vnder the Heathenish Emperours as hath bene [Page 123] shewed. The image therefore of the beast must signifie a state which hath some resemblaunce thereof, or at least the name and title of the Romane Empire, (as images beare the name of that which they resemble) and is indeed but an image thereof. Thus, besides the Popes courts both in Rome and o­ther countreys, is the Empire renewed in the West, which besides the name and some titles and ornaments hath little or nothing of the olde Empire. For the old Empire consisted in the gouernment of Rome and the prouinces thereunto be­longing, none of which the Emperour hath as a Soueraigne Prince by right of the Empire, and therefore is said to bee the beast which was and is not though it be, being indeed, as it is Apoc. 17. here called, but an image of the former beast. The life of this Empire is the imperiall dignity, and the speach are his edicts. Whosoeuer therfore caused this Empire, which in the west had lien void 325. yeares, to be renewed: whosoeuer at the first cre­ated this Emperour, & since hath taken order for the electiō of the Emperour, & cōfirmeth the electiō, he may be said to haue caused the image of the beast to be made, & to haue put life in­to it, & to haue procured authority vnto it, wherby it speaketh.

14. Now to whom all this is to bee applied, let Bellarmine himselfe be iudge. For he, in his bookes De translatione imperij Romani, by many testimonies laboureth to proue, first, that the Empire of Rome was translated, but he might better haue said renewed, in the West, and as it were reuiued by the authority of the Pope, and that Charles the great in whom this Empire was renewed, receiued the same by no other title but by the authority of the Pope. And that is the summe of his first booke. Secondly, that the Empire of Rome was translated from the family of Charles the great, and from the French nation to the family of Otho, and the nation of the Saxons and Germanes, and that Otho was aduaunced to the Em­pire by the Pope: which is the scope of the second Booke. Thirdly, that the seuen Electours of the Empire were ordai­ned and appointed by the Pope, which is the argument of his third booke. And in his first booke he setteth downe the state Chap. 4. of that controuersie thus: the question is (saith he) who is the [Page 124] authour of this trāslation (or rather renouation: for the Empe­rour of the East continued after vntil the yeare 1452. & before this time had by the Popes meanes lost his right in Italy and Rome, & therfore nothing was trāslated but the name & title) & who it was that gaue the name dignity & power of the Ro­mane Emperour, and Caesar Augustus in the west, to Charles the great & his successors. We answer (saith he) that which the cōsent of al nations proclaimeth, that Pope Leo 3. was either the only or the chiefe and principall authour of this translation: & that the Dutch nation is to acknowledge the receipt of the Empire from the Pope. Vnto the testimony of Bellarmine & of all those au­thours whom he citeth, we will adde the professiō of the Popes thēselues. Innocentius 3. saith, the 7. Electours had their autho­rity, Decret. Grego­rian. de electi­one. c. venera­bilem. ab Apostolica sede, quae Romanū imperiū in persona magnifi­ci Caroli à Graecis trāstulit in Germanos, From the See Aposto­lick which trāslated the Romane Empire in the person of Charles the great frō the Grecians to the Germanes. Vpon which trans­lation saith Bellarmine, The Romane commonweale returned a­gaine De trāslat. im­per. li. 1. cap. 4. to the same state wherein Constantine the great established it, & wherein it remained frō Valentinian the elder, vnto Augu­stulus. Likewise Adrian 4. The Romane Empire, saith he, was Ad archiep. Treuir. Mo­guntin. & A­grippin. apud Auentin. lib. 6. translated frō the Greekes to the Almaines, that the king of the Almaines should not be called Emperour before he were crowned of the Pope. Before his consecration he is king, after he is Empe­rour. Vnde igitur habet imperiū nisi à nobis? From whence then hath he the Empire but from vs? By the election of his princes he hath the name of a king: by our consecration he hath the name of Emperour, Augustus, & Caesar. Ergo per nos imperat. Therfore he is Emperour by vs. Call to mind Antiquities. Zacharias aduāced Charies and gaue him a great name that he should be Emperour &c. Imperator quod habet, totum habet à nobis. What soeuer the Emperour hath, that hee hath wholy from vs. As Zacharias translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Almaines; so wee can translate it from the Almaines to the Graecians. Ecce in po­testa [...] nostra est, vt demus illud cui volumus. Behold it is in our power to giue it to whome we will. For therefore are we appointed of God ouer nations and kingdomes, to destroy and pluck vp, to build [Page 125] and to plan [...]. In the Clementines it is professed that the Pope Cap. Romani de iureiu­ran do. hath trāslated the Empire from the Greeks to the Germaines: that he hath giuen power and authoritie to certaine of their princes to elect a king to be Emperour: that the king thus cho­sen receiueth from the Pope the approbation of his person vn­to the Empire, as also his annointing, consecration, and impe­riall crowne: and that in respect hereof the Emperors are to submit themselues vnto the Pope, and to bind themselues vnto him by an oath of fealtie and obedience. And elsewhere in their lawe it is said, Imperator tenet imperium a Papa, vnde te­netur praestare iuramentum homagij scil. quod vasallus praestare solet domino suo. The Emperor holdeth his Empire from the Pope. Whereupon, hee is bound to performe the oath of homage, to wit, which the vassall vseth to performe vnto his Lord.

15 Thus therefore this argument is returned vpon the ad­uersary. Whosoeuer causeth the image of the beast to be made, put­teth life into it and causeth it to speake, he is vndoubtedly An­tichrist: But the Pope of Rome hath caused the image of the beast to be made, put teth life into it, & causeth it to speake, ther­fore he is Antichrist. The assumption is proued, because the i­mage of the beast is the Empire renewed in the west: the life is the imperiall dignity, and the speeche are the edictes thereof. This image the Pope causeth to be made, this hee putteth life into, this he hath made to speake. For first he renewed the Em­pire in the west, after it had lyen voide by the space of 325. yeares, when hee annointed and crowned Charles the greate Emperour of the west, & so caused him to be acknowledged: after he translated the Empire to the Almaines, among whom he hath appointed seauen electours as it were to renewe this image, but so as himselfe putteth life thereinto, by approuing the person and ratifying the election, & maketh him to speake by annointing him Emperour and giuing vnto him the name and title of Augustus and Caesar. Which things I shal not need further to proue, because they are matters wherof the Pope and Papists do greatly boast. And therfore from their own professi­on we may conclude that the Pope is Antichrist.

Chap. 8. Of the name and marke which Antichrist shall impose vpon men of all sorts, with some other effectes.

1. THe second effect of Antichrist is noted Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. And hee Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. made all both small and great, rich and poore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in their right hand or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, saue hee that had the marke, or the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisedome: let him that hath vnder­standing count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundreth sixty and six. Of which prophecie Bellarmine saith thus. Fatentur omnes pertinere om­nino Lib. 3. de pon­tis. Rom. c. 10. ad Antichristum verba illa Ioannis Apoc. 13, &c. All men confesse that those words of Iohn Apoc. 13. doe vndoubtedly be­long to Antichrist. From this ground therefore we may reason thus. Whosoeuer enforceth all sorts of men according to this pro­phecie to take vpon them the name of the beast, or the marke or number of his name, he is Antichrist: But the Pope of Rome en­forceth all sorts of men according to this prophecy to take vpon them the name of the beast, or the mark and number of his name: therefore he is Antichrist. For the clearing of this argument, two things are to be cōsidered. First, what this name, number, and marke is: Secondly, whether the Pope impose the same vp­pon all sorts of men. The number is expressed in the text, to be 666. And it is plainelie saide to bee the number of the name. That we may not thinke it to be the number of the time when Antichrist should appeare as some haue imagined: neither can it in any good sence bee said that Antichrist inforceth men to take vpon them the number of that time. And it is called the [Page 127] number of the name, because in the letters of the name this number is contained. For it is the maner of the Hebrewes and Greekes to vse their letters for notes of number, according to their order in the Alphabet &c. it is also called the nūber of a man, because (as it may seem) the name of the beast, cōtaining this number, is also the name of a man. And this I take to bee the most simple interpretation.

2 What the name is wherof the holy ghost here speaketh, it may easily be gathred out of the text. For 1. the holy ghost doth not speak of Antichrist his name properly, but of the name of the beast which Antichrist should cause al sorts of men to take vpon them. If therefore we know what the beast is, it will not be hard to tell what the name is. The beast whose name Anti­christ shall compel men to take vpon them, is the former beast described in the beginning of the chapter. For so it is said, that Antichrist the second beast, exerciseth the authority of the for­mer beast, that he causeth mē to worship the first beast whose v. 12. deadly woūd was healed: that he causeth an image to be made v. 14. to the beast, that he giueth spirit to the image of the beast, that v. 15. he suffereth none to buy or sel which haue not the name of the v. 17. beast: which cānot be vnderstood but of the former beast. Now that beast described in the former part of the chapt. is without doubt the Roman or Latin state, as hath bin proued heretofore & the Papists sōtimes cōfesse; the name wherof without questi on is Roman or Latin. If therfore the name Romane or Latin in the learned tōgues containe the nūber 666. then the name of the beast which Antichrist causeth men to take vpon them, is Roman or Latin. But in what lāguage are we to accoūt the nū ­ber of the beasts name? Surely either in Greeke which is most likely, because the reuelatiō was writtē in greek: or in Hebrew because the reuelatiō (as some think) was giuē in hebrew to S. Iohn being an Hebrewe borne: or else we may take the beasts name according to his own lāguage set down in Hebrew cha­racters, because the Latines doe not vse their letters as the He­brewes & Greeks do in numeratiō. For seeing we know what the beast it self is, we might wel take that name which fitteth this nūber any of these ways. Irenaeus (whose master Policarpus [Page 128] beene Saint Iohns disciple) reporteth, that those, who had seen Iohn, face to face, did teache, that the number of the name of Lib. 5. the beast according to the computation of the Greeks by the let­ters which be in it, shall containe 666. Hee therefore setteth downe three names in greeke letters contayning that number: in two whereof there is no shew of reason that either of them should be this name, seeing neither of them (I meane [...] & [...]) is the name of the beast. The third name, is [...], whereof hee writeth thus: Sed & [...] nomen sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum; & valde verisimile est. Quoniam ve­rissunum regnum hoc habet vocabulum, Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant. But the name Lateinos also containeth the num­ber 666. and it is verse likelie, because the most true kingdome hath this name. For they are Latines which now raigne. Which in effect is as much as if hee had saide, the name Latine is very likelie, because it hath the number 666. and is the name of the beaste which figureth verissimum regnum the most true king­dome, that is the Latin or Romane state. The name of the beast Apoc. 13. 7. therefore in greek contayning the number, is [...], that is to say Latine.

3. In Hebrew the beasts name comprehending that num­ber is [...] that is Romane. For the beastes name beeing a nowne or name collectiue, may indifferently, according to the maner of the Hebrewes, be vttered either in the Masculine or Foeminine gender. And the Foeminine termination doth bet­ter fitte the prophecy, not onely because it rendreth the iust number, but also because the beast as it is subiect to Antichrist beeing the adulterous Romane state, is elsewhere in the foemi­nine called the whore of Babylon, and the mother of fornica­tions. The most vsuall name of the beast in it owne language, that is, the Latine tongue, is Romanus, which in Hebrewe cha­racters is, as Master Foxe supposeth, [...] to the knowledge whereof as himselfe reporteth hee attained by earnest prayer. And that the name Latine or Romane in the learned tongues is the name whereof the holy ghost speaketh, it appeareth, be­cause euery thing here spoken of the name, agreeth fitly and properly thereunto. For first it is the name of the beast. Se­condly, [Page 129] is containeth the number 666, as may appeare by this supp [...]ion [...] Thirdly, it is such a name as he, to whom all other notes of An­tichrist doe agree, (I meane the Pope) enforceth men to take vpon them, as shalbe shewed. Fourthly, because the name La­tinus or Romanus is also the name of a man. For Latinus was one of the auncient Kings of Italy, and Romanus was one of the Popes. Wherefore I doubt not to conclude that the name is Romane or Latins in the learned tongues. For howsoeuer many others names may be produced which comprehend the number 666, yet either they are not the name of the beast, or are such names as Antichrist was not to impose vpon men. But Lib. 2. cap. 10. of this, more here after.

4. Now let vs see what that marke is whereof the holy Ghost speaketh. Chara [...]t or Character is as it were a cogni­zance & a note of difference wherby men of any profession, or religion, are knowne and distinguished from others. And it is partly in ward and partly outward. The inward is that which is imprinted in the soule: the outward is that which is either ex­pressed or receiued outwardly, as namely in the forehead, or in the right hand. In the forehead that is by outward profession, and in the right hand that is by operation, as the ordinary glose expoundeth. As for example, the character or marke of a chri­stian or seruant of Christ is subiectiō vnto Christ and acknow­ledgement of him to be our head & Sauiour. This inwardly is the grace of a true faith wrought in the soule by the finger of Gods spirit, wherby we beleeue in Christ our sauiour. For those that truly beleeue are sealed or signed to saluation. That which Eph. 1. 13. [Page 130] outwardly is expressed, is either by consession of the mouth, or operation of the hands. In respect whereof, profession of the Christiā faith may truely be said to be the outward marke of a Christian, as also determinat us modus us viuēdi &c. (as the schole­men speake) the certaine maner of liuing according to the law & religiō of Christ. So that he which beleeueth with his hart & cōfesseth with his mouth that Iesus is Christ, & withal frameth his life according to the law & doctrine of Christ, he may be said to haue the marke of God Apoc. 9. 4. both in the heart by beleeuing, & in the forehead by profession, & in the right hād by operation. See Rom. 10. 9. 10. & 2. Tim. 2. 19. And further­more the outward markes receiued to testifie our subiectiō vn­to Christ & our cōmunion with him, as also to distinguish vs frō men of other religions, are the Sacramēts of Christ, as bap­tisme and the Lords supper. And thus you see the marke of a Christian which is but one in substance, namely the true ac­knowledgement of Christ, is thus diuersly expessed & testified.

5. The like may be said of the marke of the beast, which is also called the marke of his name. The beast as wee haue pro­ued Apoc. 14. 11. is the Romane state, the name is Romane or Latine. The marke therfore of the beast is that whereby they of the Romish or Latine religion whom we call Papists, are distinguished frō others, that is their subiection vnto the Pope as their head and acknowledgement of the See of Rome. This inwardly in the soule is their implicite faith: whereby euery Papist is bound hand ouer head to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or Church of Rome beleeueth: and the rather because they are to be per­swaded that neither of both can erre. That which outward­ly is expressed is either by confession of the mouth or opera­tion of the hands. So that the profession of the Romishe reli­gion and certaine maner of liuing according to the Lawes and customes of the Pope and church of Rome, may also be said to be the marke of Antichristians: euen as the obseruation of the Heathenish rites is called 2. Macah. 4. 10. the Character of the Graecians. Who soeuer therfore in heart beleeueth whatsoeuer the Pope & church of Rome do or shall beleeue, & outwardly professeth the Romish religion & frameth his life according to [Page 131] the lawes & customes of the church of Rome, as for exāple to fal downe before images, to adore the Eucharist, to frequēt the Masse &c. he may be truly said to haue the marke of the beast. Moreouer the outward marks receiued to testifie their cōmu­nion with the church of Rome, are certaine sacraments of their holy mother church, which as they say do imprimere characterē indelebilem, imprint a character that cannot be done away, and therfore are not to be iterated, as namely their sacramēts of cō ­firmatiō & orders. In the former wherof (which they prefer be­fore baptisme) all yoūg ones are anointed in the forehead with oile, which they cal Chrisma salutis, The Chrisme of saluatiō, & without which they will haue none to be accōpted christians. Nunquā erit Christianus (say they in their law) nisi cōfirmatione De consecrat. dist. 5. c. vt ic­iuni. episcopali fuerit Chrismat us. In the latter, those of their clergy besides their shauing on their heads, are anointed also on their heads, as Bishops, or on their hands as Priests. Thus you see al­so how the Characteristicall note or marke of Antichristians which is one in substance, namely subiectiō to the Pope & ac­knowledgmēt of the See of Rome, is diuersly expressed & testi­fied. Whosoeuer therfore since the reuelation of Antichrist is a Romane or Latine in respect of his religiō, acknowledging the Popes supremacy, & professing himselfe a mēber of the church of Rome, that is to say, in one word euery resolued Papist, hath the marke of the beast, his name and number of his name.

6. Now it remaineth that, by application of this prophe­cy to the Pope, I should shewe that hee causeth all both small and great, rich and poore, free and bonde, that hee should giue them a marke in their right hand or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, saue hee that had the marke, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Where­by thus much is meant, that Antichrist by his vsurped do­minion and tyranny should make all sortes of men subiect vnto him, and to testifie their subiection both by wordes and deed: and that hee should suffer none to liue among them or to enioy the benefites of humane society, but such as ac­knowledge the See of Rome, professe themselues members of the Romane church, and vse the Latine religion and seruice. All which doth fully and only agree to the Pope of Rome. For [Page 132] he, by his diuelish policy vsurped authority, lying wōd [...]rs & al deceiueablenes of vnright [...]ousnesse, had not onely brought all men both high & lowe into subiection, but also perswaded thē that vpon necessity of saluation, and paine of damnation, they were to subiect thēselues vnto him, & both by word and deed to testifie their subiection. Hereunto belōgeth that oracle (for so sometimes they cal their their decrees) of Boniface 8. Subess [...] (saith he) Roman [...] pont [...]fici, omni humana creaturae declaramus, Extr. de Maior. & obed. c. vnā sanctam. dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate sa­lutis. To euery humane creatur [...] wee declare, affirme, define, and pronounce, that to be sub [...]ect to the Pope of Rome it is a matter altogether necessary to saluation. Whereupon the glosse saith, Quic quid saluatur est sub Romano pontifice. Whatsoeuer is sa­ued, is subiect to the Pope. The same is concluded by Thomas Aquinas, and others, That to be subiect to the Pope is of the ne­cessitis Lib. de error. Graecor. c. 72. Antonin. sum. 3. part. tit. 22. c. 6. §. 5. An. 884. of saluation. Stephanus 5. aliàs. 6. decreed that such Canons as were concluded vpon and giuen out by the See of Rome, are of necessity vnto saluation to bee obserued. Ca­lixtus 2. straitly forbad any to dissent from the Church of Rome, for as the Sonne came to doe the will of his Father, so Christians must do the will of their mother the church of Rome. Ex. 1. Bal. act. ponti [...]. Rom. Capistran fol. 26. For to gain [...]say the Church of Rome is Heresie. Those which denie the Pope to haue both powers, deny the Gospell: and they which deny the Pope to haue the primacy of the vniuersall Cuper [...]. pag. 46. in summar. num. 9. Church, their errour is equall to the errour of the Grecians, who deny the holy Ghost to proceed both from the Father and the Cupers. pag. 56. num. 21. Sonne. If therfore thou wilt not be an Heretike this must be thy faith, that as there is one God immutable, so there is one vicar general of God vpon earth (namely the vicar of Rome) whose Capistran. fol. 32. s [...]ip is stable. For seing in the triumphant church there is one su­preame Clementin. lib. 5. de hareticis, cap. ad nostrum in Gloss. prince to whose obedience all that church is most perfectly subiect, to wit, God: it followeth necessarily that one supreme prince is pre [...]nt ouer the whole militant Church, towit, the Pope, whose [...] all are bound to ob [...]y. And this priuiledge Christ Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 6. §. 5. hath giuē to the church of Rome, that al must be obed [...]t vnto it, a [...] vnto Christ. Therfore he susteineth the sentence of condēnatiō Ibid. cap. 5. §. 17. ex Gloss. ordin. Papae ap­pli [...]ta. qui conte [...]it f [...]i pontificis is obedientiā, tanquāsi contemneret Dei [...], w [...]o [...] the Popes obedience a [...] if he cō ­temned [Page 133] Gods omnipotency. And to cōclude, as I began, with an other oracle or canon of their law, Peccatum igitur paganita­tis [...], quisquis dum Christianum se esse asserit, sedi apostoli­ca Dist. 81. c. si qui sunt. ob [...]dire cont [...]it, He incurreth therfore the sinne of Paga­ni [...], whosoeuer professing himselfe to be a Christian, renoun­ceth obedience to the S [...] apostolicke.

7 And as he hath made all to subiect themselues vnto him, all I meane whose names are not written in the booke of the lambe, (for this is the vniuersality that the Papists bragge of) so he hath caused all both small and great, rich and poore &c. to testifie their subiection; as namely by pinning their faith on his sleeue, and binding themselues to beleeue as he beleeueth: by professing his Antichristian faith and religion of poperie; by obseruing his popish that is to shy superstitious and idola­trous rites and customes, as frequenting masses, adoring ima­ges and reliques, worshipping the crosse and Eucharist, pray­ing to Saint [...] yea to stocks and stones, going on pilgrimage, praying in latine and that on beades, &c. by taking his marke both on the forehead in the sacrament of confirmation, and on the hand in the sacrament of orders, but especially by taking an oath of fidelity and obedience vnto him. For therein espe­ciallie they receiue his mark both in the forehead by solemne profession, and in the right hand which they lay on the booke. This oath not onely graduates, priestes, Bishoppes, but Kings also and Emperours were compelled to take. And whereas it is Vid. Meditat. 1. Foxij in 14. cap. Apoc. Decret. Gre­gor. libro 2. tit. 24. de iu­reiur. c. Ego N. Clementin. lib. 2. de iureiur. c. Romani. said that Antichrist should take order that none might buy or sell, vnlesse he haue the marke, or the name of the beast or the number of his name: that speeche doth so fitte the Popes of Rome as that it might seeme rather to bee a narration of that which they haue done, th [...]n [...] prophecy of that which they were to doe. For Martin 5. in his bull annexed to the councill of Constance giueth straight ch [...]rge to all gouernours, that they should not suffer any Christians (such as Iohn Wickleffe, Iohn Husse and Ierome of Prage who in that bull are condemned for hereticks) who acknowledge not the See of Rome, nor em­brace the doctrines and traditions of holy mother church, not beleeuing as the church of Rome beleeueth, nor liuing in [Page 134] the cōmunion of that church, that is to say, which haue not the marke, nor the name of the beast, nor number of his name, they should not suffer them I say, domicilia tenere, larem fouere, con­tractus inire, negotiationes & mercaturas quaslibet exercere, aut humanit at is solatia cum Christi fidelibus habere. To keepe house nor harth, to make contracts, to exercise any trafficke or merchan­dise, or to haue any comforts of humane societie with other Christians. In like sort Paulus 3. when Henry 8. of famous me­mory had shaken of his yoke, and renounced his marke, he for­badde al men to vse any trafficke or merchaundise, or to make any contractes or couenants with him and his subiects: he de­posed as much as in him lay, by his bull of excommunication, the king, disabled his posteritie, absolued his subiectes from obedience, exposed his subiectes and their goods to violence and spoile, according to the inscription in his coyne, Gens & regnum quod non serui [...]rit mihi exterminabitur, The nation or kingdome which serueth not mee, shall bee rooted out. The like thunderbolt Pius 5. sent out against our Soueraigne La­die of blessed memorie Queene Elizabeth: and Sixtus 5. against Henrie the king of Nauarre (now king of Fraunce) and Henrie prince of Condee. And heereunto serue their blo­die inquisitours at this day: who are to suffer none to liue, or to haue the benefite of humane societie, who are but sus­pected of schisme or heresie. And who is an hereticke? That doth not beleeue as the Pope and church of Rome be­leeueth; though hee beleeue according to the scriptures. And who is a schismaticke? That doth not acknowledge the Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. §. 11. Pope to bee the head of the church. Seeing therefore the Pope of Rome causeth all sortes of men to take vpon them the marke of the beast, and suffereth none to buy or sell that haue not the marke or name of the beaste or number of his name, it cannot bee auoided but that hee is Anti­christ.

8 And these were the principall effects of Antichrist no­ted in the scriptures: whereunto some others may bee added out of Apoc. 13. which haue in part beene touched hereto­fore: as first, that he exerciseth al the power of the former beast [Page 128] secondly that he causeth men to worshippe the former beast, thirdly that he forceth men vpon paine of death to worshippe the image of the beast. All which, as well as the former, agree to the Pope. For as touching the first, who knoweth not that the Pope hath swayed the Romane state for many hun­dred yeares? exercising a more soueraigne and absolute autho­ritie ouer men of all sorts, then euer the heathenishe Empe­rours did. For hee forsooth hath the authoritie of the king Bald. in c. ec­clesia, vt lit. pendent. Bloud. Rom. in­s [...]aur. lib. 3. of kings ouer his subiectes; hee is perp [...]uus dictator, whome the princes of the worlde adore and worshippe: hee is as Bo­niface the eightth in the greate Iubile Anno. 1300. (hauing shewed himselfe the one daye in his pontificall vesti­mentes, and the second in the imperiall robes) proclai­med of himselfe, I am Pope and Emperour, I haue both the heauenlie and the earthly Empire, and as they speake in their lawe, the Monarchie of both powers: hee hath the princehood of the whole world, as wee haue hearde before. And where doth he exercise this authority? in the sight of the beast, that is, at Rome, which is his Papall seate, and in the gouernemente whereof hee succeedeth the Empe­rours.

9 And that the Pope maketh the inhabitants of the earth to worship the former beast, it is as euident; seeing his main poli­cyes and chief indeauours serue to magnifie the Romane state. To this end, besides many other policyes in part obserued be­fore, do his Iubileyes tend: wherin he vseth to promise plena [...]y remission of al sinnes to all that either come on pilgrimage to Rome, or miscarie in their iourney: as also the incredi­ble indulgences and pardons which hee graunteth to those which shall come as Pilgrims to Rome, to visite the holie places there, especially the 7. churches which are priuiledged aboue the rest. To which purpose there is reported in an old English book, (and the reporte no doubt was currant in times Arnaldus Lon­dinens. of popery) the whole pardon of Rome graunted by diuerse Popes, a part whereof I will breefly recite for their behoofe, to whome the absurdities of Poperie are not knowne. The seauen priuiledged churches, whereof not onely that Author [Page 136] speaketh, but [...] also of late hath wrieten a whole booke, are 1. the church of Saint Peter in the Vatican: [...]. the De 7. vrbis ec­cles [...]. church of Saint Paul without the walles: 3. the church of Saint Laurence without the walles: 4. the church of holy crosse in Ierusalem. 5. the church of Saint Mary Maior. 6. the church of Sait Sebastian without the city: 7. the church of Saint Iohn Laterane. To all them that dayly goe to the church of Saint Peter, Syl [...] graunted the third part of all then sinnes relea­sed, 1. and 2800. years pardon. And the [...] of as many Lentons or Quarins. Now a Quarin saith my author is to goe woolward and barefoot seuen yeare, and to fast bread and water on the fry­dayes [...] to [...] one night where he sleepeth another, [...] co [...] vnder no co [...]ed place vnlesse [...] be to heare masse in the church dore or porche [...] [...] or drinke out of no other vessell but in the same that he mede his auowe in. Hee that doth all these points seuen yeares together, death and [...]inneth a quarin, that is to say, a Lenton. Besides, there is an image of our Lord about the church dore, hauing between his feete one of the pence that God was sold for; as o [...] as you looke vpon that p [...]ny you haue 1400 yeares of pardon. In that church be eleuen altars, of which 7. are special­ly priuiledged with grace and pardon. At the first altar is the vi­sage of out Lor [...] who looketh on that, hath 700. yeares of pardon, &c. Before the quire dore stand 2. [...] [...]rosses; who kisseth the crosses hath 500 yeares pardon. From the [...] to the assumption of our Lady, hangeth a cloth of our Ladies owne making before the quire, and as many times [...] a man beholdeth it he hath 400. yeares of pardon, &c.

10 They that visite the church of Saint Paul without the walles ha [...] 48000. yeares of pardon. Item on Childer [...]asse day 2. 4000 yeares of pardon. Item on the vias of Saint Martin when the church was hallowed 14000. yeares of pardon, and as many quarins, and the third part of all sinnes released. Those that visit the church of Saint Lau [...]ence, at the high altar haue 18000. 3. yeares of pardon and as many quarins. And who goeth thither euery wednesday he deliuered a soule out of purgatory, & himself quite of all [...]nes. In the church Sanct [...]crucis that is of holy crosse is giuen an hundred thousand yeares of pardon and as 4. [Page 137] many quarins, and euery Sunday a soule out of Purgatory, and the third part of all sinnes released. To thē that visite the church of 5 S. Mary Maior, is graūted, at the high Altar 14000. yeares of pardon, & as many quarins: And at the altar on the right hād 19000. yeares of pardō. And Pope Nicolas the 4. & S. Gregory each of them graūted thereto 10000. yeares of pardon. And frō the Ascensiō of our Lord vnto Christmas, yee haue there 14000. yeares of pardon, and as many quarins, and the third part of all sins released. To them that visite the church of S. Sebastian is gran­ted 6 forgiuenesse of sinnes and all penaunce. At the high Altar is giuen 2800. yeares of pardon, and at the first Altar in the Church, 2400. There is a vawte where lie buried 49. Popes that were Martyrs: whoso commeth first into that place deliue­reth 8. soules out of Purgatory of such as hee most desireth, and as much pardon therto, that all the worlde cannot number nor recken. And euery Sunday you deliuer there a soule out of purgatory. In that vawte standeth a pitte in which Peter and Paule were hidde 250 yeares, he that putteth his head into that pitte and taketh it out againe, is cleane of all sinnes. To that place siue Popes each of them graunted a thousand yeares of par­don, and as many karins. And so the grace that is at S. Seba­stians is grounded that it cannot be taken away. To those that 7 visit the Church of S. Iohn Laterane, Pope Siluester gaue as many yeares of pardon, as it rained droppes of water the day that he hallowed the same Church. And that time it rayned so sore, that no man had seene a greater rayne before that day. And when hee had graunted this, hee doubted whether hee had so much power. Then a voice came from heauen, and said, Pope Syluester, thou haste power enough to giue that pardon. And God graunted this much thereto, that if a man had made a vowe to Ierusalem, and lacked good to doe his Pilgrimage, if hee goe from S. Peters Church to S. Iohn Lateranes, hee shal­be absolued from that promise. And any time that a man com­meth to Saint Iohn Lateranes, hee is quite of all sinnes, and of all penaunce, with that that he be penitent for his sinnes. Bles­sed is the mother that beareth the childe that bareth Masse on Saterdayes at Saint Iohn Lateranes. For hee deliuered all [Page 138] them that hee desired out of Purgatory to the number of 77. soules. Item on the tower of the Churche standeth a double crosse, that was made of the sworde wherewith Saint Iohn was beheaded, and euery time a man beholdeth that crosse hee hath 14000. yeares Pardon. At the high altar a man may haue re­mission of all sinnes, and of all penaunce, and innumerable par­don more then he needeth for himselfe. There is a graue where­in Saint Iohn laid himselfe, hee that putteth therein his head hee hath an hundred thousand yeares of pardon, and as many karins. These indulgences with many such like (which for breuity sake I omitte) my Authour saith are written in a Mar­ble stone before the Quire dore &c. Besides these seuen, there are many inferiour Churches whereunto great indulgēces haue bene graunted by the Popes. There are named in the afore­said Booke 26. Churches, wherein is graunted, to them that vi­sit any of them, 1000. yeares pardon, and in some 3000, in o­thers 5000. some, wherein promise is made of release from a third parte of sinnes, and in some from all sinnes. Here is a Church of Saint Gregory, in which whosoeuer is buried, hee shall neuer be damned. Thus (saith my Authour) may a man haue at Rome great pardon and soule health, blessed beene the people and in good time borne that receiueth these graces and well keepeth them &c.

11. Hereby it appeareth that the Pope causeth the inha­bitants of the earth to worship the beast with seuen heads, that is, seuen hilles: that with the citie of Rome (which wee haue proued to bee the whore of Babylon) the inhabi­tants of the earth haue committed spirituall fornication, and that with the cuppe of her fornications they haue beene in­fatuated and made drunke. And that the Pope hath caused men vpon paine of death to worshippe the image of the 3. beast which he hath animated and put life into, it is easie to proue, whether you vnderstande it literally or mystically. For literally, as they haue put life and motion into images and made them to speake in the sight of men: so haue they suf­fered none to liue that would not participate with them in their idolatry which they call worshipping of images. My­stically [Page 139] the image signifieth either the Popes court, or Em­pire renewed, or both: the one resembling the authority and power, the other bearing the name and representing the dig­nitie of the old Empire. Of the Popes court at Rome, and of his Legates and Officers abroad there is no question to bee made, but that none are suffered to liue which worshippe not them. And it is true also of the Empire. But by worshipping the image of the beast, wee doe not vnderstand obedience to the Emperour in his lawfull decrees: but the obedience per­formed vnto him as hee is an image of the persecuting Empe­rours, inspired by the Pope, and seruing as his minister to esta­blish and propagate the Romish religion. In this sence as hee who obeyeth him worshippeth the image of the beast, and is in the same predicament with those that receiue the marke of the beast, Apoc. 14. 9: So hee that obeyeth him not is put to death; and dying in this quarell is in the same happy state with Apoc. 14, 13. 15. 2. those which refuse to receiue the marke of the beast.

CHAP. 9. ¶ Of those things which Antichrist was and is to suffer.

1. WE haue heard what Antichrist was to doe to others: now let vs consider what the holy Ghost foretelleth shall be done vnto him. There is mention made Apoc. 17. 12. of the Apoc. 17. 12. &c. ten hornes, that is the rulers of the ten pro­uinces subiect to the Empire in the West; who although in the Apostles time had not receiued kingdome or soueraigne authority, but were deputies onely vnder the Emperour: yet after the decay of the Empire in the west, they together with Antichrist diuide the Romane Empire among them, raigning by soueraigne authority, he in Rome and part of Italy, they in the other prouinces, Of these ten hornes it is said, that they for a time should giue their power and strength vers 13. [Page 140] to the beast, meaning Antichrist: and that in his quarell they shall fight against Christ the lambe in his members. But the v. 14. bloud of Martyrs being the seede of the Church, and the truth preuailing when it is most oppugned: Christ by the constan­cie of his Martyrs and preaching of his word ouercommeth. For though in respect of the manner of his resistance hee see­meth a meeke lambe: yet hee shall be sure to ouercome, be­cause he is the king of kings and Lord of Lords; being able by weake and foolish things (as they are esteemed in the world) to ouercome the wise and strong. And howsoeuer those fewe in comparison that stoode with him were condemned for he­reticks and schismatickes, yet are they the called, chosen, and faithful seruants of the Lord. Whereas contrarywise the gene­rall multitudes (whereof the catholicke apostasy consisteth) are the slaues of Antichrist, and subiect to the whore of Babylon. For the waters whereon she sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, na­tions v. 15. and tongues. But when as our Sauiour Christ shall disco­uer Antichrist, and by the ministery of the word, as it were the breath of his mouth, waste and consume him: then shal the ten kings, which before had ioyned with him, set thēselues against him: and those which before had committed fornicatiō with the v. 2. whore of Babylon, shall hate her and make her desolate and na­ked, v. 16. and shal eate her flesh and shall burne her with fire. And that this decay of the Antichristian state doth follow vpō the prea­ching of the gospell, it appeareth Apoc. 14. 6. 7. 8. where it is said that vpon the preaching of the euerlasting Gospell, an an­gell saith, It is fallen, it is fallen, Babylon that great city: for shee gaue to all nations to drinke the wine of the wrath of her fornica­tion. v. 17. For vntill this time that Christ discouer Antichrist and in some measure consume him with the spirite of his mouth, the ten kings are giuen ouer of God to support with one consent the beast and purple harlot; whome, after Antichrist is discoue­red, they shall hate and oppugne.

2 But let vs come to the application. For euen as from this place I proued before that Antichrist is already come▪ so may I now from hence conclude that the Pope is that Antichrist. That Antichrist is come, it is as certaine as that the prouinces [Page 141] of the Empire are not ruled by deputyes of the Emperour, but by soueraigne princes, who haue together with Antichrist di­uided the Empire among them. And that the Pope is that An­tichrist it is as certaine. For he it is, who, as well as the kings, hath risen by the decay of the Empire in the west: he it is, and no other, to whome these kings haue with one consent giuen their strength and power, submitting themselues vnto him as his vassalls, swearing to mainetaine and support him, fighting his battailes and drawing their sword at his becke. And being made drunke with the cuppe of his fornications they fought against the lambe, and persecuted those seruaunts of Christ whom Antichrist condemneth as hereticks and schismaticks: who notwithstanding are in truth the called, chosen, & faith­full; though few and despised in the world. When as contrary­wise the vniuersality of people whereon the whore of Baby­lon sitteth, and whereof the adulterous church of Rome con­sisteth, are but the branded slaues of Antichrist. But howsoe­uer these kings, whiles they were besotted and giuen ouer of God in his iust iudgement that they should submit themselues to the Antichrist of Rome, did seeke by all meanes to support him: yet when Christ had discouered him to be Antichrist, and by the preaching of his word as it were the spirit of his mouth began to waste & consume him, and more and more since the times of Luther to abate the opinion which men had concei­ued of him; then these princes, not al, but some of them, began to reuolt from Antichrist, and to hate the Antichristian whore See chap. 2. §. 11. of Babylon the city and church of Rome, and as much as in them lyeth haue left her desolate and naked: and the rest in Gods good time shall accomplish his will. For this prophecie concerning that which Antichrist was to suffer, is as yet fulfil­led but in part. And still there remaineth to bee fulfilled the fi­nall destruction of Rome the seat of Antichrist, before the end of the world, soretold Apoc. 18. and the finall ouerthrowe of Antichrist at the glorious appearing of Christ at his second comming, prophecied 2. Thess. 2. 8. Apoc. 19. 20. Seeing there­fore Antichrist the great enemy of Christ and his church is to be ouerthrowne by these three meanes, by the powerfull mi­nistery [Page 142] of the word, by the puissaunt strength and power of Christian princes, by the glorious comming of Christ to iudg­ment; all faithfull ministers are to bee stirred vp seriouslie and earnestly to oppose themselues against Antichrist, that by their ministery as it were the spirite of Christs mouth, he may bee more and more wasted and consumed. All true Christian prin­ces are to be excited not onely to hate the whore of Babylon, but also according to the prophecie of the holy ghost to make her desolate and naked, to eate her flesh and burne her with fire, & to do to her children as she hath done to the seruants of Christ. And finallie all sound Christians are to be exhorted, ear­nestly Apoc. 18. 6. and continuallie to pray that the Lord Iesus would not onely consume Antichrist, giuing successe to the ministerie of his seruants: but also that he would hasten his second coming and destroy him at his glorious appearing. Euen so Lord Iesu, come quicklie. And thus haue I shewed that the prophecyes of Ap. 22. 17. 20. the holy ghost in the scriptures concerning Antichrist Conclus. do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome: whereupon I doe necessarily con­clude, that therefore the Pope of Rome is the graund Anti­christ described in the scriptures.

The first Chapter, answering Bellarmine his first argument concerning the name Antichrist.

HAuing in the former Booke sufficiently prooued by euident demonstration out of the worde of God, that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist: it remaineth that we should maintaine this our as­sertion against the arguments of the Papists. For as the force & euidence of our proofes may perswade vs to embrace this truth; so the weake­nesse and sophistry, which appeareth in the obiections of our aduer­saries may confirme vs in this perswasion. And the rather if we consi­der either the weight of this controuersie it selfe, or their will and skil to maintaine their part; or lastly the aduantage which they seeme to haue in this controuersie. For first the controuersie it selfe is of such consequence, as that if our assertion be true, then is all Popery ouer­throwne, and all controuersies betwixt vs and them easily decided: then are all Papists limmes of Antichrist, and all their doctrines pe­culiar to them, errours of Antichrist. And if you respect their will, you neede not doubt, but that they, being wholy deuoted vnto the Pope, haue done their best endeuour to free their head and Lord from all imputation of Antichristianisme. And for their skill, they beeing men of great learning and much reading, you may bee well assured that they haue scarcely omitted any thing, which may be said in so waighty a cause. And questionlesse, they haue no small aduantage in [Page 2] this controuersie being to prooue the negatiue part. For whereas we cannot prooue the affirmatiue but by the concurrence of those mani­fold properties and markes which the holy Ghost hath assigned vn­to Antichrist: they on the other side haue libertie to disprooue the same, and to prooue the negatiue, if they can but shew plainly & eui­dently, that any one seuerall and essentiall marke, ascribed vnto Anti­christ in the Scriptures, dooth not agree to their Lord God the Pope. For if the Scriptures foretell vs as touching the place, that Antichrist shall haue his seat in Babylon, that is, Rome, which being situated on seauen hils, had in the Apostles time vnder the Emperour, and since vnder the Pope, dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, and that in Rome, professing her selfe the Church of God, because it is said, that Antichrist shall sitte in the Temple of God: as concerning the time, that he should sit in Rome, after the remoouing and taking away of the Emperours, whom hee was to succeed in the gouernement of Rome, as hath beene shewed out of these places, 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. Apoc. 13. and 17. and in respect of his conditions and qualities, that he should be for opposition an aduersary, although a disguised enemy; for pride and ambition, aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God: for his other vices, a man of sinne in generall, and more special­ly an horrible idolatour: in regard of his effects, that he and his fol­lowers should be workers of signes and wonders, in the sight of men, that he should compell all sorts of men to receiue the marke or name of the beast, or number of his name: and lastly, for that which he was to suster, that Christ shall consume him with the breath of his mouth, that is, the Ministerie of the Gospell; and that thereupon the ten hornes which first assisted him, shall afterwards assault him: It fol­loweth therefore, that vnto such as we affirme to be Antichrist, all these notes are to be applied, (as we haue applied them all to the Pope of Rome) whereas contrariwise the deniall of any one essen­tiall propertie, is an argument sufficient to prooue the negatiue. As for example, if any man will [...]ake vpon him to prooue, that the Turke is Antichrist, because some of the markes seeme to fitte him, he shall neuer bee able to prooue it, because all the properties doe not agree vnto him. For neither hath he his seat in Rome, neither dooth he sit in the Church of God, neither is he a couert and disgui­sed, but an open and professed enemie: neither may he be matched [Page 3] with the true Antichrist, either in aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God, or in idolatrie, or in lying signes and wonders, &c. And from any of these we may reason thus. Antichrist was to haue his seat in Rome, which is mysticall Babylon: the Turke hath not his seat there: therefore he is not Antichrist. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God: the Turke dooth no [...], &c. wherefore much more easie it were to prooue the negatiue, if it were true, then the affirma­tiue. If therefore the Papists hauing bent all their forces, and imploi­ed the vttermost of their skill, to prooue that which were most easie to prooue, if it were true, shall notwithstanding be found vnable to produce any one sound and sufficient argument, to cleare their Pope from Antichristianisme: haue not we just cause to confirme our selues in that truth, which before hath beene demonstrated, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist?

2. Let vs therefore consider their arguments, and conceits where­upon their arguments are grounded: not as they are propounded by the elder Papists, which liued in the daies of our forefathers (for their conceits concerning Antichrist were meere dotages) but as they are deliuered by the refiners of Poperie the Jesuits, and namely by Bel­larmine, whose bookes are as it were a shot whereunto many of them, as it seemeth, haue contributed. Bellarmine therefore in his third booke De pontifice Romano, reduceth all his arguments to nine heads. 1. Con­cerning the name Antichrist. 2. Concerning his person, whether he be but one man, or a state and succession of men. 3. Concerning the time of his comming, and death. 4. Of his proper name. 5. Of his nation & followers. 6 Of his seat. 7. Of his doctrine and maners. 8. Of his mi­racles. 9. Of his reigne & battels. From all which he hopeth (although in vaine) to prooue, that the Pope is not Antichrist.

3. And first from the name he argueth thus: Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi, that is, such an enemy as is opposed vnto Christ in emu­lation of like honour: The Pope is not an enemy, nor opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition which we not onely graunt, but also take to be the groūd of some of our proofes, that he laboureth to prooue, & in that proofe spendeth almost the whole first chapter. But the àssumption, where­in is all the controuersie betwixt vs and them, that in a manner he See lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 1. taketh for graunted. In both playing the part of a right sophister. [Page 4] For which of our writers euer denied, that [...] signifieth hostem et aemulum Christi? what though Musculus also saith, that Antichrist Loc. Comm. cap. de po­testate Mi­nistrorum. is he, who being an enimy vnto Christ, professeth himselfe to be his vicar, and saith that the word may signifie so much; yet he denieth not the former signification, but retaineth the same with this addition: That Antichrist is such as one as challengeth vnto himselfe the of­fice and authoritie of Christ himselfe, and being indeed an enemie, & a counter-Christ, professeth himselfe to be the Vicar or Vicegerent of Christ vpon earth. And this may be prooued by the signification of the name. For [...] in composition, commonly signifieth three things; opposition, equality, substitution. Opposition, as in the word [...]: equality, as [...]: substitutiō, as [...], Preconsul, [...], Propraetor or Legatus Praetoris; [...], the putting of one case for another: and in this sense the sacraments of the new Testament, substituted and ordained insteed of the old, are called the [...] of them. And all these significations sometimes 1. Pet. 3. 21 are incident to one and the same worde. As [...], signifieth sometimes, contrariae partis ducem, the chieftaine of the contrarie part: sometime propraetorem, that is, one who in the prouince hath the same authoritie which the Praetor hath in the city: sometimes also him qui est vice praetoris, as the Lieutenant or deputie. In like sort, all these sig­nifications may be applied to the word [...], and it in them all most fitly agreeth to the Pope. Who being indeed an enimy vnto Christ, and challenging vnto himselfe the office and authoritie of Christ, as if he were a counter-Christ, doth also professe himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ.

4. Yea, but saith Bellarmine, Antichrist cannot by any meanes signifie the vicar of Christ: first because [...] properly signifieth opposition. I answer, Vllo modo. that [...] simply signifieth for; & in composition, as many times it sig­nifieth against, so sometimes also equall or like, & sometimes for or in- steed, as Greeke writers & Lexicographers do teach, &c. Secondly, we must (saith he) vnderstand the word as it is vsed in the Scriptures. But in the Scriptures it is vsed to signifie an enemy of Christ, which we doe con­fesse: albeit his prooues are ridiculous, all eadging, 2. Thes. 2. Mat. 24. where the word [...] is not once vsed. Notwithstanding we ac­cept his ground: that we are so to vnderstand the word Antichrist, as it is vsed in the Scriptures. Now it is vsed in the epistles of Iohn onely, [Page 5] and there ascribed not to open and professed enemies, but to such as being enemies, notwithstanding professed the name of Christ, as the heretiques of those times. Thirdly, al those authors (saith he) which haue written of Antichrist, haue vnder that name vnderstood a notable false Christ, who shall affirme himselfe to be Christ. If they meane that Anti­christ shall be such a false Christ, as shall plainly and directly affirme himselfe to be Christ the onely Messias, that affirmation agreeth not with that Antichrist whom the Scriptures describe. If they hold that although in words he professe himselfe a follower and seruant of Christ, and yet indeed obtrudeth himselfe vpon the Church, as if he were Christ, taking vpon him the titles, attributes, offices and authori­tie of Christ, which in effect is as much as if he should say; I am Christ (Christ being a name of office) we also confesse so much, and withall professe, that the name Antichrist in this signification, most fitly a­greeth vnto the Pope. Fourthly, he alleadgeth Henry Stephen: but nei­ther he nor any approoued Author denieth, but that Antichristus may signifie him, who being an enemy of Christ, professeth himselfe to be his vicar. And therfore all these foure arguments are friuolous: for al­thogh Antichrist do signifie an enimy to Christ, yet that doth not hin­der but that it may signifie him which is the Vicar of Christ; because he which in profession is the vicar of Christ, may indeed be the enemy of Christ. 2. Because the compositiō of the word importeth so much. 3, Because the beast which figureth Antichrist, is said to haue two hornes like the Lambe: for horne in the Scripture signifieth power, & the two hornes his two-fold soueraigne power: whosoeuer therefore challengeth this twofold power, as the Vicegerent of Christ he hath two hornes like the lambe: and the same person, as he is the Vicar of Christ in profession, so is he also that Antichrist, which is resembled by the two horned beast. The Scriptures therefore describe Anti­christ, both as an enimy of Christ, and as the Vicar of Christ: an ene­mie indeed, and Vicar in profession.

5. And so much of his proposition, which we hold to be most true, that Antichrist according to the signification of the word, is host is & aemulus Christi, but withall we adde, that the word may signifie also such an aduersary as obtrudeth himselfe vnto the Church, as a Prochri­stus, that is, as a vicar of Christ. Let vs therfore come to his assumption, & consider how he proueth that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Chri­sti, An enemy, & one that seeketh to match himselfe with Christ. Forsooth, [Page 8] because the Pope confesseth himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, and subiect vnto him in all things: neither doth he by any meanes say, that he is Christ, nor make himselfe equall vnto him. As if he should say, he that profes­seth himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, is not an enemy of Christ, and he that dooth not call himselfe Christ, nor make himselfe equall vnto him, he is not aemulus Christi. As touching the former, I answer, that vnlesse the Pope did confesse himselfe to bee the seruant of Christ, he could not be such an aduersarie as Antichrist is described to be in the Scriptures, that is, a couert and disguised enemy, who vnder the name and profession of Christ, oppugneth Christ and his truth. And what though he professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, dooth it therefore follow, that he is not an enemy to Christ? Surely no more then it followeth, he is Seruus seruorum Dei indeed, because he calleth himselfe so. Deceiuers, such as Antichrist is, pre­tend The ser­uant of Gods scr­ [...]ts. good names: false Prophets, such as Antichrist is, are Wolues in Sheepe skinnes: neither are any enimies so pernicious or dangerous, as those which make semblance of friendship. And that the Pope is aemulus Christi, that is, an aduersarie opposed vnto Christ in emulati­on of like honour, we haue prooued heretofore at large, shewing how in many things he matcheth himselfe with Christ, and in some­things aduanceth himselfe aboue him. So that the former part of his speech dooth not prooue his assumption, as being inconsequent, the latter needeth proofe, as being vntrue. And yet this is all that he bringeth to prooue, that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Christi. But the vntruth of this assumption, we haue heretofore demonstra­ted at large, when as we concluded thus: He that is such an aduer­sarie as is described in the Scriptures, opposed vnto Christ in emu­lation of like honour, he is Antichrist as the Papists confesse: But the Pope is such an aduersarie as is described in the Scriptures, opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour, as we then prooued at large: therefore the Pope is Antichrist. Lib. 1. cap. 4. et. 5.

The second Chapter: maintaining that An­tichrist is not one definite and singuler per­son.

1. THe second argument which Bellarmine vseth, to prooue, that the Pope is not Antichrist, is drawne from the person of Antichrist, name­lie, that Antichrist is one certaine man, wher­as the Popes haue beene many. His reason is thus framed: Antichrist is but one singuler person.

The Pope (meaning the order or succession of Popes) is not one singuler person.

Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist.

To the proposition I answere, that as the Pope is one, so is Anti­christ. The Pope is one person not in number and nature, as one certaine and singuler man, but one at once by lawe and institution, though successiuely so many as haue enjoyed the Papacie. For euen as the Papists when they say, that the Pope hath beene the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ these 1500. yeares, doe not meane See lib. 1. cap. 1. [...]. 4. any one Pope, but the order and succession: so we when we say, that the Pope hath beene Antichrist almost these thousand yeeres, wee meane not any one Pope onely, but the whole rowe or rabble of them since the yeere 607. And thus Antichrist, that is, the head of the Antichristian body, which was reuealed after the taking away of the Romane Empire, & is to continue after a sort, vntill the end of the world, is one person: one I say at once ordinarily, but continued in a succession of many. The proposition thus denied by vs, Bellarmine la­boureth to confirme by authoritie of the Scriptures, and testimonies of the Fathers. Out of the Scriptures he produceth fiue testimo­nies. The first out of the Gospell of Iohn, chapter 5. verse 43. I am Iohn. 5. 43. come in my Fathers name, and you receiue mee not: if another shall come in his owne name, him will you receiue [...]. In which wordes Bellarmine vnderstandeth Christ to speake of Antichrist, as of [Page 8] one singuler person: And that he would prooue by testimonies of the Fathers, and foure reasons. But Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists, which make this collection out of this place, either ignorantly mi­stake, or wilfully depraue this text. For first, whereas our Sauiour Christ speaketh indefinitely, of any false teacher which should come vnto them in his owne name, that is, not sent of God, they expound him, as if he had spoken definitely of one singuler Antichrist. Second­ly, whereas Christ speaketh not onely indefinitely, but also conditio­nally, If another come, they expound him, as if in a simple and proper axiome or proposition he had prophecied of the comming of Anti­christ: as if he had said, that other counterfeit Messias, that is to say, that singuler Antichrist, sha'l come in his owne name, and him you will receiue. And thirdly, whereas Christ speaketh of those Iewes to whom he speaketh, they vnderstand him to speake of those which shalbe in the end of the world. But let vs consider his proofes. The Fathers, saith he, doe testifie that these words are spoken, de vno An­tichristo, of one Antichrist. First I answer, that although diuers of the Fathers expound these words of Antichrist, yet none of them hath that word Vno, one: and therefore the Iesuites collection is absurde. The Fathers vnderstand this place of Antichrist, therefore Antichrist is one singuler person. For the Fathers also vnderstand that place Mat. 24. 24. of Antichrist, where our Sauiour Christ speaketh in the plurall number, of false Christs, and false Prophets which should arise; and confer that place with this. And therefore they may seeme to vn­derstand this speech of our Sauiour, as if he had said: If another come Mat. 24. 5. 24. in his owne name (as many indeed shall come) such will you receiue. And sure it is, that the Iewes haue receiued more then one of such as haue come in their owne name. And secondly I answer, that the Fa­thers had no reason to restraine these words vnto Antichrist alone, as though Christ had prophecied of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist for their Messias, seeing his speech is neither simple nor definite, but conditionall and indefinite. Whereby our Sauiour Christ would shew the vntoward disposition of the Iewes, who as they rejected him who was sent of God, so they would be ready to receiue any other that should come in his owne name, not sent of God. And so Nonnus in his Paraphrase vpon this place, expoundeth these words. Ei [...], &c. But if any other come, &c. And lastly, if these answers [Page 9] will not suffice, let the aduersary conclude his argument drawne from the authoritie of the fathers in a Syllogisme, and when he hath so done, let him prooue the proposition, which must be this: whatsoeuer those fathers write concerning Antichrist is true: and then the assumptiō, which is to this effect, but this those fathers write that Christ speaketh those words, de vno Antichristo, of one singuler Antichrist, & then (which will neuer be) I will yeeld to the conclusion.

2. But omitting his testimonies, let vs come to those arguments which he draweth out of the text, to proue that Christ in these words speaketh of one singuler Antichrist. First saith he, Christ opposeth vnto himselfe another man, that is, person to person, as appeareth by these words, I, another, &c. His reason is thus to be framed, where these two words, I, and another, are opposed one to the other, we are to vn­derstand that as I signifieth one singuler person, so also another: but in this place, I, and another are opposed: therfore &c. I answere, where the other is taken definitely for that other, as [...], is vsed Iohn 18. 16. and 20. 2. 3. 4. there the proposition may be true. But where it is vsed indefinitely, as [...], another, in this place, it is most false: for in such speeches, to a certaine and definite person, is opposed an indefi­nite and vncertaine. As for example Iob. 31. 8. What I sow [...], let another reape, meaning any other. 1 Cor. 3. 10. I haue laide the foundation & another buildeth thereon, but let euery one take heed how he buil­deth thereon. Such examples are ordinary. As if I shoud say, this ar­gument I call a childish reason, another would call it a dotage, and so I let it passe. His second reason is this: Whom the Iewes shall re­ceiue for their Messias, he is but one particular man: Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, as Christ here saith: therefore Antichrist is but one singuler man. Answer. Christ dooth not here foretell that Antichrist shalbe receiued of the Iewes for their Me­sias. For first, his speech is conditional, therefore not a prophecie. Nei­ther doth he foretel what they were to do, but sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe, if any false teacher should obtrude himselfe vnto them. Secondly, it is indefinite, and therfore not to be restrained to a certaine person. Thirdly, he doth not say, that they shall receiue another for their Messias cōming in his owne name, but onely that they shall receiue him. Fourthly, those Iewes to whom & of whom our Sauior speaketh, were not to be aliue [Page 10] at the comming of the great Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Papists themselues, therefore our Sauiour speaketh not of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist, & much lesse of Antichrist as one par­ticular person. Thirdly (saith he) all false prophets come in the name of another, not in their owne name. But Christ here speaketh of one that should come in his owne name, therefore he speaketh not of false prophets. He might as well haue concluded against the Scriptures, that Antichrist is not a false prophet. For false prophets, saith Bel­larmine, come not in their owne name, Antichrist commeth in his owne name: therefore if Bellarmines argument be good, An­tichrist is not a false Prophet. But I answere, that Antichrist and all other false Prophets may be said to come both in their owne name, and also in the name of God. In their owne name be­cause they are not sent of God, in which sense our Sauiour Christ here speaketh, I am come, saith he, in my fathers name, sent from the bosome of my father who hath sealed and sent me to this worke of mediation, and you receiue me not: If another shall come in his owne name, not sent from God, or as Lyra expoundeth those words, in nomine suo, in his owne name, that is, not hauing the aforesaid testi­monies from God, whereby to warrant his calling from him, such will you receiue. They are said also to come in the name of God and of Christ, because they pretend (although falsely) a calling and com­mission from God. Ierem. 14. 14. 15. Mat. 24. 5. For whereas Bellar­mine expoundeth these words thus, in his owne name, that is, shall not acknowledge any God, but aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God, and assigneth such a comming to the expected Messias of the Iewes, it is absurde. For the Iewes expect a Messias to be sent them from God. And therefore if any shall take vpon him to be their Messias, and be receiued of them, he will without doubt professe him­selfe to be sent of God. And such a one may be said to come in his owne name, because he is not sent of God, and in Gods name, because he pretendeth a calling and commission from him. Fourthly (saith he) if Christ had spoken of false Prophets, whereof many were to come, he would not haue said, if another come, but many come: but the second is false, therefore the first. I answere, if Christ had spoken simply and definitely, one other shall come, there had beene some shew of reason in the argumentation of the aduersary. But seeing he doth not so [Page 11] speake as Bellarmine dreameth; but conditionally and indefinitely, if another shall come, there is not so much as any shew of reason in this argument.

3. The second place which Bellarmine produceth, is 2. Thes. 2. 3. 8. Where the Apostle intreating of Antichrist, speaketh of one certaine and particular person, as appeareth by the Greeke article, [...], the man of sinne, the sonne of per­dition, the outlaw. His reason is thus to be framed: Vnto whatsoeuer the Greeke article is prefixed, it is signified to be one certaine and singuler thing or person: vnto the Antichrist that man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw, the Greeke article is profixed: there­fore the Antichrist is but one certaine and singuler person. The proposition he prooueth by the authority of Epiphanius, who saith that the Greeke articles restraine the signification to one certaine thing, so Haeresi 9. q [...] est S maritan­rum. that [...] signifieth man in general, but [...] one singuler man. And therefore Bellarmine maruelleth greatly that none of vs who would seeme to haue skill in the tongues hath obserued so much. But it were more to bee maruelled that Bellarmine should in this waighty cause affirme that which he knoweth to be false, but that he hath Epiphanius vpō whom to the father this vntruth; and yet Epiphanius doth not say that the ad­dition of the article doth alwaies restraine the signification to one cer­taine and singuler thing, but that it signifieth [...], the discretiō or difference of the name. Howbeit that is not perpetual: For many times the article is added for ornament only and fulnesse of speech, when as in respect of the sense [...], it is redundant or su­perstuous. And here of there be more examples then there be leaues e­uen in the new testament. And therefore both in the same and like sentences the article sometimes is vsed, sometimes omitted without any alteration of the sense. As Lu. 4. 4. [...]. But in Mathew 4. 4. where the same speech is recorded, [...]. And againe where the article is vsed for difference sake, it doth not alwayes point out one certaine and singuler thing, but onely when it is vsed [...], for a demonstra­tiue particle, as Iohn 1. 29. [...], beholde the Lambe of God. Iohn, 4. 29. [...]; is not this that Christ? For more vsually it is vsed [...], that is, for difference, when [Page 12] as it serueth not to signifie one speciall, but to distinguish the whole kinde. In which sense [...], is all one, as Philoso­phers say. As Marke 2. 27. the Sabboth was made [...], for the man, not the man for the Sabboth. Iohn. 2, 25. he needed not that any should beare witnesse [...], of the man (meaning any man) for himselfe knew what was, [...], in the man. So Num. 19. 11. (which is the law that Epiphanius misalledgeth) [...]: he that toucheth (that is, whosoeuer toucheth) the dead body (that is, any dead body) of any man, he shalbe vncleane seuen dayes. Whereas Epiphanius therefore alledgeth it thus, [...]: If any man touch the dead, he remaineth vn­cleane vntill the euening, and he shall be washed with water, and shall be clensed: and from the force of the article (which is not in the text as he alledgeth it, if there be not a fault in the print) prooueth that by the dead is to be meant not any dead man, but onely Christ: it is e­uident that his memory failed him. For the law which pronounceth a man vncleane vntill the euening for touching a dead body, is vn­derstood of the dead bodies of beasts: but that which speaketh of the Leuit. 11. dead body of a man, pronounceth him vncleane seuen dayes, and is (as euen now you heard) vnderstood of the dead body of any man what­soeuer. And the reason of this law is, first because a dead man is a spe­ctacle both of our sinne, and of Gods curse for the same: and second­ly, because the Lord would by the detestation of the bodily death teach the Israelites to abhorre the spirituall death of the soule in sinne. And there fore Epiphanius not vnworthily reprooueth the hy­pocrisie of the Samaritans, who vnder pretence of this law, abhorred the dead bodies of men, when as themselues were dead in sinne. So when we say, the Pope, the Emperour, the king, the priest, the mini­ster, the eye, the hand, we meane not one particular, but the whole kinde, as 1. Pet. 2. 17. [...], honour the king, not this king onely, but any whosoeuer is king. 1. Tim. 3. 2. [...], it behoou [...]th therefore the Bishop (not this or that Bishop, but euery one that hath that calling) to be without reproofe. Mat. 6. 22. [...]. The light of the body is the eye. See 1. Cor. 12. 15. 16. Mat. 12. 34. &c. So when we say, the good man or the wicked man, we meane either generally al, or indefinitely [Page 13] any that be such, Mat. 1 [...]. 35. [...] &c. The good man out of the good treasure of the hart, bringeth forth the goodthings; and the euill man, &c.

4. Sometimes againe the article is vsed [...], to signifie that which is most notable in that kinde, and therefore most worthily (or as we say [...]) deserueth that name. And of this vse is Epipha­nius his rule to be vnderstood, [...], Where the article is ad­ded vnto some definite and notable thing, there is alwayes confirmation by the article, namely, that the word is not to be vnderstood indefinit­ly or indifferently of any: [...], but without the article it is to be takē of any one indefinitely. Which latter part of the rule, if it be true, prooueth that the speech of our Sauiour, Iohn. 5. [...], if any other come is indefinit. But nei­ther doth the article vsed [...], alwayes point out a certaine and singuler thing, though sometimes it doe. As [...] in a Christians mouth signifieth the true God onely, as Epiphanius saith. So when we say, the Apostle meaning Paul, the Poet meaning among the Greekes Homer, among the Latines Virgil; the Oratour, Demo­sthenes or Tullie; the wiseman, Salomon. But when we say, [...] (which is another of Epiphanius his examples) and meane therby not indifferently any king but by an Emphasis that Prince to whom we are subiect, we doe not alwayes nor for the most part vnderstand one certaine king, but all or any to whom the soueraignty of our conutrey doth appertaine, whether he be king or Queene. As when we say, the king supreme gouernour of the church, no time prescribeth against the king, the kings high-way, the Princes lawes, &c. In like manner whē we say, [...] (which is Epiphanius his third example) or as the Apostle more distinctly speaketh, [...], the man of God: For although by this Emphasis not any man is meant but the minister of 2. Tim. 3. 17. God, yet it signifieth not one certaine minister, but any one of that function called thereunto of God. And in this sense is the Pope cal­led the Antichrist: & the Antichrist in the same sense is called the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw. But this prooueth not, that therefore the Antichrist is but one certaine and singuler man. For e­uen as the diuel, [...], the vncleane spirit, although there Luk. 11. 24 [Page 14] be many wicked ones is called, [...], the euill, and yet there be ma­ny diuels, and as the Bishop of Rome since the ti me of Boniface the third, is called the Pope (whereas before, the name Pope was attribu­ted to other Bishops) and yet there haue beene many Popes: so al­though al heretickes deserue to be called Antichrists; al profane men, men of sinne; all reprobates, sonnes of perdition; all sonnes of Belial, 1. Ioh. 2. 18 [...], or outlawes: yet not withstanding the Pope of Rome since the time of Boniface the third, deserueth to be called [...] the Anti­christ, the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw. Which as it doth not prooue that the Pope signifieth but one singuler person, so See Lib. 1. c. 6. neither doth it euince that the Antichrist signifieth one certaine man. For looke what they can say, of the Antichrist in this case; the same may be said of the Pope.

5. The third place is like to the second, and therefore a short an­swer may serue. 1. Iohn 2. 18. [...], You haue heard that the Antichrist commeth, and euen now there are many Antichrists: where the article is pre­fixed before Antichrist so properly called; but the name of Antichrist generally taken is vttered without an article, which most plainely shew­eth that Antichrist properly taken is but one man, but generally ta­ken it signifieth all heretickes. As if he had said, [...], signifi­eth but one certaine man, because the article is prefixed.

The Antichrist so properly called is [...], therefore the An­tichrist so properly called, is but one certaine man.

The prosyllogisme or proofe of the proposition I haue already prooued to be most false, when as I shewed that whereas there are foure vses of the article at the least, Bellarmines obseruation holdeth onely in one, and that the least vsuall: namely, when the article is v­sed [...], that is, for a demonstratiue particle. And that the article added to a word doth not alwaies signifie one certaine and singuler thing, I will shew by some other examples, which will sit neerer the Papists. In 2. Thes. 2. 7. [...], he that hindreth, is expounded by the fathers, and acknowledged by the Papists, to signifie the Empe­rour 2. Thes. 2. 7 of Rome, not any one particular, but the state and succession of Emperours. Againe Mat. 16. 18. where there is not onely the article, but also the pronounce demonstratiue, [...], vpon this rocke, the Papists would haue vnderstood by that rocke, which P [...] ­ter [Page 15] confessed, which is Christ, or faith in him; not onely Peter him­selfe, but also (although most falsely) the whole succession of Popes. And therefore by their owne doctrine, the article doth not alwayes, no not when it is ioyned with a demonstratiue particle, signifie one certaine and particular thing or person. Thirdly, in the place before alledged, [...], the man of sinne, the son of perdition, is vnderstood by some to signifie not onely the head of the Anti­christiā 2. Thes. 2. 3 body, but the whole multitude of those who ioyne with An­tichrist. Augustine reciteth this opinion, and is so farre from misli­king it, that Bellarmine alledgeth it as Augustines. Neither are we to thinke this interpretation to be dissonant from the manner of speech vsed in the Scriptures: seeing [...], the woman, A­poc. 12. 6. signifieth the Church of Christ; and [...], the harlot, and [...], the woman Apoc. 17. 1. 18. the city & Church of Antichrist. And that I may come to the proposition it selfe, and omit other examples, [...], sometimes signifieth the Antichristian body or company of Antichristian heretikes.

6. For better proofe whereof let vs consider the acceptation of the word: [...], the Antichrist in the place alledged, and elsewhere 1. Ioh. 2. 18 in the Epistles of Iohn, in which onely it is vsed, and not elsewhere in the scriptures. In the place which Bellarmine citeth, th'apostle seemeth to reason thus. When the Antichrist is come, it is the last houre. Now Antichrists are come; therefore now is the last houre. 1. Ioh. 2. 28 Where either the Antichrist and Antichrists signifie the same, or else there be foure termes in the Apostles argument, which Bellar­mine dareth not auouch: And afterwards v. 22. he plainly sheweth, that euery one that denieth Iesus to be the Christ (as many Antichrists 1. Ioh. 4. 3. 4 or heretickes did, of which he spake verse 18.) is [...], the An­tichrist. In the same Epistle Chapter. 4. he biddeth them try the spirits, that is, their teachers, because many false prophets were come into the world, and giueth them this note whereby to try them: Euery spirit (saith he) which confesseth Iesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is of God, and euery spirit which doth not confesse that Ie­sus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was to come, and euen now 2. Iohn. 7. already is in the world. Likewise in the second Epistle: Many dec [...]iuers are come into the world which d [...] not confesse that Iesus [Page 16] Christ is come in the flesh, this is the deceiuer and the Antichrist. By which testimonies it is euident, that [...], doth not only signifie the head of the Antichristian body (which is not one singuler man, but is continued in a succession of many) but also sometimes any hereticke that oppugneth the natures or offices of Christ: and sometimes the whole body or company of heretickes opposed vnto Christ. For Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. 22. plainely affirmeth that those many heretickes and deceiuers of his time, are the Antichrist. And whereas Paul prophecieth of Antichrist that he should come into the world, and should be destroyed at the second comming of Christ, Iohn affirmeth that Antichrist, of whom they had heard that he should come, was then already come into the world. From which places I argue thus. If [...] the Antichrist in the Epistles of Iohn, and [...], the man of sinne, [...], the outlaw, in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians doe sig­nifie one certaine and singuler man, as the Papists affirme; then it will follow necessarily, that one and the same man, who was come into the world in Saint Iohns time, shall be in the world at the second comming of Christ: for Iohn saith, that the Antichrist was come in his time, and Paul saith that the out-law shall be consumed with the spirit of Christs mouth, and destroyed at his glorious appearing. But the latter is incredible, for since the time of Saint Iohn there are already 1500. yeeres expired, and therefore the former (which is the assertion of the Papists) is absurde. [...] therefore signifieth sometimes the whole body of Heretickes from the ascension of Christ, vntill his second comming: sometimes any heretickes which are lims of that body: somtimes the graund antichrist, who is the head of that body, & is called [...] the Antichrist. Wherfore in respect of those heretickes and lims of Antichrist in the Apostles times; Antichrist is then said to haue entred, and as it were, to haue set his foote into the world. And accordingly the Apostle Paul saith, 2. Thes. 2. 7 that euen in his time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme was working (namely by those which belonged to the body of Antichrist) although couertly and vnderhand, vntill the head of that body was reuealed as he was, after the Empire in the West was dissolued, and the Emperour which hindred was done out of the way; according to the prophecie of the Apostle, 2. Thessa­lonians. 2. 7, 8. And thus you see what a slender argument this [Page 17] is taken from the article, although it be vsed as one of the principall demonstrations generally of all the Papists, that write of this argu­ment, but more especially of Bellarmine, who thinking it too good to goe for one argument, hath deuided it into two.

7 His fourth testimonie is taken out of Daniel, chap. 7. 11. & 12. Where Antichrist is called a King, and not a Kingdome, who of the ten Kings which he shall finde in the worlde, shall take away three, and shall make the other seauen subject to himselfe. But I answer, that Daniel spea­keth not of Antichrist at all, but of Antiochus Epiphanes, and there­fore this allegation is impertinent. For the learned of our times haue made it euident, that the foure kingdomes whereof Daniel speaketh, were ended before the incarnation of Christ: and that the fourth kingdome which many haue taken to be the monarchie of the Ro­manes, was the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt, so farre forth as the people of Iewrie was subject thereunto, and is therefore described as the most terrible of all the foure, because it was most trouble some to the Iewes. And that the ten hornes were ten Kings of Syria and Egypt, which successiuely tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes; Antiochus Epiphanes being the tenth and the last of those Kings which tyrannized ouer Iewrie. But because in out­ragious cruelty and cursed hostility, not onely against the people, but also against the religion of the Iewes, he surpassed all that went be­fore him; of him therefore Daniel speaketh so plainely and distinct­ly, that he hath seemed to some rather to write an Historie of him, then a Prophesie; as shall hereafter more fully be shewed, when as Chap. 16. we shall also manifestly declare that this which Bellarmine addeth concerning Antichrists killing of three Kings, and subduing of the other seauen, is but a dreame, which is indeed so farre from all proba­bility of truth, as that it cannot be verified of that party whom Da­niel describeth. Daniel describeth him as the tenth: Bellarmine maketh him the eleuenth, as if it were a beast of eleuen hornes. Daniel speak­eth of ten Kings, which successiuely ruled ouer the Iewes: Bellar­mine maketh him speake of ten, who together with the eleuenth, should be at one time in the world. Of those ten Daniel saith, that three were pluckt vp before the tēth, & as it may seeme by his means, but of the other sixe, either all or the most were dead before he was borne: Bellarmine maketh him to kill three and subdue the other [Page 18] seauen, which indeed liued not in his time, as shall be shewed hereaf­ter out of the eleuenth of Daniel, where the succession of these ten Kings, and the affaires of the tenth, who can be no other but Antio­chus Epiphanes, are particularly and fully described. This argument drawne from the misconstruing of Daniel, Bellarmine although he knew it to be nothing worth, yet he was content to make a flourish with it, because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon. After­wards he commeth nearer to the purpose, and saith, that Caluin, as some of the Fathers before him, to wit, Cyprian and Ierome, affirmeth, and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where, that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a type of Antichrist. Therefore leauing his former hold, he reasoneth thus: Such as is the type or figure, such is the thing figured: Antiochus the type was but one singular person, therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one. The proposition is to be vnder­stood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things, in respect whereof the type is a figure, and not generally in all things. As for example, the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ, but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest, because Christ is one. The Papists holde that Melchisedec, who was but one, was a type of their Masse Priests, which are many. Iosuah, Dakid and Salo­mon, were types of Christ, but therefore not like vnto him in all things. So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist; because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which op­pressed the Church of God: so he in falshood deceit, pride, idolatry, cruelty, and persecuting of the Church of God, resembled Antichrist the man of sinne, which is an enemie, and is listed vp about all that is called God, or that is worshipped. In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist, that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. & 11. to the Pope of Rome. If therefore you vnderstand the pro­position generally, it is false: if particularly, the whole argumentati­on is a fallacion.

8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. & 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, as Irenaeus teacheth, and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn, &c. His reason is thus framed, If Daniel spake of one King, then also Iohn: but the former is true, there­fore the later. The proposition, wherin there is indeed no coherence, [Page 19] he prooueth by the similitude of their words: First, because both make mention of ten Kings, which shalbe in the earth when Antichrist shall come. It is true that both make mention of ten hornes, but with such diffe­rence as that otherwise there is no likenesse. Antiochus in Daniel, by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist, is the last of the ten, & not one besides the ten; otherwise the fourth beast, were a beast of eleuē hornes: Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation, and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth. Bellar­mines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man, but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne, but the beast, whereby not one man, but a state is signified. The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another, in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes, before the cōming of the Messias: the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers king­domes, which receiue their kingdome together, not only after the in­carnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire: So that in truth nothing is here alike, saue that in both there is menti­on of ten hornes. Secondly saith Bellarmine, both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe. But I an­swer, that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist. For first Da­niel assigneth a time, and times, and parcell of time, that is, three yeers and ten daies, to the persecution vnder Antiochus, wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted, viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleu­cidae See. Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter. Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers & an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist: but to the beast with seuē heads & ten hornes, which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ, or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head, that is, the emperors, he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months, which are not literally to be vnderstood. Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads, but one head of the seuē, & is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse, which in plaine terms is called another beast. For how can he be that beast, if he be an­other? Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also, I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter. Lastly, he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge; but neither do these fathers expresly say, that Antichrist shalbe See. Chap. 8. but one man: neither if they did, can any sound argument be drawne [Page 20] from their testimonies, vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue, that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist, is true. And againe diuers of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostome, Ie­rome, Ruffinus, Primasius, Augustine, expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one, as spoken of Antichrist, they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one. Yea but the Fathers say, that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell, that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily, euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally. But although this allegation were true (as I will not thereof dispute,) yet is it imper­tinent: for the Pope (meaning the whole succession of Antichristi­an Popes) may be a notable instrument of the diuell, &c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope: As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe, we are hereafter to intreate.

9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man, but a whole state and succession of men, it may appeare by these arguments. First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn; for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn. 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith, that [...], the Antichrist, of whom they had hard that he should come, was in his time. And of whom had they heard it, but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith, that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie, that is, Antichristianisme was work­ing: noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come, although he were not reuealed, vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way. Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie, that the Antichrist was in their time; so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ, 2. Thes. 2. 8. for al­though he should be wasted and consumed before by the spirit of Christs mouth (that is, the ministery of the word) yet he should not be vtterly destroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. From hence therefore we reason thus: If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and was to remaine vntill the second comming of Christ; then Antichrist is not one singuler man, but a succession of men; vnlesse they will say, that one and the same man may liue vpon the earth from the Apostles time vntill the comming of Christ, of which time there be already aboue 1500. yeares expired. But Antichrist was in the Apostles times, and is to continue vntill the second comming of [Page 21] Christ, as the two Apostles Paul and Iohn do plainely testifie, there­fore Antichrist is not one singuler man.

10. Of this syllogisme Bellarmine cannot deny either the propo­sition, or the assumption. Onely he distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption: viz. That Antichrist in the Apostles time was come indeede, but not in his owne person, but onely in his fore­runners. And this he would prooue; first, by a similitude, which he might haue knowne from Plato to be a most slippery argument. As [...]. Christ came in the beginning of the world not in his owne person, but in his forerunners the Patriarches and Prophets; so Antichrist came in the Apo­stles time not in his owne person, but in his forerunners, the heretickes & per­secutors of the church. In which similitude there is no proportiō, vnlesse that which is in question betaken for granted, namely that Antichrist is but one particular person, as Christ is. For if Antichrist be a succes­sion of heretiques, then might he be said to come in the first of the ranke; although the chiefe of that order, which principally is called Antichrist, was not yet come. And secondly, the protasis or propositiō of this similitude is vntrue. For although Christ might be said to be come from the beginning in respect both of the truth of the promise, and also of the efficacy of his merits, which is extended to all the faithfull from the beginning: yet we neuer reade, neither can it truely be said that he came in the Patriarches and Prophets: especi­ally seeing the holy Ghost maketh a kinde of opposition betwixt Heb. 1. 1. Mat. 21. 37 Gal. 4. 4. Gods sending of them, and the comming of Christ, who was not sent before the fulnesse of time came. Neither are the Prophets or Patriarches any where called the forerunners of Christ: For forerun­ners goe a little before, as Iohn Baptist did, who therefore is wor­thily called [...], the forerunner. If any man obiect that as Christ 1. Pet. 3. 19 spake in the Prophets; so Antichrist in the heretiques: I answer, that this latter is true not of Antichrist, but of the diuell, who is a lying spirit in the mouthes of all false Prophets. Thirdly, the reddition is contradictory to that which the Apostle Iohn deliuereth. For he saith plainely that the Antichrist with the article prefiexed, and that An­tichrist whom they heard was to come, was already entred into the world, 1. Iohn. 4. 3. 2. Iohn. 7. and thence prooueth that therefore it is the last houre, because Antichrist was to come in the last houre, 1. Iohn. 2. 18. So that in this similitude nothing is sound, no propor­tion [Page 22] in the whole, no truth in the parts.

11. Wherefore by a new supply of arguments, he laboureth to make good this exposition. And as touching the place in Paul, he ar­gueth first from the authority of the fathers & interpreters, wherof some vnderstand by the mystery of iniquitie, the persecution vnder Nero: others the heretiques of those times which secretly seduced many. The former had no reason to call the open persecution of Nero a mysterie: who also although he were an enimy, yet belonged not to the body of Anti­christ, who is a disguised enimy and a pretended Christian. The lat­ter exposition we doe embrace. For we holde Antichrist to be the whole body of heretiques in the last age of the world, who vnder the name and profession of Christ aduance themselues against Christ, first secretly, as in the Apostles times; afterwardes more openly, when that which hindred, was taken out of the way. Of this body as euery member seuerally and all ioyntly is Antichrist (and therefore Iohn calleth the heretiques of his time Antichrists, and of them all saith that they are the Antichrist:) so especially the head of this body, which we haue prooued to be the Papacy, is [...] called Anti­christ. Wherefore although Antichrist was after a sort come, and the mysterie of iniquity wrought in the Apostles time, yet Antichrist was not reuealed vntill the head of this body appeared, that is, vntill the Pope became Antichrist, who since the yeare of the Lord 606. hath shewed himselfe in his colours; first by vsurping supreame authority ouer the vniuersall Church, & afterwards by claiming soueraignty o­uer kings and Emperors, as we haue heretofore shewed Seeing ther­fore the heretiques of whom the fathers speake, did belong to the bo­dy of Antichrist, it cannot be denied but that Antichrist, when they were in the world, was come in some of his members, and had as it were set his foote into the Church.

12. Secondly from our owne confession he would seeme to driue vs to great absurdity. For (saith he) if Antichrist were come in the Apostles times, and if Antichrist hath his seat in Rome, then it will fol­low that Peter & Paul were the true Antichrists, & Nero or Simon Ma­gus the true Christ. For there were no other Bishops of Rome then, but Peter and Paul, with whom Nero and Simon Magus contended. I answere, that it cannot be prooued out of the Scripture, or by any sound argument that Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome: and [Page 23] although they were, it would not follow vpon our assertion, that therefore they were Antichrists, and much lesse that Nero or Simon Magus was Christ. For when we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time, we speake of the body of Antichrist with S. Iohn. Whō we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome, we speake of the head of this body, who especially is called Antichrist: whom we do with Paul acknowledge not to haue beene reuealed, vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way, that is, vntill the Romane Empire in the West was dissolued: but afterwards by degrees he was aduan­ced in the Papacie, aboue all that is called God; sitting in the temple of God, as if he were God, that is, ruling and raigning in the Church, as if he were a God vpon earth. And surely if the head of the Anti­christian body was to be reuealed not long after the dissolution of the Romane Empire in the West, and was about the same time with the rulers of the Prouinces, to attaine vnto his kingdome, as hath bin shewed; and lastly, if he shall continue in the world after he is reuea­led, vntill the second comming of Christ: then it followeth necessa­rily that euen this head of the Antichristian body, cannot be any one singular man, but is continued by a succession of many from the time of his reuelation, vntill the end of the world: of which time there is almost a thousand yeares expired. But both in this argument, and in the former, Bellarmine sophistically beggeth the question. For in his arguments there is no consequence, vnlesse this be taken for granted, that Antichrist is but one man. Antichrist came in the Heretiques in the Apostles time, therfore he came not in his owne person. A good argument, if Antichrist were but one man, which is the question. If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and if Antichrist must sit at Rome, then he that was then Bishop of Rome, was Antichrist; a good argument if Antichrist were but one man, which is the que­stion.

13. Now whereas S. Iohn saith, that Antichrist in his time was come, Bellarmine faineth him to speake of Antichrist, as he saith, Our Sauiour spake of Elias Mat. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come (namely in his own person) but I say vnto you, Elias is already come in suo simili, in his like, that is, Iohn Baptist. So S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist, that he was in­deed to come in his owne person, but now he was come in his type. You see to what silly shifts this worthy chāpion of the Pope is driuen. [Page 24] For first he fathereth vpon Christ that Iewish fable, which with the Iewes the Papists holde against Christ himselfe. For whereas Mala­chie had prophecied of the comming of Elias before the day of the Malac. 4. 5 Lord, meaning the first comming of Christ: our Sauiour Christ plain­lie anoucheth Mat. 11. 14. that Iohn Baptist was that Elias, who ac­cording to the Prophecie of Malachie was to come. Now Iohn Bap­tist was called Elias, because he came in the spirit and power of Eli­as, to turne the hearts of the fathers, &c. as the Angell also applyeth that prophesie, Luk. 1. 17. But suppose that Christ had spoken of Elias Malac. 4. 6. according to Bellarmines conceit; yet how dooth it follow that Luke. 1. 17. therefore Iohn speaketh of Antichrist after the same manner? No more then it followeth, that Dauid should long after his death be sent againe to gouerne the people of God: because it was prophe­sied by Ezechiel, that the Lord would raise vp a Pastor for his people, euen Dauid his seruant, &c. But as by the name of Dauid in Eze­chiel Eze. 34. 23 24. & 37. 35. is meant not Dauid himselfe, but Christ of whom Dauid was a type: so by the name of Elias in Malachie, is not meant Elias him­selfe, Iere. 30. 9. but Iohn Baptist, who resembled Elias in spirit and power in re­forming the Church of God.

14. Our second argument is this: That which in the Prophecies of the Scriptures, especially in the 7. and 11. of Daniel, and in Apoc. the 13. and 17. is described vnder the name and figure of a beast, is not one singuler thing or person, but a whole state or succession: An­tichrist is described in the Apocatypse 13. vnder the name and figure of a Beast, therfore Antichrist is not one singuler person, but a whole state and succession. The proposition is prooued by induction of par­ticular examples. As in the 7. of Daniel, by the Lion is figured the Kingdome of the Assyrians and Babylonians: by the Beare the Medes and Persians: by the Leopard the Greekes and Macedoni­ans: by the beast with ten hornes the Seleucidae and Lagidae, and so Chapt. 8. In the 13. of the Apocalypse, there are two Beasts descri­bed, the former signifying the state of the Romane Emperours: the second signifying the state of Antichrist. Bellarmine answereth, that Daniel as sometimes by the beasts he signifieth whole king­domes; so sometimes also particular persons. As in the eight Chap­ter, by the Ramme [...]he vnderstandeth Darius the last King of the Persians: by the Goate, Alexander the great. In which answer [Page 25] the vpright dealing of Bellarmine with the Scriptures appeareth. For in the 20. verse of the 8. Chapter, where that vision is expounded, Dan. 8. 20. the Angels words are these: The Ramme which thou sawest, hauing two hornes are [...] the Kings of the Medes and Persians. And the Goate is the King of Iauan or Grecia (meaning as before the Kings or Kingly estate, as appeareth plainly by the words that follow, and not as Bellarmine saith, Alexander) and the great horne betweene his eyes is the first King, namely Alexander, which being broken, foure other stand vp in the steed thereof. As Daniel therefore by seuerall beasts Dan. 8. 22. meaneth not so many particular men, but whole states and orders of men; and as Iohn in the 13. of the Apocalyps, by the former beasts meaneth not any one Emperour, but the whole state and succession of Emperours at the least: so the holy Ghost in the same Chapter by the second beast describing Antichrist, meaneth not any one parti­cular Apo. 13. 11 person, but the whole state and succession of Antichristian Popes, to whom (as heretofore hath beene shewed) that description wholy agreeth. And whereas Bellarmine addeth, that Paul when he entreateth of Antichrist, speaketh not of any one of the foure beasts in Daniel, but of the little horne mentioned in the 7. of Daniel, vers. 8 I answer, that the Apostle speaketh neither of the one nor of the other; and therefore the former part of Bellarmines speech is vaine, for no man saith so; and the latter is false. For the little horne is not Antichrist, but Antiochus Epiphanes, who liued aboue 200. yeares be­fore the incarnation of Christ: who although he were but one man, might not vnsitly be called a type of Antichrist, who is a state or suc­cession of men.

15. Our third argument is taken from that Apostasie, which the Apostle foretelleth 2. Thes. 2. For where he speaketh of a defection (whereof Antichrist is the head) without addition, we vnderstand a 2. Thes. 2. 3. generall defection of the visible Church, which as it began to worke in the Apostles time; so was it to increase vntill the reuelation of Antichrist, and to continue more or lesse vntill his destruction. This Apostasie because it cannot be the worke of one man, or of a fewe 2. Thes. 2. 7. yeares, euidently prooueth that Antichrist is not one singuler man, but rather a state and succession of men. To this Bellarmine for want of one good answer, maketh many. First (saith he) by that Apostasie wee may very well (nay he saith rectissimè) vnderstand [Page 26] Antichrist himselfe, as diuers of the fathers teach; and what will he in­ferre thereupon? that therefore Antichrist is but one man? Nay ra­ther, the contrary is to be inferred. For if Apostasie be put by a me­tonymy 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 (who according to this interpretatiō is signified by Aposta­sie) doth not signifie one man, but the whole body and company of those that doe reuolt, that is, the whole body and kingdome of An­tichrist, which we haue prooued to be the Apostaticall Church of Rome. And so Augustine whom Bellarmine alledgeth in the very same place which he citeth, reading in the concrete, nisi venerit refuga pri­mum, vnlesse the Apostate first come, and expounding what is meant by De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19. the temple, not the temple at Ierusalem, but rather the Church of God, because the Apostle would not call the temple of the diuell, the temple of God, propoundeth the opinion of some which hee doth not mislike, Vnde nonnulli non ipsum principem, &c. Whereupon some vnderstand in this place not the Prince himselfe, but his whole body as it were, that is, the company of men pertaining vnto him together with their Prince, to be Antichrist: and they thinke that it might more rightly be said in Latine as it is in the Greeke, that he sitteth (non in templo dei, sed in templum dei) not in the Temple of God, but as the Temple of God, as though he were the Temple of God which is the Church. Which as hath beene shewed, notably sitteth the Pope and Church of Rome. And here we are by the way to note, whereas Bellarmine saith that Antichrist shall be such a notable Apostate, as that he may be called the Apostasie it selfe, that seeing none can be an Apostate which hath not beene a Christian: by this assertion therefore of Bellarmine, Antichrist shall not be a Iew, but a backslyding and reuolted Chri­stian.

16. Secondly (he saith) by Apostasie we may vnderstand a reuolt from the Romane Empire, as many of the Latin fathers doe expound. To omit the dissension of the fathers, which prooueth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures, we doe confesse that before the manifest reuelation of Antichrist, there was to go, no [...] onely a defection from the faith, but also a reuolt from the Romane Empire. But as the reuolting from earthly kingdomes is neuer in the Scriptures termed Apostasie: so is it not here signified; but as [Page 27] the word elsewhere is vsed, and by the most and best writers here is [...]. expounded, [...], signifieth a falling away from God, a defection or departure from the true faith, as heretofore I haue shewed. Au­gustme saith, quem refugam vocat, vtique a domino Deo, whom he calleth a Lib. 20. cap. 19. §. 2. runnagate, namely, from the Lord God. Neither can it be denied but that this Apostasie is that which afterward the Apostle calleth the mystery of iniquity, which was working in and by the heretiques of those times, whom also Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Antichrist, because they peruerted the faith, and therefore the defection caused by Antichrist is an Apostasie from the faith, according to the prophe­sies of the Apostle, that in these latter times diuers should make an Apo­stasie 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. Tim. 4. 4. from the faith, and should turne away their hearing from the truth, and shalbe turned vnto fables.

17. Thirdly, although we should grant (saith he) that by Apostasie is to be vnderstood a defection or reuolt from the true faith and religion of Christ, yet it is not necessary that it should be an Apostasie of many yeares. For it may be that the Apostle speaketh of one great Apostasie which shalbe onely in that most short time of Antichrists raigne, that is, of three yeares and a halfe. But this bare ghesse of Bellarmine ought not to be of so great waight with vs, as the plaine speech of the Apostle compared with the euent. And therefore it is but vaine to tell vs what might be, seeing we haue seene the contrary to be, which the Apostle foretold should be. For as the Apostle tolde vs that there should be an Aposta­sie: so he saith, that the mysterie of iniquity whereby many were sedu­ced, did worke already euen in his time, and insinuateth that it should worke vntill the full reuelation of Antichrist. And the euent hath shewed how by degrees this Apostasie hath bin wrought euen from the primitiue Church, vntill it came to that height wherein it conti­nued vntill Antichrist began to be acknowledged. And surely as this generall Apostasie could not grow at once, but by degrees: so can it not be abolished at once, but by degrees; and therefore was not like to be an Apostasie of three yeares and an halfe onely. Neither is it credible that by one man the greatest part, not onely of Christi­ans, but also of the Iewes should be seduced in three yeares and an halfe: seeing Christ in the like space of time could not, as he was a man and minister of the circumcision, conuert many of the Iewes; notwithstanding that his doctrine was more effectuall, and his [Page 28] miracles more admirable then those of Antichrist can be; yea the A­postlès & some other of the disciples, who for so long time scarce went out of Iewry, were able to preuaile but with a few of the Iewes in co­parison of those which reiected their doctrine: And shall wee thinke that Antichrist, who (as the Papists hold) shal be but one man, shall in three yeers & an halfe, seduce the remnant of the Iewes, and al the vi­sible Church of God dispersed into so many parts of the world? And wheras he alledgeth Augustine as a fauourer of this ghesse, therein he abuseth the authority of that learned father, to seduce the ignorāt, who onely deliuereth the Iudgement of others concerning the mysterie of iniquity, & that to this effect. That the mystery of iniquity worketh in De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19. euill men in the Church and counterseit Christians, when as they re­uolt from the truth, and that vnto this mystery belongeth the reuol­ting of those of whom S. Iohn speaketh, They went out from vs, but 1. Ioh. 2. 19 were not of vs, &c. And that this mystery should stil worke, that is, that vnsound men in the Church should more and more reuolt vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist. But there is neuer a word of this defection caused either by one man, or in so short a time, but ra­ther the contrary, as hath beene shewed.

18. Fourthly he answereth, that although it should be granted that this Apostasie is of many ages (which he saith cannot well be denied, see­ing th'apostle saith it began to worke in his time) yet it is not necessary that it should appertaine to one body vnder one head, neither that it apper­taineth to the kingdome of Antichrist, but rather is a disposition thereunto, happening in diuers dominions vpon (undry occasions, &c. But this fourth answer is ouerthrowne by the first: wherein this Apostasie was made so proper to Antichrist, as that by it Bellarmine thought we might most fitly vnderstand Antichrist himselfe, or rather as we shewed the whole body and kingdome of Antichrist. And further we haue shew­ed heretofore that the whole body of Apostates and heretiques pro­fessing the name of Christ, is Antichrist, and after a more speciall maner the head of this body & Apostasie. And therfore it followeth, that all of this Apostasie professing the name of Christ, belong to this body and kingdome of Antichrist. And whereas hee saith, that this Apostasie is onelie a disposition so the kingdome of Anti­christ, &c. I answere that all the degrees of this Apostasie go­ing before the reuelation of Antichrist, were a disposition not [Page 29] to the being, but to the reuealing of Antichrist. For in the Apostasie Antichrist was as Iohn plainely sheweth, neither could he be reuea­led vnlesse first he were Wherupon Theodoret saith, Defectionem appel­lat Antichristi praesentiam, he calleth Apostasie the presence or comming of Antichrist. But is it not very likely thinke you that there hath bene a disposition or preparation already of more then 1500. yeares in most parts of the world, for the raigne of one man three yeres and an halfe?

19. Fiftly and lastly, although we should grant (saith he) that a ge­nerall Apostasie from the faith hauing now continued many yeares, is the kingdome of Antichrist: yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope is Antichrist. For it is not yet decided who haue made this defection, they or we. And i [...] were more easie to proou [...] that they haue made this defecti­on, for they haue reuolted from that Church and religion whereof their fore­fathers were, which we haue not done, &c. In the foure former answers Bellarmine turned backe vpon vs, hoping therby to repell the force of our argument, but those being spent, in this he turneth his backe vp­on vs & betaketh himselfe to his feete: and leauing the defence of the question in hand, runneth to his chiefe hold. For whereas we proue that Antichrist is not one man, contrary to their assertion, by this ar­gument among others, because that generall Apostacie of the visible Church continuing for many ages, whereof Antichrist is the head, cannot be the worke of one man or of a few yeares: Bellarmine an­swereth thus in effect, that although your argument be very good to prooue that Antichrist is not one man; yet notwithstanding here of it followeth not, that the Pope is Antichrist. Why, neuer any of vs vsed this argument: Antichrist is not one man, therefore the Pope is Antichrist. But in this assertion of ours, we answere your chiefe demonstration whereby you would prooue that the Pope is not An­tichrist, and where in especially you please your selues, reasoning as hath beene hard, after this manner: Antichrist is but one man, there­fore the Pope is not Antichrist. And after you haue prooued this by many worshipfull demonstrations, and stoutly denied our contrary arguments: now in the end you make this cowardes bragge: Al­though this should be granted which you say to prooue that Antichrist is not one man, yet it doth not follow that the Pope is Antichrist.

20. But let vs pursue the Iesuite in his flight. Although this should be granted, saith he, &c. Yet it followeth not that therfore the Pope is [Page 30] Antichrist. For the question yet is, who hath made this Apostasie, we or you. Well then, let vs ioyne in this issue. If the Apostasie be on our side, let vs be thought to belong to Antichrist; if this Apostasie be in the Church of Rome, whereof the Pope is head; then let it be ac­knowledged, that the Pope is the head of this Apostasie, and conse­quently Antichrist. But you (saith the Iesuite) haue reuoltd from the Church and religion of your forefathers, that is, from the Church of Rome and Latin religion. And therefore when you read, vnlesse there come are­uolt, &c. it is a wonder that you doe not apply that prophesie to your selues. The Apostasie whereof the Apostle speaketh, is not a separation from the Church of Rome that now is, nor a forsaking of Romish or Popish religion: but a reuolting from God, a departure from the true faith and religion of Christ, vnto Antichristianisme and idola­try. We in forsaking the Church of Rome, haue come out of Ba­bylon Apoc. 18. 4. according to Gods commaundement, and in reuolting from the Pope haue returned to God: and therefore this Apostasie tou­cheth not vs. But you, say I to the Papists, haue reuolted from the true faith and religion of Christ vnto Antichristianisme and Idola­try: as besides the infinite particulars wherein your Apostasie doeth consist, may briefely appeare by these notes. First, the Apostle speaking of the same Apostasie in another place, hath these words. The spirit speaketh plaincly, that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith, attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of 1. Tim. 4. 1. diuels, speaking lyes in hypocrisie and hauing their owne conscience seared. Now who these are that make this Apostasie, the Apostle further describeth by specifying two of those doctrines of diuels, as cer­taine notes whereby to know them. Forbidding to marry, and com­maunding to abstain [...] from meates, which God hath created to be recei­ued with thankesgiuing, &c. But as I haue shewed heretofore these notes touch not vs, and properly agree to the Papists, therefore Lib. 1. Chap. 4. 3. this Apostasie is among them. Secondlie, this Apostasie is a­mong those who are fallen from the true religion and worship of God, into idolatry and superstition. For the Apostaticall Church is the Idolatrous Church signified by the whore of Babylon, the mother of fornications. But the Church of Roome is strangelie addicted to idolatry and superstition, and for the same deserueth [Page 31] to be called the whore of Babylon; where as we through the mercie of God are free from idolatry, and therefore the A­postásie is with them and not with vs. For the Apostasie is of them that are made drunke with the cuppe of the whore of Ba­bylous fornications, as the Papists are, and wee are not, who haue come out of Babylon. Thirdlie, the Apostasie is of those that receiue the name and marke of the beast as the Papists doe, and not of those that refuse it as wee doe. The fourth note or touchstone as it were, to trie who haue made this Apostasie, i [...] the word of God: For that is the true faith and the true re­ligion which is contayned and prescribed in the written word of God. Now our desire is, that the Scriptures may be acknow­ledged the onelie rule of faith and manners: vnto the Scrip­tures we appeale in all controuersies, and desire to be iudged by them: vnto the reading of the Scriptúres we exhort our peo­ple, that they may be further edified and confirmed in that trueth which we doe teach and prosesse. The Papists contra­rywise not daring to stand to the Scriptures, slie to their vn­written verities, traditions, decretals, doctrines and authorities of men both besides and against the Scriptures: and in a word, that the prophecie of the Apostle foretelling this Apostasie, might be verified in them, they haue asserted their hearing from the 2. Tim. 4. 4. trueth, and are conuertd vnto fables. They cannot abide to heare that the Scripture should be the onely rule of faith and maners: they cannot endure to see any of their people to read the Scriptures, and therefore desire to keepe it from them in an vnknowne language. The foundation of their trueth is the au­thoritie of their Church, and in the Church, of their Pope, who, they say, cannot erre. But if the Pope teach doctrines of Diuels, and speake lyes in hypocrise (as the Apostle hath prophesied especially of them) then is there in that Church little soundnesse of trueth, that is built vpon so vnsound a soun­dation. Thus therefore I reason. The head of the generall Apostasie is Antichrist: The Pope is the head of the generall or catholicke Apostasiei therefore he is Antichrist.

[Page 32] 21. To the three former arguments, a fourth may be added. The seuen heades of that beast which signifieth the Romane state, are not so many persons, but so many heades or states of gouernement, wher­by the common wealth of the Romanes, hath beene at diuerse times gouerned: the sixt head was the state of emperours: the seuenth An­tichrist, as the Papists confesse: the eight (which also is one of the sea­uen) the state of Emperours renewed. Whereby it euidently appea­reth, Rhem. in Apoc. 17. Bellarmi. not onely that Antichrist is not one man, but also that the Pope (who is the seuenth head) is Antichrist.

CHAP. 3. Concerning the time of Antichrist his comming.

1. TO withdraw our minds from beholding An­tichrist in the See of Rome, and to make vs looke for the expected Messias of the Iewes that neuer shall come, the Papistes labour by might and maine to perswade vs that An­tichrist is not yet come. For euen as the lear­ned of the Iewes, when Christ was among them, contrary to their one perswasion, for worldly respects refused the true Messias, and made the people expect another which neuer shall be: So the learned among the Papists hauing Antichrist a­mong them, for worldly respects cannot endure that he should bee acknowledged; but teach the people that he is not yet come, and describe vnto them such an Antichrist as themselues may well know shall neuer come, as by the grace of God shall appeare in the particulars. Now as touching the time of Antichristes comming, Bellarmine first reciteth diuers false and erronious opinions as heo calleth them: and afterwarde setteth downe sixe solemne demon­strations to prooue that he is not yet come. In the former he spen­deth a goodlong chapter, reckoning vp diuers opinions both of the fathers in former ages, and also of hetetiques as [...]he calleth them; in latter times, mingling the trueth with errours, that the credit of both might be alike. As touching the fathers, because he taketh it for gran­ted, (which is the question) that Antichrist is not to come before [Page 33] the end of the world, which we deny according to the Scrip­tures: 1. Ioh. 2. 18 2. Iohn. 7. 2. Thes. 2. 7 he would make their opinion concerning the approching of Antichrist, which they heid according to the Prophesies of the Scripture compared with the euent, of no better credit then their conceit of Christs approching vnto judgement, groun­ded not so much vpon the Scriptures, as vpon their owne con­jecture. For to omit their conjectures concerning Christs com­ming consuted by experience, what can Bellarmine answer to the sound argument either of S. Ierome or Gregorie, concerning the comming of Antichrist, confirmed by experience, alledged by Bellarmine himselfe. Ierome applying the Prophesie of Paul Epist. ad Geront. de Monoga­mia. 2. Thes. 2. 6. 7. 8. that Antichrist should appeare, when he that hin­dereth (meaning the Romane Emperour) was taken out of the way, to his time, wherein not onely the imperiall seat had beene remooued from Rome (which was the first degree of taking out of the way that which hindered) but also Rome it selfe in distresse, being taken of the Gothes, and the Empire in decay: Quitenebat (saith he) de medio fit, & non intelligimus Anticbri­stum appropinquare? He which did holde, is taken out of the way; and do we not vnderstand that Antichrist dooth approch? And likewise Gregory, Omnia quae praedicta sunt, fiunt: Rex superbia propè est. All things which were foretold doe come to passe: the King Lib. 4. epi. 38. of pride is at hand. Which arguments alledged also by vs, Bellar­mine because he could not answer, he thought to discredit by reckoning them among erronious conceits.

2. But let vs come to his heretiques: Who although they all a­gree in this, that Antichrist is come, and that it is the Pope: yet saith Bellarmine, they are deuided into sixe opinions. The first opi­nion, viz. of the Samosatenians in Hungarie and Transyluania, is not worth the mentioning, being of such heretiques as deny the Trinity, and also the diuinity of Christ, with whom though we haue as little to doe as the Papists, sauing that some of our men haue soundly confuted their heresies, whiles the Papists held their peace: yet he numbreth our opinion with theirs, as Christ was numbred among the wicked; that by this mixture of truth with falshood, he might discredit the truth. As for the rest, it is easie to shew, that all Protestants almost that haue written in [Page 34] this argument, and namely those whom Bellarmine alledgeth, doe agree in the substance concerning the comming of Anti­christ: And that there is no such difference among them, as Bellarmine would beare vs in hand. For concerning this matter, this is the receiued opinion of our Churches. When with Iohn in his Epistles we speake of Antichrist, meaning the whole bo­die of Heretiques and Antichrists, we hold with Iohn that euen in the Apostles times Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church, and that from that time the mysterie of iniquitie, that is, Antichristianisme, did more and more worke, vntill the head of this body the man of sinne was reuealed: Which with Paul we hold to haue beene done, after that which hindered was remooued out of the way. But when we speake of the head of this body, who [...] is called the Antichrist, figured by the second beast, Apoc. 13. of whom also the Apostle in­treateth 2. Thes. 2. the constant opinion of the learned is this: that of the reuealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist, there were two principall degrees. The first about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third obtained the supremacie ouer the vni­uersall See lib. 1. cap. 3. Church. The second after the yeare 1000. when he claimed and vsurped both swords, that is, a soueraigne and vni­uersall authoritie, not onely ecclesiasticall ouer the Clergie, but also temporall ouer Kings and Emperours. Vnto which second soueraigntie they had long aspired, but neuer attained, vntill the time of Gregorie the seauenth. We holde then, that Antichrist was come and shewed himselfe in Boniface the third: and that after this his birth as it were, he grewe by degrees, vntill he came to his [...], or full growth in Gregorie the seauenth: in whose time and in all ages since, the Pope hath been by some acknow­ledged to be that Antichrist.

3. Now as touching his comming or birth, which is the chiefe matter in question, all agree. Illyricus and the other wri­ters 2. of the Centuries, as Bellarmine cōfesseth, hold, that about the yeare 606. Antichrist was borne, when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome, that he should be called the head of the whole Church. Of the same judgement is Chytraeus. For although he 3. confesse, that the smoake of false doctrine, ascending out of the In Apoc. 9 [Page 35] bottomlesse pitte, began sooner to obscure and darken the truth: yet he saith, that in the yeare 607, Boniface the third was by Pho­cas ordained the Angell of the bottomlesse pit, meaning there­by Antichrist, when he receiued from him the title of oecume­nicall Bishop. Luther perceiuing that the Papacie consisteth of 4. the two swords, teacheth that there is a two-fold comming of De supput. annorum Mundi. Antichrist: the first with the spirituall sworde after the yeare 600. when Phocas gaue him the Antichristian title: the latter, with the temporall sworde, after the yeare 1000. Bullinger doth not say, as Bellarmine falsely chargeth him, that Antichrist first 5. appeared Anno 763. for he aboue all others most plainely and In Apoc. 13. distinctlie hath deliuered that truth which we doe hold. Pontisex Romanus (saith he) initium quidem dominij jecit sub Phocá: sub regibus Francorum fundauit regnum: ampliauit autem sub. Hen­ricis et Fridericis: confirmauit demum sub sequentibus aliquot re­gibus: regnat nostro seculo ac praecedentibus aliquot. The Pope of Rome laide the beginning of his dominion vnder Phocas: vnder the French Kings he founded his kingdome: vnder the Henries and Fredericks he enlarged it: vnder some other Kings which followed he confirmed it: bereigneth in our and some former ages. Musculus, whom he nameth in the sixt place, dooth not say, that Anti­christ 6. came about the yeare 1200: but by the tyrannie of the Popes, and vsurped dominion ouer the Church, by their shame­lesse symony, by their excessiue riote, and diuellish pride, by their abominable lusts and vncleannesse, he concludeth that the Church of Rome is Babylon, and the seat of Antichtist: and addeth that Bernard was of the same minde. Who seemeth to haue signified that Antichrist was then come, and that onely it remained that the man of sinne should be reuealed (that is, ac­knowledged and detected, as Musculus vnderstandeth him) which discouerie of Antichrist, saith he, hath followed in our age. And thus you see a notable consent of all our writers whom he alledgeth in the maine point, concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist.

4. Now let vs see what he objecteth against this receiued truth. Concerning the time of his comming with the spirituall sword, he objecteth that Phocas did not giue the title of vniuersall [Page 36] to the Pope, but called him the head of the Churches, as Iustinian be­fore him had done, and also the councell of Chalcedon: And there­fore no reason, why the comming of Antichrist should be placed in the time of Phocas. As touching the title, good authours affirme, that he receiued from Phocas both the title of the head of the Church, and also of vniuersall or oecumenicall Bishop. And no doubt he sought for, and by suite obtained that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claimed. Neither is there any great difference betwixt these two titles, as they are now giuen to the Pope, saue that to be the head of the vniuersall Church, is the more Antichristian stile. And although titles of honour and preheminence were sometimes giuen to the Church of Rome, as the chiefe or head of the Churches, the mystery of iniquitie working before the reuelation thereof in the Pa­pacie: yet before this graunt of Phocas, which was obtained with much adoe and contention, the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excep­ting that of Constantinople, not in respect of authoritie and ju­risdiction (which after this graunt, it more and more practised) but in respect of order and dignitie: And that for this cause espe­cially, because Rome whereof he was Bishop, was the chiefe citie, as it is specified in the councell of Chalcedon, [...]: and in the councell of Constantinople, [...]. And for the same cause was the Pa­triarch of Constantinople sometimes Concil. Chalced. matched with him, some­times Tempore Ma [...]itii. preferred aboue him: because Constantinople (which they called new Rome) was become the imperiall seate. Yea and the Bishops of Rauenna, because their city was the chiefe in the exarchate of Rauenna, whereunto Rome was for a time sub­ject, stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the exarches for superioritie. Seeing therefore that now the Pope of Rome had with great contention and ambition obtained the suprema­cie and soueraigntie ouer the vniuersall church; and now intitu­led himselfe the head of the vniuersall Church (a title peculiar vnto Christ) the head I say, not onely in respect of excellencie and dignitie, as a chiefe member of the Church (as he had beene in former times by some acknowledged, because he was the [Page 37] Bishop of the chiefe citie; but also in respect of authoritie and Iurisdiction, as beeing the prince and supreme gouernour of the Church vniuersall: we doe therefore worthily call this soue­raigne dominion challenged ouer the vniuersall Church, the first reuelation or open comming of Antichrist.

5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the tempo­rall sworde after the yeare 1000. he obiecteth, that from the 700. yeare the Pope had receiued tēporall dominion, & that about the yeare 715. he excommunicated the Greeke Emperour. &c. But Bellarmine knoweth well enough that we speake not so much of the Popes temporall dominion ouer those parts which they call the patri­monie of Saint Peter; but of that which they call and challenge to themselues, Utriusque potestatis temporalis & spiritualis Mo­narchiam, The Monarchie of both powers, temporall and spirituall. I answer therefore, that the Pope indeed had a temporall do­minion before, but not generall: and that he had long ende­uoured to get the superioritie ouer the Emperours, but neuer so fully attained vnto it, as in the times of Gregorie the seauenth, and afterwards. For Gregorie the seauenth, as Auentinus saith, Primus imperium pontificium condidit, &c. First founded the Pa­pall Annal. B [...]cm. lib. 5. Empire, which his successours (saith he, reckoning vnto his owne times) for these 450. yeares, in spight of the world, and maugre the Emperours, haue so held, that they haue brought all in heauen and hell into subjection. From this time forwarde the Em­perour is nothing but a bare title, without substance, &c. And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his third Chapter, pertinent to the matter in hand, omitting (as my maner is) his other wrang­lings, as being either altogether impertinent, or meerely per­sonall.

The 4. Chapter: maintaining against Bellarmine his first demonstration, that Antichrist is come.

1. TO prooue that Antichrist is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not An­tichrist, he bringeth sixe slender conjectures from sixe signes, which, as shall be shewed, are neither proper nor necessarie. And these by a strange kinde of Logicke, he cal­leth forsooth sixe demonstrations. For so haue I read of some troubled with melancholie, who haue thought euery Strawe or small Reed in their hands, to haue beene so many Speares. We must know (saith he) that the holy Ghost in the Scriptures, hath giuen vs sixe certaine signes of the com­ming of Antichrist. Whereof two goe before, viz. the preaching of the Gospell throughout the whole world: and the desolation of the Romane Empire. Two accompanie Antichrist, to wit, the preaching of Enoch and Elias: and the most grieuous persecution of the church, insomuch that the publicke seruice of God must wholy cease. Two come after, namely the ru [...]e of Antichrist after three yeares and a halfe: and the end of the world. Of which signes, none (saith he) is yet fulfilled. We hold the contrary, namely, that all those signes, which the holy Ghost hath giuen concerning the comming of Antichrist, are fulfilled: and that those which are not yet fulfil­led, are none of those signes which the holy Ghost hath assig­ned. For I will not stand now to tell you how fitlie he maketh the death of Antichrist, and the end of the world, which accor­ding to Bellarmines conceit followeth after his death, to be two signes of his comming.

2. The first signe which goeth before the comming of An­tichrist, is the Preaching of the Gospell throughout the world. From whence he reasoneth thus: If the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world, then is not Antichrist as yet [Page 39] come: But the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world, therefore Antichrist is not yet come. But in this argument nothing is sound: no necessitie of consequence in the propo­sition, nor truth in the assumption. The proposition, notwith­standing he would prooue, because our Sauiour Christ maketh this vniuersall preaching of the Gospell a fore-runner of Anti­christ, Mat. 24. 14. This Gospell of the kingdome shalbe preached in all the world, for atesti [...]onie to all nations. But our Sauiour Christ doth not say that the Gospell shall be preached through­out the world before the comming of Antichrist, but before the end, as it followeth in the very same verse; and then the end shall come. Whereby we are to vnderstand either the destruction of Jerusalem, which is most like, or the end and consummation of the world, as Bellarmine expoundeth it. And therefore vnlesse he take it for granted, that the comming of Antichrist shall not be before the very end of the world, which we do constantly denie, as being the matter in question betwixt vs, there is not so much as any shew of reason in this allegation, being vnder­stood according to his owne exposition, which also is false. Neither is it the purpose of our Sauiour Christ to signifie vnto his Disciples the time of Antichrists comming, but by way of answer to the question propounded by his Disciples verse 3. to shew them when Ierusalem should be destroyed, as also to giue them some signes of his comming, and of the end of the world. But because the former part of this Chapter is diuershe abu­sed by the Papists in this matter concerning Antichrist, I thinke it needfull by way of a short analysis to giue you the true meaning thereof; that by one labour all their cauils may be refuted.

3. Whereas therefore our Sauiour Christ had foretolde his Disciples the vtter desolation of Ierusalem, and destruction of the temple: they being perswaded that the temple and citie of Ierusalem should not haue an end before the end of the world, demand therfore of our Sauiour Christ when should be the end of both. Tell vs (say they vers. 3.) when these things shalbe: that is, when the temple shall be destroyed, & what shalbe the signe of thy cōming▪ & of the end of the world. Which questiō hauing [Page 40] two parts, receiueth an answer to both. To the former, concer­ning the destruction of Ierusalem, from the 4. vers. to the 23. To the latter, concerning the comming of Christ, and the end of the world, from thence to the 42. As touching the former: our Sa­uiour prophecieth, first of the calamities and troubles which should go before the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the 15. verse. And secondly of the destruction it selfe, and the greeuousnesse thereof, vnto the 23. The troubles and calamities which were the forerunners of the destruction of Ierusalem, were either tem­porall or spirituall. The temporal either publique and common; or peculiar to the disciples of Christ among the Iewes. The pub­lique, warres, and rumors of warres, famine, pestilence, earth­quakes, which were but the beginning, [...], of sorrowes in the land of Iewry, being about to be deliuered of her inhabitāts, verse. 6. 7. 8. The peculiar troubles to the Christians, persecuti­on and hatred for Christs sake; and the effects thereof in the vnsound, falling away, and betraying and hating one another, verse 9. 10. The spirituall, in the teachers spirits of errour and he­resie, vers 5. 11. In the heaters, seduction by false Prophets and falling away, verse 11. 12. Now vnto this Prophesie are admix­ed both admonitions and consolations. Admonitions, that they should take heed of false Prophets, verse 4. that they should not be troubled or dismaide with rumors of warres, verse 6. Consolations grounded vpon a two-folde promise, first of salua­tion to those, who, notwithstanding these temptations, shall per­seuere to the end, verse 13. Secondly, of the successe of their Mi­nistery, that before the desolation of Ierusalem, the Gospell should be preached throughout the world for a testimonie to all nations, verse. 14. And therefore that they should not feare, least together with Ierusalem his Church should bee ouer­throwne. For before the destruction of Ierusalem he would by their Preaching to all nations, both Iewes and Gentiles, plant his Church in many nations of the world. And for asmuch as the Temple and Citie of Ierusalem were types and figures of the Church of Christ, which were to be abolished when the church of Christ should be established: therefore he addeth, that vpon the planting of his church by their ministery should the end and [Page 41] destruction of Ierusalem come. And these were the cala­mities which went before the destruction of Ierusalem. The de­structiō it selfe is described partly by the efficient, foretold by Da­niel chap. 9. 27. that is to say, the Romane armies besieging Ieru­salem Luke. 21. 20. which because they were Idolators are called Sic Augu­stine. ad Hesychiū et Chry­sost. homil. 49. in Mat. oper. im­perfect. abominable, and because of the desolation which they were to bring vpon Ierusalem are called desolators, and by a metonymy, Mat. 24. 15. the abomination of desolation, and by a Synecdeche Dan. 9. 27. abominable wings (that is armies) bringing desola­tion: partly by the greeuousnesse of the destruction verse 21. To this prophecie also he admixeth counsel and consolation. Coun­sell, that they which shalbe in Iewry prouide for their selues by flight, verse 16. 17. 18. in respect whereof he both pitieth the women and such as giue sucke, and biddeth them pray that their flight be not in winter, nor on the Sabboth day, verse. 19. 20. His consolation is, that for the elects sake the time of the siege shal­be shortned: for otherwise none of the Iewes could escape, as Chrysostome also expoundeth, verse. 22. This exposition is plaine­ly confirmed by conference of this Chapter of Mathew with Luke. 21. where the same question being propounded, verse. 7. concerning the end of Ierusalem alone, receiueth an answer pe­culiar to the destruction of Ierusalem, vnto the 25. verse. And whereas Mat. 24. 15. Christ vseth these words, when you shall see the abomination of desolation which in Daniell is called the abominable wings bringing desolation, standing in the ho­ly place, this in Luke is thus expounded, When you see Ierusalem Luk. 21 20 besieged with armies (which Daniel foretold should bring de­solation vpon it) then vnderstand that the desolation thereof is neare, and therefore he aduiseth them which shall be in Iewry to flie so soone as Ierusalem shall be besieged, &c. Because there shall be great affliction in those dayes, namely in Iewry [...]. and Ierusalem, as Luke restraineth it. For there shalbe great de­stresse Luk. 21. 23 24. in the land, and wrath in this people, and they shall fall on the edge of the sword, and shalbe carried away captiue into all nations, Luk. 22. 25 and Ierusalem shalbe troden vnder foot of the Gentiles vntil the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and then shalbe the end of the world, the signes whereof be addeth in the next words.

[Page 42] 4. By this analysis of the text & conference with Luke, it eui­dently appeareth that all these predictions from the 6. ver. to the 23. in Mat. & in the 21. of Luke frō the 7. vers. to the 29. concerne the destruction of Ierusalem, which hapned within forty yeares after this prophecie was deliuered. Neither may we thinke that our sauiour Christ would intermingle the prophecies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world, therby to nourish the aforesaid errour of his disciples, who imagined that the end of Ierusalem should not be before the end of the world, as appeareth by their question. For euen afterward ver. 34. where seemeth the greatest mixture, our Sauiour Christ speaketh di­stinctly. For wheras our Sauiour had spoken first of the end of Ie­rusalem, and then of the end of the world seuerally, & had giuen signes of both, wherby they might know the approching of ey­ther, as by the budding of the fig tree they gather summer to be neare, he defineth the time of the one, & the other he leaueth in­definit: Verily I say vnto you, this generatiō shall not passe, vntil al those things (saith he, pointing as it seemeth towards Ierusalē as he sat in the moūt Oliuet) be fulfilled. And as touching the end of the world, he noteth both the certainty therof, & the vncertainty of the time: of the former he saith, Heauē & earth shal passe away (& that with a noise, as Peter saith) but my words shall not passe away, howbeit of that day & houre (namely, wherin the sonne 2. Pet. 3. 10 of man shal come, and wherin the heauens shal passe away) none knoweth, no not the Angels of heauē, but the father only. What­soeuer the Papists therefore alledge out of the former part of the Chapter, as fauouring any of their fancies concerning Antichrist, as namely the preaching of the Gospel before the comming of Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, & the most greeuous tribulation in the time of Antichrist, &c. may easily be answered.

5 But if these prophecies be compared with the history and euent, we shall finde this trueth to be more euident, seeing all these predictions had their complement at or before the de­struction of Ierusalem. For (to omit the rest) the Apostle testifi­eth Colos. 1. 6. 23. Rom. 1. 8. &. 10. 18. that the Gospell was in his time preached in all the world; and therefore before the de­solation Euseb. lib. 3 of Ierusalem, which hapned about two yeare after his death. From whence also euidently appeareth, how false Bellar­mines [Page 43] assumption is, as being contradictory both to the prophe­cie of Christ in this place, as also to the testimony of the Apostle testifying the fulfilling thereof in his time, according to the commission giuen to the Apostles, that they should goe into all the world and teach all nations, Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15. which was accordingly performed, Mar. 16 20. And thus Homil. in Mat. 24. Chrysostome also expoundeth this place, that before the end, that is, the destruction of Ierusalem, the Gospell was to be preached throughout the world, and prooueth by the same testimonies of Paul, that this prophecie was fulfilled before the taking of Ie­rusalem. But if it seeme incredible vnto any that the Gospell should be preached throughout the world in so short a time: he must consider, first, that by the whole world is not to be vnder­stood euery small corner and vnknowne part of the world: but by a Synecdoche, the greatest part of the world then knowne and inhabited, as Luke 2. 1. And by all nations, not all and euery na­tion, but all sorts, that is, both Iewes and Gentiles. For both here and elsewhere there seemeth to be an opposition made betwixt the whole world and the land of Iewry: betwixt all nations and the Iewes. For wheras before the Church was contained in Iew­ry, & the word preached to the Iewes, our Sauiour sheweth that before the desolation of Ierusalem, the Gospell should be prea­ched commonly in all parts of the world, & not only in Iewry; & indifferently to all other nations, & not peculiarly to the Iewes. Secondly, he is to consider, both the multitude of the preachers & dispersers of the Gospell, and also the infinit power of Gods spi­rit, and miraculous efficacie of his word preached in that it could in so short a time spread it selfe so far as it did. Thirdly a distin­ction is to be made betwixt preaching the Gospell and recei­uing it: For it was preached in all the world, but not recei­ued euery where. And that our Sauiour signifieth where he saith, it should be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, to leaue those which embrace it not, without excuse. If then the preaching of the Gospell throughout the world be not made by Christ our Sauiour a signe of Antichrists com­ming, and yet notwithstanding it be most true, that according to the prophecie of Christ, the Gospell was preached in all the [Page 34] world before the desolation of Ierusalem: what shew of reason is there in this demonstration? And this is all that I thinke worth the answering in his fourth Chapter.

6. For to what purpose should I tell you of his argument, which notwithstanding he saith it was now no time to prooue, to wit, that before the comming of Antichrist the Gospel should be preached throughout the world, because the cruel persecutiō of Antichrist should hinder al publicke exercises of trus religion: & therfore was to be preached generally throughout the world either before the time of Antichrist, or not at al: which we shall in part finde time to answer in his fourth demonstratiō. In the mean time we answer first, that the greeuous tribulation, before which our Sauiour saith the Gospel was to be preached in al the world, is not the persecution vnder Antichrist, but the affliction of the Iewes at and before the destruction of Ierusalem by the Ro­manes, as I haue manifestly prooued. And secondly, that if the generall preaching of the Gospell were made a signe of Anti­christs comming, as it is not, but of the end; yet is it not neces­sary that it should be preached generally throughout the world at one time: for it might suffice that in one age it were preached to one nation; and in another age, to another people. And therefore although during the persecution of Antichrist the Gospell were not preached generally and at once to all na­tions, yet in that time it might be preached to some nations, where it had not formerly beene preached, and therefore might be preached to all nations before the destruction of An­tichrist, though it were not before his comming. Or to what end should I spend any time in answering the testimonies of the fathers, who supposed that the Gospell should be preached in all the world before the comming of Anti­christ, seeing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, it was to be preached in al the world, before the destruction of Ierusalem? Or what account should we make of his obie­ctions, wherein he alledgeth that the Gospel hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world, seeing our Sauiour who cannot he hath prophecied, and the Apostle by the same spirit of truth hath testified, that before the destruction of Ierusalem, [Page] the Gospell of the kingdome was preached in all the world. And therefore the Papists in this point, whiles they study to contradict vs, are not afraide to giue the lye to our Sauiour Christ. Neither are his cauillations, wherby he indeuouteth to a­uoide & elude those testimonies of Scripture, which doe testifie that the Gospell was in the Apostles times preached in all the world, worth the mentioning. For whereas Paul saith, No doubt their soūd went out through all the earth, & their words into the ends Rom. 10. 1 [...] of the world: Bellarmine cauilleth that the Apostle vseth the time past, insteed of the future, as if he had said, no doubt their sound shal goe through all the earth. But (say I) the Apostle prooueth that the Iewes had heard the Gospel, because the sound of the Preachers thereof was gone through all the earth: and therefore they from whom the Gospell proceeded to other nations, could not be ignorant thereof. And againe, whereas the same Apostle saith, that the Gospell in his time was in all the world, and addeth that Col. 1. 6. it did bring forth fruite euen as it did among the Colossians: Bel­larmine answereth that the Apostle would not say that it was ac­tually, but virtually, as they say, in all the world. But how could it bring forth fruite, vnlesse it were actually? and besides, the A­postle in the same Chapter saith, the Gospell had been preached [...], quod agit, est non so­lum actu primo, sed etiam actu secundo. Col. 1. 23. to euery creature vnder heauē, which is a more large speech then this prophesie of our Sauiour, Mat. 24. 14. To conclude, if by the end in that place is to be vnderstood the end of the world, as Bellarmine will needs haue it contrary to the text, yet the Gos­pell before the and might be preached throughout the world, and yet not before the comming of Antichrist. If by the end is to be vnderstood the end of Ierusalem, as I haue manifestly proo­ued; then according to our Sauiours prophesie, the Gospell was preached in all the world, in the Apostles times. But that the generall preaching of the Gospell should be a signe of Anti­christs comming, the Scripture hath neuer a word.

The 5. Chapter: maintaining against Bellarmine his second demonstration, that Antichrist is already come.

1. THe second signe going before Antichrist is, as Bellarmine saith, he vtter desolatiō of the Romane Empire. From whence this demonstration is raised. If the Roman Em­pire be not yet vtterly destroyed, then is not yet Antichrist come for: the vtter desolation of the Romaine Empire is a certaine signe going before his comming: But the Roman Empire is not yet vtterly destroied: therfore Antichrist is not yet come. We cōfesse that before antichrist could be reuealed by exercising a soueraigne dominion in Rome, it was necessary that the Emperour, so farre forth as he hindred this reuelation of Antichrist, should be taken out of the way: But that there should be such an vtter desolatiō of the Empire, as that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperor or king of the Romans, that we doe vtterly dony. He that hin­dred was taken out of the way, partly when the imperiall seate was remooued from Rome to Constantinople, and that to this end (as they haue set downe in the donation of Constantine) that the City of Rome might be left to the Pope: but especially when as after the diuision of the Empire into two parts, the Empire in the West (which properly was the Empire of Rome) was dissolued, and lay voyde for many yeares: All which was ac­complished before Boniface 3. attained to the Antichristian title. Neither doth the reuiuing of the Westerne Empire in Charle­maine, after it had bin voide 325. yeares, hinder the reuelation or dominiō of Antichrist; but rather proueth that Antichrist was then come. For this new Empire, erected by the Popes meanes, it is the image of the beast (that is, of the old Empire) which An­tichrist Apoc. 13. the second beast causeth to be made, & putteth life ther­into. It is the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth, & ther­fore is so far frō hindring Antichrist, that it supporteth him. This beast which was an imperiall state, but is not indeed, though in title it be, as being but an image of the old Empire, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet one of the seuen: wheras Anti­christ Apo. 17. by the confessiō of papists is the seuēth. Wherfore although [Page 47] the old Empire in the West (which hindred) was done out of the way, and indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist; yet euen with and vnder Antichrist, there was to be an imperial state in name and title, which is the beast whereon the whore of Ba­bylon sitteth, as I haue heretofore prooued. Lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 3.

2. But let vs come to his arguments. The first whereof is this. If before Antichrists comming the Romane Empire is to be diuided in­to ten kings, whereof none shalbe called king of the Romanes; then is not Antichrist yet come, for yet there is a king of the Romanes: but the first is true, therefore the last. The proposition he taketh for gran­ted, although it cannot be denyed but that vpon the desolation of the empire in the West, it was deuided among ten kings at the least; who although they had the prouinces of the Empire, yet none of them was called the king of the Romanes. The propo­sition therefore is false, and the reason may be returned vpon our aduersary. For seeing these ten kings had not receiued their kingly power in the Apostles time, but were to receiue it either after the beast (which is Antichrist,) as some reade; or with the Apo. 17. 12. [...]. beast as others: it is euident therefore, that when the ten rulers of the prouinces had receiued authority as kings, then Antichrist was come. But many hūdred yeers since, the rulers of the prouin­ces ceased to be deputies vnder the Emperor, & obtained power as soueraigne kings, diuiding among them the westerne Empire, therfore many hundred yeres since was Antichrist come. The as­sumption he prooueth out of Daniel chap. 2. Where (saith he) is de­scribed the successiō of the chiefe kingdomes vnto the end of the world by a certaine image, the golden head wherof signifieth the kingdome of the Assyrians; the Breast of siluer, the kingdom of the Persians; the Bellie of Brasse, the kingdome of the Grecians; the Legs of Iron, the kingdom of the Romans diuided into two parts, &c. And in the 7. chap. the same kingdomes are signified: the last which hath ten hornes being the king­dome of the Romanes. Now (saith he) as the two Legs haue ten toes Subtiliss. which are not legs, & as the ten hornes are not the beast: so the Roman Empire shall be diuided into ten kings, whereof none is the king of the Romanes. 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, whereof the Romane is the last: then the Romane [Page 48] Empire shall not vtterly be destroyed before the cōming of An­tichtist, which goeth before the end of the world. But howso­euer the cōmon opinion hath bin, that the fourth kingdom men­tioned in those chapters is the Romane Empire; yet by the lear­ned, especially of these latter times, it hath beene most clearely prooued, that by it is vnderstood that kingdome of the Seleuci­da & Lagidae, which tyrannized ouer the people of Iewry. For the Seleucida who were Kings of Syria, and the Lagidae who were Kings of Egypt, were the two legs of the image, & were also the fourth beast: the ten kings of these two kingdomes, which suc­cessiuely Chap. 16. vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes, were the ten hornes of the beast; which being most true as hereafter also shalbe shewed, it appeareth euidently, that this whole argumentati­on is impertinent. But suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Romane Empire, yet would not that follow which Bellarmine would inferre thereof. For by the beast is signified the kingdome it selfe, and by the hornes the seuerall kings, who although they be not the kingdome it selfe signified by the beast, no more then the hornes are the beast, yet are they so ma­ny kings of that kingdome, which is signified by the beast. As for example: Seleucus, Antiochus, and the rest of the ten kings signi­fied by the ten hornes, and as Bellarmine speaketh, by the ten toes, though they were not the kingdome of Syria & Egypt it selfe; yet were they kings of that kingdome, and therefore this argument of Bellarmine is very friuolous.

3. His second proofe is out of Apocal. 17. Where Iohn describeth a beast with seauen heads and ten hornes, vpon which beast a certaine woman sitteth, which he expoūdeth to be the great citie sitting on seuen hils, that is to say, Rome. The seauen heads as they signifie seuen hils, so also seauen kings, by which number (saith he) al the Romane Emperors are vnderstood: the ten hornes are ten kings, which shal raigne together. And least we should thinke that these shalbe Romane kings, he addeth, that these kings shall hate the harlot, and make her desolate, because they shall so deuide the Romane Empire among them, that they shall vtterly destroy it. Here Bellarmine, as you see, confesseth, that Rome is the whore of Babylon, and consequently the seate of Antichrist, and not Rome vnder the olde Emperors, but Rome after the dissolu­tion [Page 49] of the Empire. And that the ten hornes are so many kings, among whom the Romane Empire should be deuided, and that these ten Kings were to receiue their kingdome together; and consequently that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh, which reigned successiuely, Dan. 11. And wher­as Bellarmine saith, the 7. heads signifie all the Emperours, it is vntrue. For the holy Ghost nameth seauen, because they were seauen indeed, and therfore numbreth them. Fiue are fallen, the sixt is, and the seauenth is not yet come. But all this is besides the present purpose. How then doth he prooue, that before Anti­christ commeth, the Romane Empire shall be so vtterly destroy­ed, as that not the name of a Romane Emperour or king of the Romanes should remaine? because the Empire shall be deuided a­mong ten kings, which are not Romane kings. But that proueth not that the name shall not remaine: for he that is none of those ten kings, may haue the name of the Emperour or king of the Ro­manes, as namely the beast which was, and is not, though it be, which is the eight head, and is one of the seauen, that is to say, the Emperour erected by the Pope. And why may none of these be called the king of the Romanes? First forsooth, because they shall hate Rome, and make her desolate [...] As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romanes, may not hate Rome notwith­standing that title, as indeed some of the Emperours haue done. Secondly, because they shall so diuide among them the Romane Em­pire, as that they shall vtterly destroy it. Where you see by a circu­lar disputation, the question brought to prooue his argument, & yet experience sheweth, that although the Empire is dissolued, and also diuided among the beast (that is Antichrist) & ten kings, there doth notwithstanding remaine the name and title of the Emperor or king of the Romās. And so much now shall suffice to haue spoken of that place, frō whence I haue heretofore proued, both that antichrist is already come, & that the Pope is antichrist.

4. His third proofe is out of 2. Thes. 2. And now what hinde­reth you know, that he may be reuealed in due time, onely he which hol­deth must holde, vntill he be done out of the way, and then that wicked man shalbe reuealed. That this is to be vnderstood of the Romane Empire, he not onely affirmeth, but also confirmeth by the testi­monies [Page 50] of diuers of the Fathers, the which we are so farre from denying, that from hence, as one especiall argument, we prooue the Pope to be Antichrist. But neither the Apostle nor any of the Fathers (excepting Lactantius, whose Prophecie in this point the Papists themselues do thinke to be erronious) doth 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 Romanes shall remaine; which Bellarmine should haue prooued. For otherwise that the Empire was indeed dissolued before the reue­lation of Antichrist, the holy Ghost prophecied, the euent hath prooued, and we doe willingly confesse: Qu [...] tenebat, de med [...] fit, Ad Geron­tid de Mo­nogamia. (saith Ierome in his time) & non intelligimus Antichristum appro­pinquare? He which held, is taken away, and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist is at hand? Yea but (saith Bellarmine) the Romane Empire is not yet vtterly destroyed, and therefore Antichrist is not yet come. Neither is it necessary: it is sufficient, that he which hindered the reuelation of Antichrist, wa [...] done out of the way, which was done first by remoouing the Imperiall seate from Rome, which was to be the seate of Antichrist, as hath beene prooued: secondly, by the dissolution of the Empire in the West. As for the Empire renued by the Pope, that hindereth not An­tichrist, but rather furthereth, as hath beene shewed; and therfore there is no necessitie that it should be taken away. Neither is there now an Emperour of the Romanes indeed, but onely in title, without the thing it selfe, as enjoying neither the citie of Rome it selfe, nor yet the Prouinces. And therefore either vn­skilfully or sophistically are these Emperors, which haue no im­periall authoritie either in the citie or the prouinces, compared with those ancient Emperours, who although they had the Em­pire, wanted Rome it selfe.

5. And hereby appeareth the error of our aduersaries, who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Romane Empire: whereas neither of the Apostles Paul or Iohn do say so, but rather the contrary, as hath bin shewed. For to omit the rest before alledged, Iohn saith, Apoc. 13. That one head of the beast, meaning the state of the emperors, had indeed [...]ceiued deadly woun [...], both in respect of Rome the head city, [Page 51] and of the Emperours in the West, but was cured, therefore not vtterly destroyed: and cured by the Pope, both in respect of the city, and in regard of the Emperour. And therefore the Pope is Antichrist, as some of our writers infer, because this wound was to be cured by the second beast, which figureth Antichrist. And Ambrose saith vpon 2. Thes. 2. That Antichrist shall restore liber­tie to the Romans, but in his owne name. Bellarmine answereth, That he readeth no where in Iohn, that the beast, which signifieth the Romane Empire, was to be cured by antichrist. Yea but this 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 vnto it. For by this renuing of the Empire, Bellarmine els­where De translat. imperij. lib. 1. c. 4. prosesseth, that the Romane Empire was restored to the same estate, wherin it was before Augustulus. But what hath Bel­larmine read in Iohn? Forsooth, That one of the heads of the beast should dye, and shortly after rise againe by the helpe of the diuel; which the Ancient expoūd of Antichrist, who shall faine himselfe to be dead, and by diuellish art rise againe, that so by resembling the true death and resurrection of Christ, he might seduce many. First, it is euident that the former beast figureth not Antichrist, but the Romane state, and that vnder the Romane Emperors especially. Secondly, it is not said, that one of the heads did faine it selfe dead, and by the helpe of the diuell did rise againe (which needed not, if the death were coūterfeit) but that one of the heads had receiued a deadly wound, & was cured againe. The head was the state of the Em­perours, to wit, the sixt head, which receiued a deadly wound in Augustulus, after whom the Empire in the West lay voide 325. yeares. But this head was cured after a sort in Charlemaine & his successou [...]s, in whom there was an image of the former Empe­rours erected by the Pope. And therefore this state of Emperours renued in Charlemaine and his successours, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet is one of the seuen. So that the sixt head which before was woūded to death, was cured, & after a sort re­paired in thē. This in substance is confessed by Bellarmine himself in this chapt. where vnderstanding by the two legs of the image §. quod [...] in Daniel, the Westerne and Easterne Empire, he saith, That the Westerne, which was the one leg, failed, namely, in Augustulus, [Page 52] and was after erected in Charlemaine, and that (as else-wheré he boasteth) by the Pope. Now whereas Bellarmine laboureth to prooue, that this head which was wounded to death and reuiued againe, is not Charles the great, he sheweth himselfe rediculous in fighting with his owne shadow. For by the head is not meant any one man, but the state and succession of Emperours, which was interrupted and cut off in Augustulus, & renewed in Charles the great, and his successours. And that which is added concer­ning the vniuersalitie either of worship, or of rule, is not spoken of the head which was reuiued, but of the beast, which was to Apoc. 13. 7. 8. haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death & cuted againe.

The sixt Chapter: answering his third demonstration, concerning Enoch and Elias.

1. NOw we are to come to those signes, which in Bellarmines conceit are to accompany Antichrist, the former wherof is the com­ming of Enoch and Elias in the flesh, to oppose themselues against Antichrist, and to conuert the Iewes. From whence Bel­larmine reasoneth thus. If Enoch and Eli­as be not yet come againe in the flesh, then Antichrist is not yet come: But Enoch and Elias are not yet come againe in the flesh; and there­fore Antichrist is not yet come. To the proposition I answer; first, that if Enoch and Elias were to come in their owne persons be­fore the second comming of Christ, as some of the Ancient haue thought, and that to oppose themselues against Antichrist, as the Papists dreame: yet it followeth not that therefore Antichrist should not be come before their comming. It is sufficient that they come before his ouerthrowe, and the second comming of Christ. And therefore if they were indeed to come, their cōming might yet be expected, notwithstanding the truth of our asserti­on, that Antichrist is already come. But if Enoch and Elias be not to come againe in their owne persons before the end of the world, to fight against Antichrist, what force of argument is there in this worthy demonstration? This therefore Bellarmine [Page 53] maketh the question, which he goeth about to prooue. First, by testimonies of Scripture. Secondly, by consent of the fathers. Thirdly, by reason.

2. There be foure Scriptures (saith Bellarmine) to prooue that E­noch and Elias in their owne persons shall come against Antichrist. Howbeit this is a manifest vntrueth; for no place of Scripture speaketh of Enoch his returne. The first Malach. 4. 5. Behold I will send vnto you Elias the Prophet, before the great and fearefull day of the Lord come, and he shall turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children, and the hearts of the children vnto their fathers. This place maketh no mention of Enoch, but onely of Elias: and by Elias is meant not Elias the Thesbite, but Iohn the Baptist: who (as the Luke. 1. 17. Angel applying to him this prophecy saith) should go before the Lord Iesus in the spirit and power of Elias, that he may turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children, &c. And our sauior Christ Mat. 11. 14 most plainely affirmeth, that Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come, and if you will receiue (saith he) that is, if you will giue cre­dit to my speech, this is that Elias who was to come: And addeth, he that hath eares to heare, let him heare. Which sheweth that the Pa­pists neither haue harts to beleeue Christ, nor eares to heare him: but haue opē both hearts to receiue and eares to heare the fables of the Iewes: who as they yet looke for their Messias, so they looke also for Elias to be his forerunner. For as Ierome writeth vpon this place of Malachy, the Iewes and Iudaizing heretickes thinke that before their Messias, Elias shal come, and restore all things. Hence it is, that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Gospell: what is that which the Pharisies say, that Elias shall come? to whom he answered: Elias indeed shal come: and if you will beleeue, he is already come, by Elias meaning Iohn. And therefore in Ieromes iudgement it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing hereticke to ex­pect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person. Yea but (saith Bellarmine) this place cannot be vnderstood of Iohn Baptist, but of Elias onely. For Malachy speaketh of the second comming of Christ which shalbe vnto iudgement: For so he saith, before the great & terrible day of the Lord come; for his first comming is not called great and terrible, but the acceptable time & day of saluation. Whereupon it is also added, least when I come, I strike the earth with a curse. But [Page 54] Christ in his first comming came not to judge, but to be judged.

3. Answ. Bellarmine must giue vs leaue to beleeue the Angell Luke. 1. 17 Mat. 11. 14 Math. 17. of God, and our Sauiour Christ, rather then himselfe, who is not affraid, as it seemeth, to giue the lie to the spirit of God speaking in both. Neither can he prooue that Malachie speaketh of the se­cond comming of Christ: for therin the Papists erre worse then the Iewes. For both the text it selfe, & also the application therof by the Angell and our Sauiour Christ, do prooue, that Elias was to come before the first comming of Christ, which is great to the godly, and terrible to the wicked And therfore in the beginning of the third Chapter, the Prophet speaking most plainly of the first comming of Christ, before which the Lord promiseth to send his messenger, that is, Iohn Baptist, to prepare the way be­fore Mat. 11. 10. Mark. 1. 2. him, signifieth, that this comming is great and fearefull, verse 2. But who may abide the day of his comming? and who shall endure when he appeareth? for he is like a purging fire, and like Pullers Sope, and he shall sit downe to trie and fine the siluer. Of the same comming he speaketh in the beginning of the fourth Chapter. Behold the day commeth that shall burne as an Ouen, &c. shewing how terrible it shall be to the wicked. But vnto you that feare my name (saith the Lord, verse 2.) shall the sunne of righteousnesse arise, and health shall be vnder his wings, &c. And before this great day commeth, he promiseth them to send them Elias, that is, Iohn Baptist, to whom our Sauiour applieth the Prophesie of Malachie, both Chapter 3. 1. and Chapter 4. 5. In like sort, Iohn Baptist himselfe describeth the first comming of Christ as terrible in respect of the wicked. Now (saith he) is the Axe laide to the roote of the trees, &c. Math. 3. 10. and verse 11. and 12. He that commeth after me is mightier then I: he will Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire, which hath his Fanne in his hand, (vsing the like similitude that Malachie did) and will purge his Floore, and gather his Wheate into his Garner, but will burne vp the Chaffe with vnquenchable fire. Symeon also saith of our Saui­our, that he was appointed both for the fall of the wicked, and Luke. 2. 34. rising of the godly. And elsewhere he is called a stumbling stone, and a Rocke of offence, vpon which stone, whosoeuer falleth, Rom. 9. 33. he shall be broken in peeces: but on whomsoeuer it shall fall, it shall all Mat. 21. 44. [Page 55] to grind him. If notwithstanding all this which hath beene al­ledged, any man shall thinke the first comming of the Lord, not so fitly to be called terrible: I further answer, 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 Psal. 130. 4 of reuerence, or filiall feare. And whereas it is added, that Elias should be sent to conuert the people, Least when I come (saith the Lord) I should strike the earth with a curse: the meaning is, that the Lord would send his messenger to prepare the way be­fore him, that some of the people at the least, might be ready to receiue our Sauiour Christ, least if all should reject him, he should be prouoked to strike the land: for at his second com­ming, he shall without peraduenture strike the earth. And in this exposition of Malachie besides others, Arias Montanus the most learned writer among the Papists, doth wholy agree with In Malach. vs; expounding this Prophesie of Iohn Baptist, whom he cal­leth another Elias, and of the first comming of Christ. Thus therefore I answer: First that Malachie speaketh not of Enoch, but of Elias onely: and secondly, of Elias his comming, not with Antichrist, but before Christ: thirdly, & that before the first com­ming of Christ: fourthly and consequently, not of Elias literally, but of Iohn Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elias.

4. The second place is, Ecclesiastic. 48. 10. & 44. 16. In the for­mer place it is said of Elias, That he was appointed to reprooue in due season, and to pacifie the anger of the Lords judgement proceeding to furis, and to turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children, and to set vp the Tribes of Iacob. In the latter it is said of Enoch, as Bellarmine readeth, That he pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, that he might giue pe [...]ance vnto the Gentiles. First I answer to both places, that although this booke of the sonne of Sirach be very commendable; yet it is not of Canonicall au­thoritie, being but a humane writing, as appeareth not onely by the former place alledged, but also by that erronious conceit concerning Samuel, chapter 46. 23. Secondly, in neither place is it said, that either of them should come to oppose themselues [Page 56] against Antichrist; that from hence their returne into the world, should be made a signe of the comming of Antichrist. But as touching the former place, seuerally I answer with I ansenius one of the best writers among the Papists (howsoeuer Bellarmine wondereth at him▪ that hee should consent with vs in the trueth, beeing a Popish Bishop) that although the ancient writers haue thought that Elias was to come againe, yet it cannot be euinced out of this place. For we may say that Ec­clesiasticus did write this according to the receiued opinion of his time, grounded (as they thought) vpon the words of Ma­lachie, that Elias was truely to come in his owne person before the Messias: when as that was not to be fulfilled in his owne person, but in him that was to come in the spirit and power of Elias. True indeed it is, that not onely the authour of that booke, as it seemeth, but the Iewes in generall, vnderstanding the words of Malachie literally, did expect that Elias in his owne person should returne before the comming of the Messi­as. But our Sauiour Christ reformeth this errour, applying the Prophecie to Iohn Baptist. And secondly I answer, that if Bel­larmine will argue out of Ecclesiasticus, according to his mea­ning, he must prooue that Elias was to come in his owne person, before the first comming of the Messias, of which Malachie speaketh, and before which this authour as all the rest of the Iewes, doe holde that Elias was to come: And there­fore the Papists might aswell with the Iewes, looke for their Messias, as for Elias. Now as touching the other place, it is a wonder that Bellarmine would alledge it for this purpose. But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose, he is desirous to say some-thing to bleare the eyes of the simple. The ori­ginall Text hath these words, [...] Eccl. [...]. 16 [...], that is, Enoch pleased the Lord God, and was translated for an example of repentance [...]o the generations: that is, that the generations present and to come, might be mooued by his example, to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him, knowing by his example that there is a reward laid vp for those that turne vnto the Lord, and walke before him as Enoch did. But will Bellar­mine [Page 57] hence conclude, that therefore Enoch is to come againe in the flesh, to oppose himselfe to Antichrist?

5. The third place is, Math. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come, and shall restore all things. VVhich words, saith Bellar­mine, are plainely to be vnderstood, not of Iohn, but of the true Elias. For Iohn was already come, and had finished his course, and yet the Lord saith in the future, Elias shall come. I an­swer, that by the Euangelist Marke, who speaketh in the present tence, Elias indeed comming first restoreth all things: the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue beene this. Elias quidem venturus fuit primum, & restituturus omnia; Eli­as indeed was to come first, and was to restore all things, but I tell you that Elias is already come, and they haue done vnto him what they listed, as it is written of him, meaning Mark. 9. 12 13. Iohn Baptist. As if he had said. The Prophecie indeed con­cerning Mat. 17. 13 Elias is true, but I tell you it is already fulfilled. For as he saith in another place; Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come, then which, what could be spoken more plaine­lie? Bellarmine answereth, That Iohn Baptist was the promi­sed Mat. 11. 14 Elias, not literally, but allegor [...]eally. So we affirme also, and further adde, that Elias was not promised literally. For our Sauiour Christ plainely affirmeth, that Iohn Baptist is that E­lias which was promised. And both he and the Angell vnder­stand that Prophecie of Malachie chapter 4. 5. not literally of Elias the Thesbi [...]e, but allegorically of Iohn Baptist, who was, as it were, another Elias. Yea but the Disciples, faith Bellarmine, who had seene the transsiguration, when they asked Christ, what is that which the Scribes say, that Elias must fyrst come, speake of the same Elias, whom they had seene with Christ in the Mount: and therefore Christ making answer to them, that Elias indeed shall come, speaketh of the same Elias. It follow­eth not: for the Disciples speake according to the erroni­ous opinion of the Scribes, who vnderstanding Malachie li­terallie, thought that Elias was to come in his owne person, and thereupon (as it is thought) inferred, that Christ was not the true Messias, because Elias came not before him. But Christ answereth them according to the true meaning of Malachie, [Page 58] applying his prophecie to Iohn Baptist, who is figuratiuely cal­led Elias. Yea but it cannot truely be said that Iohn Baptist resto­red all things: for to restore all things, is to call all the Iewes and here­tiques, and perhaps some of the seduced Catholickes to the true faith, as Bellarmine obiecteth. This is indeede the Popish conceit, that Enoch and Elias shall preach against Antichrist 1260. daies, at the end whereof they shalbe put to death by Antichrist, and after three dayes and an halfe, shall rise againe. Within a moneth af­ter their death, Antichrist shalbe destroyed in mount Oliuet: and 45. dayes after that, Christ shall come to iudgement. In the meane time so effectuall shall be the preaching of Enoch and Elias, that they shall restore all things, that is, they shall call all the Iewes and he­retickes, and perhaps the seduced Catholickes. But how doth this agree with the prophecies of our Sauiour Christ, concerning the want of faith at his comming, and the vncertainty of the time of his appearing? As touching the former he saith, the sonne of man when he commeth, shall he finde faith vpon the earth? And as Luk. 18. 8. touching the other, he hath foretolde that the end of the world shall be suddaine and vnlooked for, euen as it was in the dayes of Noah and Lot. But if this conceit of the Papists be Mat. 24. 39 Luk. 17. 26 18. true, there shall be more true beleeuers at the end of the world, then euer had beene at one time before: and the day of Christs cōming, after the reuelation of Antichrist, but especially after his death, shalbe precisely knowne, & accordingly looked for. Now whereas he saith, that Iohn did not restore all things, which (as Christ saith) Elias should doe: I answer, that Christ speaketh ac­cording to their vnderstanding, and therefore that Iohn Baptist did restore all things in that sense that Elias was, according to their conceit, to restore al things. But by restitution in this place, we are to vnderstand the reformation of the people and Church of the Iewes (to whom the messenger and forerunner is promi­sed, & not to heretickes and seduced catholickes) wherein Iohn Baptist was another Elias. Neither is this restitution ascribed to the Baptist, as though it had beene perfected by him, but because he began that, which Christ was to bring to perfection. So that Iohn Baptist may truely be said to haue made this restitution Inchoatiuè.

[Page 59] 6. The fourth place is: Apoc. 11. 3. I will giue to my two witnesses [...] and they shall prophecie 1260. dayes. Which words he affirmeth (but without all reason) are to be vnderstood of Enoch and Elias, who are not once mētioned in al that chapter. Neither can those two witnesses signifie Enoch & Elias: because they are to be killed by the beast, and their bodies shall lie dead in the streets of the great Citie three dayes and an halfe. For Enoch and Elias they were taken vp into heauen: where in soule at the least they enioy the glorious presence of God. For otherwise their estate were worse then of the rest of the faithfull departed: and so their translation should rather haue bi [...] a punishment then a blessing or preroga­tiue vnto them: without question therefore their soules at the least are in heauen. But whether they be there in soule alone, or in soule & body, there may be some question: but if they be there in body, it cannot be that their body is mortall (as the Papists would haue it) & subiect to death. For how can corruption inhe­rit incorruption? or how can it be truly said, that Enoch was trans­lated that he should not see death, if notwithstanding his transla­tion, 1. Cor. 15. 50. he shall suffer death? If therfore their bodies be in heauen, vndoubtedly they were in the translation changed, and by that change became immortal, as the bodies of them shall, who shal­be aliue vpon the earth at the second comming of Christ. If their 1. Cor. 15. 51. 53. 1. Thes. 4. soules alone be in heauen▪ their bodies being dissolued and retur­ned into dust, then either they must come in their owne bodies, or in others. If in others, then must we hold the [...], or flitting of soules into diuers bodies: if in their owne, then shall they not onely rise before the resurrection, but also after their re­surrection die againe. All which absurdities plainely shew, that the Popish opinion concerning the comming of Enoch and Elias, is a meere fable, whereby men are kept in security, that they should not with vigilancie waite for the cōming of Christ, because as yet forsooth, Enoch and Elias are not returned. The two witnesses therefore cannot signifie Elias and Enoch. But if I should adde, that Bellarmine cānot proue that this place intreateth of Antichrist, but rather of the beast with 7. heads arising out of the sea, that is, the Roman state either generally, or especially vn­der the Emperours, as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. [Page 60] and 7. of the 11. chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he alledgeth this text to prooue, that E­noch and Elias shall come against Antichrist, if neither the one nor the other be here meant.

7. Vnto these testimonies of Scripture, he addeth the consent of the fathers, who hold that Enoch & Elias shal in their own persons come in the time of antichrist. And to this purpose he nameth ma­ny, but yet among al the anciēt which he citeth, only Gregory is al­ledged to the purpose, who in his morals expoūding the words of Lib. 14. c. 12. Bildad the Suhite as spokē of Antichrist, testifieth, that in his time Enoch and Elias shal come, which is as true, as that Bildad spake of Antichrist. Of the rest, some speake of the returne of Elias only, and that to conuert the Iewes (without mention of his resist­ing Antichrist) being deceiued by the corrupt translatiō of the 72. who in Malachy 4. v. 5. read Elias the Theibite, and therby gaue occasion to the readers to expoūd those words of Elias literally: whereas in the Hebrew, & also in other translations we read Elias the Prophet, which may truly be applied to Iohn, who was a Pro­phet; & by the testimony of our sauiour. Christ, more then a Pro­phet. Mat. 11. 9. Others, who besides Elias mention the cōming of another, agree not among themselues. Victorinus refuting the opinion of in Apoc. 11 some who thought the two witnesses to be Elias & Eliz [...]us, or E­lias & Moses, saith, all our Ancestours by tradition haue deliuered that it is Elias and Ieremie. Hilary refelling those which thought the two witnesses to be Elias & Enoch, or Elias and Ieremy, con­tendeth that they must be Moses and Elias. Hippolytus to Enoch & in Mat. con. 20. Elias, addeth Iohn the Diuine, who (as he saith) shal come with thē before the comming of Christ. All which opinions of the fathers giue vs a sufficient proofe, into what vncertainties men are carri­ed, whē they wil be wise aboue that which is written. For seeing the holy Ghost hath not named these two witnesses, it is hard e­specially for them, who liued (as themselues thought) before the fulfilling of this prophecie, to define whether by these two wit­nesses is not meant a sufficient, though a smal number of Gods witnesses, whom [...]he shall raise to testifie his trueth euen in the hottest persecution of the beast; or if they be two and no more, to determine particularly and by name, who they are.

[Page 61] 8. Vnto these restimonies in the last place he addeth a reason, to make vp this demonstration, which may thus be concluded. If Enoch & Elias were taken vp before their death, & yet [...]iue in mortall bodies wherein once they shall die; then shall they come in the time of Antichrist to set themselues against him: But Enoch and Elias be­ing taken vp before death doe yet liue in mortal [...] bodies, wherein they are once to die; therefore they shall come in the time of Antichrist to set themselues against him. The proposition is vnnecessary, and the assumptiō vntrue. For though we should grant that they yet liue in mortall bodies, and that their death is yet deferred: yet how doth this follow, that they liue to resist Antichrist and to be slaine of him? Yea but saith Bell armine, there can n [...]ne other reason be giuē. Of their translation, there is this reason, that there might be eui­dent examples of reward and happinesse laid vp both for the vp­right in Enoch, and for the zealous in Elias. Of their yet liuing in mortall bodies, if they did so according to the opinion of some of the fathers, that reason might be giuen, which they alledge, to wit, to conuert the Iewes. But the assumption also is false. For it is vntrue that they liue in mortall bodies, or that they shall euer dye. For where I beseech you doe they liue in mortall bo­dies, in the earthly Paradice, or in the heauenly? In the earthly say the Papists; but that was defaced either at or before the floud: so that although the place remaine, yet no Paradice re­maineth, as Bellarmine else where confesseth. And if they were Lib. 1. de Sanctor. be­atitud. C. 3 liuing in the earthly Paradise, how is it said, they were taken vp, as it is plainely said of Elias, that he was taken vp into heauen? Or what priuiledge or reward haue they aboue others, if all this 2. Kin. 2. 12 while they haue wanted Gods glorious presence which others enioy, and hereafter are to be slaine of Antichrist? Or how was Enoch translated that he should not see death, if notwithstanding his translation, he must dye the death? If in the celestiall Para­dise, that is the third heauen as Paul speaketh, it may first be 2. Cor. 12. doubted, whether they be there in body: because it may be thought that Christ was the first that in body ascended into hea­uen: or if their bodies [...]o there, we must hold that in the transla­tion they were changed into immortall and incorruptible bo­dies, as theirs shall, who shall be found liuing vpon the earth as [Page 62] the second comming of Christ, and shalbe rapt vp into the aire. 1. Cor. 15. 51. For this I say with Paule, that flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdome of heauen, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1. Thes. 4. 17.

9. But will you see vnder one view, how farre this slender 1. Cor. 15. 50. coniecture taken from the comming of Enoch and Elias, is from being a demonstratiue proofe. First, he cannot prooue necessari­ly that they are yet in their bodies. Secondly, if they be in their bodies, he cannot proue that their bodies are mortall. Thirdly, if their bodies be mortal, it is not necessary that they should returne into the world and die, because at the end of the world they might be changed with the rest that then shalbe liuing, as some also haue thought. Fourthly, if they should returne into the Iustin. q. 85 ad ortho­doxos. world and dye, there is no necessity that they should come in the time of Antichrist. Fiftly, if it should be granted that they are to come against Antichrist, yet it would not follow that there­fore Antichrist is not yet come: but this only would follow, that Antichrist is not yet destroyed, which we doe not deny. And this was his third demonstration, whereby he proueth that Anti­christ is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not An­tichrist. To conclude therefore, must not this needs be a good cause, that by so learned a man is so stoutly proued?

The 7. Chapter: answering his fourth demonstra­tion, concerning the most greeuous persecution vn­der Antichrist.

1. THe second signe accompanying Anti­christ, from whence Bellarmine draweth his fourth demonstration, is the most gree­uous & notorious persecutiō of the Church, in so much that the publicke seruice of God shall wholy cease. His demonstration is thus to be framed. When Antichrist is come there shalbe the most greeuous and manifest persecution that e­uer was, insomuch that the publicke seruice of God shal wholy cease: But as yet there hath bin no such persecution, neither hath [Page 63] the publicke seruice of God wholy ceased, therefore Antichrist is not yet come. Of his third argument, and consequently of the proposition and assumprion, there are three partes, which seueral­ly are to be considered, that the persecution vnder Antichrist is, 1. Most greeuous. 2. Most manifest. 3. Such as shall cause all Gods worship to cease. As touching the first, he reasoueth thus: Vn­der Antichrist shalbe the most greeuous persecution; as yet this most greeuous persecution hath not bin, especially vnder the Pope; therefore Antichrist is not yet come, neither is the Pope Antichrist. The propo­sition, namely, that the most grieuous persecution is vnder Anti­christ, he proueth by two testimonies. The first, Mat. 24. 21. And then shalbe great tribulation, such as hath not bin since the beginning of the world, neither shalbe. The other, Apoc. 20. 7. Then shall Satan be let loose, namely, after the thousand yeeres are expired. Answer. We doubt not but that the persecution vnder Antichrist was to be very greeuous, because the holy Ghost testifieth so much Apoc. 17. 6. Where the whore of Babylon is said to be drunke with the bloud of the Saints, and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus. But his proofes are not to the purpose. For the place in Mathew, as heretofore hath beene shewed, and as appeareth by the text it selfe, is to be vnderstood of the calamities, which at the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes, the Iewes sustained. For when you see (saith our Saulour Christ) the abo­mination Mat. 24. 15 of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the holy place, that is, as Luke expoundeth, when you see Ierusae­lem Luk. 21. 20 compassed about with armies (which Daniel calleth the abo­minable Dan. 9. 27. wings of desolation) then let those which are in Iewry flye vnto the mountaines, &c. And his reason is, because then there Mat. 24. 2 [...] shalbe great affliction, such as hath not beene from the beginning of the world vntill now, neither shalbe. Which Luke expresseth thus, for there shall be great distresse in the Land, and wrath [...], in Luk. 21. 23. 24. this people, and they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be carryed captiue into all nations, and Ierusalem shall be troden vn­der f [...]ote of the Gentiles, vntill the times of the Gentiles be ful­filled.

2. As touching the thousand yeers mentioned, Apoc. 20. Af­ter which Satan was to be loosed: although the expiration of [Page 64] them fal in Antichrists raigne, yet we are not to begin his raigne thereat, as appeareth plainely Apoc. 20. v. 4. Neither is that let­ting loose of Sathan to be vnderstood of the persecution onely vnder Antichrist: for it is manifest by the text, that within those thousand yeares, many martyrs were put to death by Antichrist for refusing to receiue his marke, and that the greatest part la▪ dead in Antichristian errours and superstition, verse. 4. & 5. and by the 8. verse, that Satan was let loose not onely to stirre vp per­secution against the faithfull, but also and that principally to stir vp vniuersall wars betwixt the nations of the world, betwixt Gog and Magog, that is, as some expound, the Papists and Mahome­tans. Now I would gladly know of Bellarmine when these thou­sand yeeres began, and when they expired: for hereof there be diuers opiniōs, but I wil touch the principall, 1. That these thou­sand yeeres begin with the incarnation of Christ, and determine accordingly, when as Siluester the second had obtained the Pa­pacie by the helpe of the diuell: after whom followed in the An­tichristian seat a succession of notable sorcerers. 2. That the thousand yeeres begin about the 73. yeare of Christ: at which time the people of the Iewes being destroyed, and the Church of Christ of a particular became catholick & dispersed through­out all nations, the diuell as it is in the end of the 12. Chap. see­keth by all meanes to ouerthrow the seede borne of the Church Apoc. 12. of the Iewes, that is, the Churches of Christ begotten vnto God by the ministry of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ. Where­upon it is said Chap. 20. (where the former story, as some thinke is continued) the Angel! bindeth Satan for a thousand yeares, which end in the yeare 1073. which being expired, the diuell is loosed, and Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand (a notable sorceres, and murtherer, in whom Antichrist came to his full growth) was in­stalled in the Papacie. Augustine beginneth this account much a­bout De ciuit. Dei. Lib. 20 cap. 8. this time. 3. That these 1000. yeares take their begin­ning from the time of the reuelation, which was about the yeare of our Lord, 96. and consequently ended about the yeare 1096. in which yeare those vniuersall wars were raised for the recoue­ry of Ierusalem and the holy land out of the hand of the Sara­ [...]s, which the holy Ghost here seemeth to speake of betwixt [Page 65] the nations of the earth. In this expedition there met at Ierusa­lem 600000. footmen, and 100000. horsemen out of Christen­dome, besides eight or nine other expeditions afterwards, for the recouerie forsooth of the holy-land. 4. Others begin this ac­count at the beginning of Constantines reigne, which happened not long after the yeere 300. who being the first Christian Em­perour, gaue peace to the Church of God, and according to this account the thousand yeeres expired about the yeere 1300. in which yeere the Turkish Empire began in Ottoman; and Pope Boniface the eight most insolently and Antichristian­lie challenged, especially in that his yeere of Iubilee, an vniuer­sall dominion ouer the world, both spirituall and temporall. All which opinions being seuerally probable, it is more then proba­ble, that those 1000. yeeres are already expired: and conse­quently that Antichrist is already come. For as Bellarmine teach­eth, the diuell was to be loosed in the time of Antichrist, and the Text plainely sheweth, that before the expiration of the thousand yeares, and loosing of the diuell, many were slaine by Antichrist. So that the testimonies which he alledgeth are a­gainst his purpose. For the great tribulation whereof Christ speaketh is already past, and the thousand yeeres whereof Iohn speaketh, already expired: and therefore if Bellarmines allegati­ons be to the purpose, then Antichrist is come.

3. But supposing his proposition to be thus farre true, that the persecution of the church vnder Antichrist, shalbe very great and grieuous (for that vnder him shalbe the greatest tribulation that euer was or shalbe, I dare not auouch, because our Sauiour hath said, that the calamities of the Iewes at the destruction of Ierusa­lem, were the greatest that euer were or shalbe to the end of the world:) let vs come to his assumption, and consider whether there hath not bin great and grieuous persecution of the church, vnder the Pope. Bellarmine confesseth, that many of our religion haue bin put to death by them: but he maketh it a matter of no­thing. First, because this persecution if it were so to be called, is not com­parable with the persecutions vnder the Heathenish Emperours, and e­specially vnder Dioclesian, by whose authority 17000. Christians were slaine in [...] moneth. And secondly, because more of them haue beene [Page 66] slaine by Protestants in France and Flanders within 10. or 15. yeeres before Bellarmine read these controuersies, which was Anno. 1577, then had been [...] burnt of our men by the Inquisitours in an hun­dred yeeres: and thirdly, if there hath beene any persecution in these latter times, the Catholicks haue suffered it rather thē the Protestants. To which I answer, that I cannot tell whether the Papists in per­secuting the faithfull, haue beene more cruell and barbarous, or he in cloaking their cruelty, shamelesse. For to omit the spirituall calamities inflicted by the Pope, and fearefull hauock of mens soules, wherein he taketh such libertie to himselfe, that if he cary whole troopes of soules into hell, no man may say vnto him, sir, why do you so? omitting, I say, these spirituall calamities which are most greeuous, and in respect whereof the tribulation of Christian people hath bin more grieuous vnder the Pope, then vnder any Heathenish tyrants, and to speake onely of outward troubles: why are not the persecutions of the Protestants vnder the Pope, comparable with those in the Primitiue church? For durance, they haue beene longer and more continuall: for num­ber, more flaine in France alone vnder the name of Al [...]igenses, Waldenses, & Hugonotes, for refusing the marke of the beast, then were s [...]aine in any one of the ten persecutions throughout the world: besides infinite more, as Saunders confesseth in other coun­tries, Demon­strat. 34. on whom the Papists haue practised most sauage cruelty. The Duke of Alba in the Low-countries alone, caused within a very few yeares 36000. to be executed. Yea but in Dioclesians time (saith Bellarmine) there were in one moneth 17000. Christians martyred. Yea but in France alone, say I, vnder Charles the ninth, within one moneth were slaughtered in the Massacre at Paris & Lyons, & some other places, as some say, 40000 as others, aboue thirty thousand, that is to say, twise as many as in Dioclesians mo­neth, without all order of law, but with most perfidious treache­rie, and barbarous cruelty. And this bloody Massacre applauded by the Pope and his Cardinals, was committed within fiue or six yeeres before Bellarmine read these controuersies concerning the Pope, that is to say, Anno. 1572. And yet this cruell Cardinall of the purpled harlot the church of Rome, which is embrued, and as it were died redde with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of [Page 67] Iesu, is not ashamed to say, that within 10. or 15. yeeres there haue bin slaine more Catholicks in France and Flanders, then had bin burnt by the Inquisitours these 100▪ yeeres. As touching the Inquisitours, they can kill but all that they finde of the religion, and that I am sure they spare not to doe. Vergerius, who could 1. Bal. de act. Ponti­fic. well tell, witnesseth, that within the space of 30. yeeres, there were put to diuers fearfull deaths by the bloody Inquisition, a hundred & fiftie thousand Christians. But we speake not onely of those which haue bin burnt, or by other more exquisi [...]e torments martyred by their meanes (although the number of them in all countries cannot be reckoned) but we speake also of those that haue beene in great multitudes by outragious Massacres most butcherly murthered.

4. But what Catholicks, I beseech you, haue bin put to death by protestants for their religion? Bellarmine answereth that ma­nie of them haue died in the ciuill warres in France & Flanders. It may be that the Protestants in these ciuill warres vnder-taken for their owne defence, that they might be free from such out­rages, haue slaine in lawfull battaile many of the Papists, as con­trariwise many of themselues haue beene slaine. But what is this to the purpose? Thus many in the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes, the most cruell persecutor of the Church of the Iewes, were slaine in Iewrie in the time of the Macchabees, as well as they had slaine many of the Iewes. But I say againe, what Catholicks (as they call them) haue beene put to death for religion? As for those fewe that haue beene executed among vs, what one was put to death, that was not found guiltie ey­ther of treason or rebellion, or some such capitall crime? And yet the Papists report, and in Bookes doe publish, that I can­not tell how many of them are martyred here in England for their religion. Neither are they ashamed to write, and in Rome to publish that some of them haue beene put into Beares Ecclefi [...] Anglic. Troph [...]. Printed at Rome An. 1584. cum priuileg. Gregor. 13 skinnes and baited with Dogges, which also they haue set out in tables. But compare I beseech you with those many that were martyred in Queene Maries fiue yeeres, those few that haue beene executed in Queene Elizabeths fortie fiue yeares. Compare the causes, which make persecution in the agents [Page 68] and martyrdome in the patients. What one put to death of those which were burnt in Q. Maries time for any crime, but onely for religion, which they cal heresie? what one of the Catholicks, as they call them, in Q. Elizabeths time executed, who was not found guiltie of some capitall crime? Compare the estate of Papists liuing among Protestants at this day, as namely in Eng­land, with the estate of Protestants liuing among Papists, as namely in Spaine. Is any one suffered to liue among them, that is but once suspected to be of our religion? Is not euery such a one either priuately murdered, or publickly brought to the stake? Among vs who is not suffered to liue, although he be knowne to be of the Romish religion? To liue, did I say? Nay, God be mercifull vnto vs that suffer them so to liue as they doe, to the encouragement and infection of others. I speake not onely of ordinarie Papists, and those that are at liberty, but of the ring-leaders also that be in custodie: whose life hath beene more easie and pleasant, and maintenance more plentifull, then of the Let the Cas [...]les of UUisbich, and Fre­mingham be witnesse most students or ministers among vs. Yea but there is cause (will they say) that we should deale worse with you, then you with vs. Nothing lesse. They object to vs onely heresie, and that as truely as the Iewes did to Paul, which we doe truely object vnto them, and in regarde thereof, might, nay should doe to the children of Babylon, as they haue done to vs. But besides Apoc. 18. 6 many grosse and capitall heresies, which race the foundation, we truely object vnto them, that their religion bringeth with it, treason against the Prince, and rebellion against God. Treason against the Prince, not onely because of their confederacie with the chiefe enemies of our state, the Pope and Spaniard, in regard whereof those Iesuites and Priests, which come among vs from beyond-Seas, as also those which harbour them, are worthy of death: but also because more generally they hol­ding the Popes supremacie and authoritie to depose Princes, and withall, beleeuing that the Pope in his definitiue sentence cannot erre: they cannot but approoue the Bull of excom­munication, wherein Pius the fift, (as much as was in him) de­posed our Queene of famous memory, and absolued her sub­jects from all allegeance to her. Rebellion against God, because [Page 69] it perswadeth an Apostasie and falling away from God, into grosse and palpable idolatrie. Of which fault whosoeuer are found guiltie, that is, to perswade others to idolatrie, by the law of God they ought not be suffered to liue, because they haue perswaded an Apostasie from God, Deut. 13. All this notwith­standing, Deut. 13. 5. 8. 9. we deale too remissely with them, and they most bar­barously with vs. And yet forfooth, if there be, or hath beene, any persecution in the Church in these latter times, the Catho­licks are they which suffer it, and not the Protestants. Alas poore Wolues, how cruelly they haue beene handled among the sheepe of Christ!

5. But to proceed: As the persecution vnder Antichrist, saith Bellarmine, shall be most grieuous; so shall it be most manifest. For thus he reasoneth: The persecution vnder Antichrist shall be most manifest: this vnder the Pope is not manifest; therefore this is not the persecution of Antichrist. The proposition is prooued, because then all the wicked shall aperto marte, oppugne the whole church: and not onely those that be Infidels and open sinners, but the hypocrites also and false brethren, shall then joyne themselues to Antichrist, and discouering themselues, openly assault the Church. And is not this well gessed thinke you, contrary to the word of truth, vtte­red by our Sauiour Christ? For whereas our Sauiour hath said, that the good and bad shall growe together like Wheate and Tares, vntill the day of the great haruest: Bellarmine telleth vs, that when Antichrist commeth, there shall such a separati­on be made, that there shall not an hypocrite be left in the Church: but all the wicked without exception, shall be to­gether Omnes prorsus im­pios simul futuros in exercitu Antichri­sti. in Antichrists hoste; and shall openly oppugne the whole Church of the Saints. But such separation is not to be looked for, vntill Christ shall seuer the Lambes from the Goates. And therefore if we must not beleeue that Antichrist is come, vn­till such a separation be made: assuredly Christ will come vp­on vs to judgement, whiles we looke for Antichrist. Yea but Augustine saith, That now there be many false bretheren in the De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. c. 11. Church, At tunc erumpent omnes (inquit Augustinus) in aper­tam persecutionem ex latebris odiorum, But then all shall burst forth, saith Augustine, out of their couert hatred, into open persecution. [Page 70] If Augustine had said so, we might wel haue esteemed his speech to haue beene but a humane conjecture, rather then a Prophecie diuine. But Bellarmine without all shame falsifieth his words. For Augustine in that place speaking of those words, Apoc. 20. 7. Soluetur Satanas de custodia sua & exibit ad seducendas nationes, Satan shall be let loose out of his warde, and shall goe forth to seduce the nations: Exibit autem dictum est (saith he) in apertam persecutio­nem, de latebris erumpet odiorum: Now it is said that he shall goe forth, viz. into open persecution; he shall breake forth of the couerts of hatred, speaking of the diuell alone, and not of all the wicked. And thus was his proposition doughtily prooued, being neuer­lesse according to his sense, repugnant to the Scriptures, which describe Antichrist, not as an open enemy, but as a secret; and de­cipher antichristianisme, not as a professed hostilitie, but as a my­sterie of iniquitie, as hath beene shewed.

6. Come we to his assumption, This manifest persecution hath not bin, neither is, as yet, & why? First, because there are now so ma­ny false brethren in the church as neuer were more; speaking of the church of Rome, wherin it is hard indeed to finde a true christiā. But shal not Antichrist come whiles there are false brethrē in the church? or rather shall we not thinke, that the Apostasie of false brethren in the church of Rome & pretended Christians, wherof Antichrist is the head, is a good argument of his comming? Se­condly, because no man can tell when this persecution began. That, if it were true, doth not disprooue the greatnesse of the persecu­tion, but argue the length. Yea but vnder Nero, Domitian, & the rest of the persecuting Emperours, it was well knowne when the perse­cutions began, and when they ended. That happened because there was some intermission of those persecutions: but these persecu­tions vnder Antichrist they haue no end, nor yet intermissiō, ex­cept it be when they haue none to persecute. But how doth it appeare that none know when these persecutions of Antichrist began? For sooth, because some of vs say, that Antichrist came in the yeere 200. others in 606. others in 773, others in 1000, others in 1200. The vanity of which objection, which now like a twice-bo [...]de Colewurt he setteth before vs againe, hath bin shewed before. For of these opinions, onely two belong to vs, and those not dif­ferent. For we hold, that as the whole soueraigntie and tyranny [Page 71] of the Pope consisteth in his two swords, which he did not at­taine at once, but by degrees: so we make two degrees of Anti­christ his comming: first with the spirituall sword in the yeere 607. secondly, with the temporall, after the yeere 1000. which was more fully obtained then before, in Gregorie the seuenth: In whom, as hath bin said, Antichrist was come to his full growth. Since which time, he hath been more and more reuealed, and by some acknowledged. Vpon which acknowledgment there hath followed separation from him, according to the cōmandement of God, and refusall of his marke: whereupon persecution hath ensued, and neuer hath ceased where any such haue been found, where the Pope hath to do. Neither are we with Bellarmine ig­norantly to confound the time of his comming, with the begin­ning of his persecution. For he began not to persecute, vntil men began to forsake him: and men did not forsake him vntill he was discouered what he was, and acknowledged: neither was he acknowledged, vntill he came to his full growth.

7. And thus the two first parts of this demonstration, concer­ning the persecution of Antichrist, how great and manifest it should be, are already answered, although in truth not worth the answering. The third part is concerning the publike seruice of God and ceremonies of the church, which (he saith) in the time of Anti­christ by reason of that grieuous persecution shall wholy cease. His rea­son is thus framed. When Antichrist is come, the publicke seruice of God, and daily sacrifice of Christians (meaning the sacrifice of the Masse) shall cease: but as yet the publicke seruice of God, and daily sa­crifice of Christians, hath not ceased; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. To the proposition I answer, that Antichrist being an hy­pocrite and pretended Christian (as hath bin prooued) shall not abolish all worship of God, & much lesse at his first cōming. For Bellarmine maketh this interruption of Gods seruice, a fruite of his greatest persecutiō: his persecution (as I said) is a consequent of mens for saking him; and that of his acknowledgement: and that, of his shewing himselfe in his colours, when he was come to his full growth, whereunto he attained not at the first, but by degrees. But this proposition is prooued, saith Bellarmine, out of Daniel. chap. 12. verse 11. From the time when the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, are dayes 1290. Where (saith he) Daniel speaketh of [Page 72] the time of Antichrist. For the expositiō of this place, we need not with Bellarmine run to the Fathers, seeing by conference thereof with some other places in Daniel, whereunto it hath reference, it may most plainly be shewed, who it is that taketh away this dai­ly sacrifice, and what that sacrifice is. In the eight chapt. vers. 11. and chapt. 11. vers. 31. it is affirmed, that by Antiochus Epiphanes, and his armies, the daily worship of God should be taken away. When as therfore Daniel asked when there should be an end of these things? the Holy-ghost answereth, that from the time that the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the abomination of deso­lation placed, whereof he had spoken, chap. 11. 31. there should be 1290. dayes. For of the restitution of Gods seruice, and deli­uerie of the Iewes from the tyranny of Antiochus, there are foretold diuers degrees at diuers times, which agreeably to these Prophecies of Daniel, are noted in the histories of Iosephus, and of the Maccabees: for from the interruption of Gods seruice, to the first restitution thereof by Iudas Macchabeus, were three yeeres and ten daies, namely from the 15. of the moneth Casteu, In memo­rie hereof the Encae­nia, that is, the feast of the dedica­tion, Iohn 10. 22. was celebrated on the 25. of Casteu. 1. Macca. 4. 59. in the 145. yeere of the Seleucida, 1. Maccab. 1. 57. vnto the 25▪ of the moneth Casteu, in the yeere 148 1. Maccab. 4. 52. which terme Daniel calleth, chap. 7. 25. a time, and times, and parcell of time. Vnto the victorie obtained by the Macchabees, whereby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of Iewry, and thereby the restitution before begun, established, were three yeeres and a halfe, as Iosephus testifieth; which Daniel, cha. 12. 7. calleth a time & times, & halfe a time, vnto the time that Antiochus being stric­ken with the hand of God, after his discomfiture and flight from Pers [...]polis, promised to restore the religion of the Iewes, & what else they desired, were 1290. dayes; vnto the time of his death 1335. And that these are Prophecies cōcerning Antiochus, I will hereafter shew more at large. In the meane time to the present Chap. 16. objection I answer, that by the daily worship or sacrifice here mentioned, we are to vnderstand, not the sacrifice of Christians to be taken away by Antichrist, but the daily sacrifice of the Iewes, which was interrupted and taken away by Antiochus Epi­phanes. It was the custome of the Iewes (saith Chrysostome) to offer a sacrifice to God euery morning and euening, which they called [...], which sacrifice was taken away by Antiochus: and the [Page 73] same is testified by Iosephus and the author of the first booke of the Macchabees.

8. To this place of Daniel although nothing at all to his pur­pose, Bellarmine trusteth so much, that vpō it as it were his groud­worke he buildeth three conclusions, as you shall heare after we haue also considered of his assumption. The assumption he pro­ueth by experience; as though it did testifie that the publicke seruice of God had not beene taken away vnder the Pope; [...] the sacrifice of Christians ceased. But if by the publicke seruice of God he meaneth his true worship and seruice in spirit and truth: assuredly it hath beene taken away in the Papacy, except will-worship, superstition, and Idolatry be the true worship of God. As touching Christian sacrifices; we acknowledge the sa­crifice of praise, the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, the Heb. 13. 15 Psal. 51. 17 Rom. 12. 1. Heb. 13. 16. sacrifice of obedience wherein we offer our selues, the sacrifice of almes wherby we offer our goods; these sacrifices, no Antichrist can wholy take away. As for the sacrifice of the masse, we holde it to be a mo [...]strous abomination, wherein the holy sacra­ment of the Lords supper, is turned into an abominable Idoll. Seeing therfore there is no soundnesse of truth either in the pro­position or assumption, must we not needes thinke that the question in hand is soundly concluded? And yet vpon these grounds Bellarmine doth not only infer the question in hand, but two more also. From hence saith he, three things may be gathe­red. First, that Antichrist is not as yet come, becàuse the daily sacri­fice yet continueth. He might as well haue concluded with the Iewes that Christ is not yet come: for he was to abolish the daylie sacrifice, Dan. 9. 27. partly by his owne sacrifice, vnto which the shadowes of the Law were to giue place; and partly by the ouerthrow of the temple, in which and not elsewhere it was to be offered. His second conclusion is, that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist, but rather an aduersary vnto him; see­ing hee doth adore and maintaine this sacrifice, which Antichrist is to abolish. Nay rather by ordaining this propitiatory sacrifice, and erecting a new priesthood to offer the same, the Pope, sheweth himselfe to be Antichrist. For by this Priesthood Christ is denyed to bee our onely Priest: by this Sacrifice, [Page 74] his sacrifice on the Crosse is supposed not to be sufficient: in this sacrifice the humanity of Christ (as hath beene shewed) is ouer­throwne, and a God of bread set vp in his roome to be worship­ped and adored. In this sacrifice Christ alter a sort is made infe­riour to euery masse-monger, who as they can make their crea­tour by breathing out a few words (hoc est corpus meum) so when they haue made him in their conceit, they offer him vp to God, to be a sacrifice propitiatory both for the quicke and the dead. His third conclusion is; that the heretickes of this time aboue all o­thers are forerunners of Antichrist, because they desire nothing more, then the ouerthrow of this sacrifice of the masse. Nay rather as appea­reth by the former answer, they shew themselues the limmes of Antichrist, who ouerthrowing the sacrament of the Lords sup­per (which we haue reduced to the first institution) seeke to vphold this masse and heape of all abominations and sacrilegi­ous Idolatry. And how are all these things prooued? forsooth because Daniel hath prophecied that Antiochus was to take a­way for a time the daily sacrifice of the Iewes; therefore Anti­christ is not yet come, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist, there­fore those that mislike the masse are forerunners of Antichrist. And so with these three conclusions, as it were so many roapes of sand, he knitteth vp his fourth demonstration.

Chapter. 8. Answering his fift demonstration con­cerning the terme of Antichrists raigne, viz. 3. yeeres and a halfe.

1. THere remaine two demonstrations (as he calleth them) proouing that Antichrist is not yet come, taken from those signes which follow Antichrist, to wit, the death of Antichrist after three yeers & an halfe, and the end of the world. Where Bellar­mine teacheth vs not to looke for Anti­christ, vntill he be gone; not to expect his comming, vntill the world haue an end. For if these be signes that Antichrist is not yet come (as Bellarmine maketh them) then may we argue [Page 75] now, and so may argue euen vntill the end of the world: Vntill Antichrist be dead and the world haue an end, Antichrist commeth not; but at yet (may we say now, and so may say vntill the end) An­tichrist is not dead, neither as yet hath the world an end; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. By this argument therefore you see, how fitly these two signes are made the ground of two demon­strations, that Antichrist is not yet come. Now as touching the former, Bellarmine reasoneth thus. The fift demonstration (viz. to proue that Antichrist is not yet come) is taken from the continu­ance of Antichrist. Antichrist shall not raigne but three yeeres and a halfe. But the Pope hath raigned spiritually in the Church aboue 1500. yeer [...]s, neither can any be assigned that hath bene taken for Antichrist, who hath raigned precisely three yeers and a halfe: The Pope therfore is not Antichrist. Wherefore Antichrist is not yet come. His reason is thus to be resolued. If neither the Pope be Antichrist, nor any other, who hitherto hath beene taken for Antichrist; then is not Antichrist as yet come: But neither the Pope is Antichrist, nor any that hither­to hath beene taken for Antichrist; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. Where you see by a circular disputatiō, the Iesuit for want of better arguments, bringeth the maine question (namely whe­ther the Pope be Antichrist) as an argument to proue, that Anti­christ is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not An­tichrist. The Pope is not Antichrist; why? because Antichrist is not yet come: and why is not Antichrist yet come? because the Pope is not Antichrist. He may as well goe on, for there is no end in a circle: and why is not the Pope Antichrist? because Antichrist is not yet come: and why is not Antichrist yet come? because the Pope is not Antichrist. And thus Bellarmine, as you see, danceth in a round.

2. But to come to the purpose, how doth he prooue, that nei­ther the Pope is Antichrist, nor any other that hath beene ta­ken for Antichrist? by this syllogisme: Antichrist shall raigne but three yeeres and a halfe precisely: but neither the Pope, nor any o­ther that hath beene taken for Antichrist, hath raigned three yeers and a halfe precisely: therefore neither the Pope is Antichrist, nor any other that as yet hath bene taken for Antichrist. The assumpti­on, which he might haue proued by a truth, he chooseth to proue [Page 76] by a falsehood. For whereas he might haue said and that truely, that the Pope hath raigned spiritually in the church aboue 900. yeeres, and therfore aboue three yeers & a halfe; he saith, he hath raigned (meaning an vniuersall raigne ouer the whole Church, or else he proueth not his assumption) aboue 1500. which is vn­true. For he could not obtaine this vniuersall raigne, before the yeere 607. But all the controuersie is concerning the propositi­on: For we doe grant, that the Popes haue raigned and tyranni­zed in the Church, almost a thousand yeeres; and therfore aboue three yeers and a halfe. Let vs therfore consider how he proueth, that Antichrist shall raigne 3. yeers and a halfe precisely. He pro­ueth it by diuers prophecies of the Scriptures, & ghesses of the fa­thers, which were no prophecies. And first he alleageth these pla­ces, Dan. 7. 25. and 12. 7. Apoc. 12. 14. Where we read (saith he) that the raign of Antichrist shal continus a time and times & halfe a time, that is, a yeere and two yeeres and halfe a yeere; and so he saith, S. Iohn expoundeth it, Apoc. 11. and 13. by 42. moneths, and 1260 daies, I answer, that none of these places defineth the time, or terme of Antichrists raigne. Daniel speaketh not of the time of Antichrists raigne, but of that time wherin the Iewes were to be afflicted, & the temple & seruice of God in Ierusalem was to be profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes, which time the Angell diuersly recko­neth, Chap. 16. as was in part shewed in the last chapter, & shal hereafter be more fully declared. For of their deliuerance from the tyrannie of Antiochus, there are foure degrees, obtained at 4. seueral times, all which seeme to be noted by Daniel. The first, is the restitution of Gods worship & renouation of the temple by Iudas Macca­beus. 1. Mac. 1. 57. From the profanatiō therfore, which was on the 15. of Casteu 1. Mac. 4. 52. in the yeere 145. vnto this restitutiō made on the 25. of Casteu in the 148. yeere, were 3. yeers & 10. daies, which Daniel calleth a▪ time & times & parcel of time, Dan. 7. 25. & as some thinke Dan 12. 7. The second degree was the victory of the Iewes against § De bello Iudaico lib. 1. Cap. 1. the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, wherby they were expelled out of Iewry & the testitutiō begun confirmed, which hapned after 3. yeers and a halfe as Iosephus noteth, who also affirmeth that for so [...]. Ioseph. de bell. long Antiochus had caused the daily sacrifice to cease, his words are these: [...]. The terme (as some thinke) [Page 77] Daniel Chapter. 12. vers 7. calleth a time and times [...] [...]fe a time. The third degree, is the deadly sicknesse of Antiochus af­ter his flight from Pers [...]pons, at what time he promised all good things to the people of the Iewes. From the profanation to this Dan. 12. 11 time, Daniel reckoneth 1290. dayes: to his death which hap­ned 45. dayes after, to wit, in the beginning of the yeere [...]49. he reckoneth 1335. dayes. Now whereas Bellarmine saith, that the terme of antichrists raigne shalbe 3. yeers & a halfe precisely, & saith that this terme is expressed in the Apocalypse by 1260. dayes, and in Daniel by 1290. he seemed not to haue beene well aduised: for 1290. are not 1260. nor 3. yeeres and a halfe pre­cisely: And therein he contradicteth himselfe, and maketh Iohn in the same matter to be repugnant to Daniel.

3. As touching the places in the Apocalypse, it is hard to prooue that the times mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters, be the same (which he must prooue, or else by conference of these places he prooueth nothing) and if they be the same (as in­deed they are not) it will be as hard to define where we are to be­gin the account. But these two things may be affirmed. First, that all these times are not to be vnderstood literally: And se­condly, that none of thē defineth the time of Antichrists raigne. The 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. chapters signifie the time of the persecution vnder the Romane Emperours either only or es­pecially: for Chap. 11. v. 2. it is said that the Gentiles shal tread vp­on the holy city 42. moneths. But antichrist (as the Papists hold) shal­be the Prince of the Iewes and counterfeit Christians. And v. 7. it is said, that the beast which ariseth out of the deepe (which be­ing the same with that which is described chap. 13. 1. is the Ro­mane state, especially as it was vnder the persecuting emperours) that this beast (I say) shall persecute the two witnesses of God, and their bodies shall lie in the streetes of the great Cities where­by in the Apocalypse is meant Rome or the R. empire. And here­by also it appeareth that this terme of 42. moneths mentioned in both places, is not literally to be vnderstood. For the persecu­tion vnder the Romane Emperours alone, endured so many Sab­boths of yeeres, as there are moneths mentioned in those places, that is, 294. yeers, as Master Fox expoundeth it. Now if the other [Page 78] termes mentioned, chap. 11. and 12. of time and times and halfe a time, and of dayes 1260. be the same with the 42. moneths, as Bellarmine will needes haue it; then by them is not signified An­christs raigne, neither are they to be vnderstood literally, no more then the 42. moneths: but in the 11. chap. the time of the two witnesses preaching, during the time of the afore said perse­cution, and chap 12. the womans, that is, the Churches liuing in the desert during the said time. Howbeit the speech of time and times and halfe a time may rather be vnderstood (according to Daniels phrase) of three yeeres and a halfe, wherin the Church of Vid. Iuni­um in Apo. 12. Christ which was at Ierusalē, after it was admonished by a voyce out of the sanctuary to depart, & accordingly remoued to Pella, was sustained there. For in that place it is plaine, that the holy Ghost speaketh not of Antichrist nor yet of the beast, but of the Serpent the diuell, who seeketh the ouerthrow of the Church of Christ among the Iewes, & afterwards turneth his anger towards the rest of her seed, that is, the faithful among the Gentiles, and to that end standeth on the sea shore, from whence he raiseth the beast with seauen heads, &c.

4. And further I ad, that if these times mētioned in those places which Bellarmine alledgeth, did signifie the terme of Antichrists 2 raign precisely, & were to be vnderstood literally; thē it wold fol­low, that after antichrist is once reuealed, al mē that be acquain­ted with the Scriptures, may precisely define before hād, the very day of Christs cōming vnto iudgemēt: which the Lord notwith­standing wil not haue known (Mar. 13. 32.) as Bellarmine himself Cap. 3. lib. 3. must needs grant, seeing he vseth this as the chiefe argument a­gainst those which by 1260. dayes vnderstand so many yeeres. Againe it is incredible, if not impossible, that so many & so great 3. things as they assigne to Antichrist, should be effected & brought to passe in so short a time; as Hentenius a learned Papist doth con­fesse, and as hath bin shewed heretofore. For this is an errour de­pending In praesat. translat. Arcth [...]. vpon the former, concerning the person of Antichrist, & presupposing that Antichrist is but one man. And therfore when 4 we proued that Antichrist is not any one man alone, but a whole state and succession of men, we proued this by consequence, that his raigne was not to continue only three yeers and a halfe. And [Page 79] againe Antichrist, according to the conceit of the Papists, is to 5 raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses, and as Bellar­mine faith, is to continue one moneth after their death. Seeing then the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes, which, as Bellarmine also saith, make three yeers & a halfe precisely, how can the terme of Antichrists raigne be three yeeres and a halfe precisely? Lastly 6 the Scriptures plainely testifie, that the Antichrist which is to be destroied at the second comming of Christ, was come euen in the Apostles time, although he was not reuealed by exercising openly a soueraigne & vniuersal dominiō, vntill that which hin­dred, that is, the Roman Empire was taken out of the way. But after the Empire was once dissolued in the West, and the Empe­ror of the East had lost his right in Italy and Rome, that is, when that which hindred was taken out of the way, then according to the prophecie, 2. Thes. 2. 8. was Antichrist reuealed, succeeding the Emperor in the gouernment of Rome, and claiming an vni­uersall authority, first spirituall, ouer the whole Church in the yeere 607. & after temporal, ouer the whole world, & aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God: all which we haue hereto­fore proued to haue bin done in the Papacie, aboue three yeeres and a halfe agoe, yea aboue so many hundred yeers agoe; so that we shall not need to expect another Antichrist, who is to raigne three yeers and a half. And thus you haue heard not only Bellar­mines allegations answered, but also his assertion confuted.

5 Now let vs see what Bellarmine can reply either against our assertion in general, or against the expositiōs of some protestants in particular. For wheras we generally affirme, notwithstanding his allegations aforesaid, that Antichrist hath already ruled in the Church almost a thousand yeers, Bellarmine besides the slender coniectures of diuers of the fathers groūded on such prophecies of Scriptures as they could not vnderstand, which are his first argument, he produceth six other reasons, no lesse easie to be answered. His second argument is, because the scriptures say that the time of the diuels loosing, and Antichrists raigning is breuis­simum, very short, or most short: But how can that be true if An­tichrist shall raigne a thousand yeeres or more? For that which he speaketh of 1260. yeeres, is the priuate opinion of [Page 80] some of which shall be touched afterwards. I answer, that the Scriptures no where say that Antichrists raigne, or that the time Apo. 17. 10 [...]. Apo. 12. 12 [...]. Apo. 20 vers. 3. [...]. of the diuell loosed is Breuissimum, that is, most short, but onely that it is short or small, which we doe acknowledge. Let vs then weigh his argumēt, which may be resolued into two syllogismes: the former, A thousand yeeres or more is not a short time: Antichrists raigne is a short time: therfore Antichrists raigne is not a thousand yeers or more. First to the proposition I answer, that a thousand yeers vn­to the Lord (who speaketh in the Scriptures) is a short time. The Apostle Peter expresly saith, that a thousand yeers with the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 8. are but as one day. Yea, and the whole time from the ascension of Christ vntil his comming to iudgement, is often noted in the Scriptures to be a short time, and in one place it is called the last houre. And likewise aboue 1500. yeers agoe, it was promised, 1. Ioh. 2. 18 that the prophecies concerning the destruction of Antichrist, the second comming of Christ, & end of the world, should within a short time be fulfilled. To the assumptiō I answer, that although the time of Antichrists tyranny seeme to belong to them that Apoc. 1. 1. [...] v. 3. [...]. Ap. 22. 10. 12. 20. Heb. 10. 37 are exercised therby; yet it is but short in comparisō of that time which they shall raigne with Christ, and is so called; Apoc. 17. 10. But yet nothing so short as Bellarmine imagineth. This therefore he proueth in the second Syllogisme: The time of Sathan loosed is very short: the terme of Antichrists raigne is the time of Sathan loo­sed: therefore the terme of Antichrists raigne is very short. The pro­position he proueth by two places in the Apocalypse, which af­firme his time to be short, but yet nothing so short as the Pa­pists imagine: for in the former place, Chap. 12. 12. he is said to haue but a short time, before he persecuted the Church of Christ among the Iewes, which was aboue 1500. yeeres agoe. And in the latter place, Chap. 20. 3. it is said that he should be let loose for a smal time: but this smal time beginneth at the expiration of the thousand yeeres wherein he had beene bound, and continu­eth vntill the time that he shalbe cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, in the end of the world. Now the thousand yeeres were expired many hundred yeeres agoe, as hath beene shewed. But although the time of Antichrists raigne be called short, yet is it not so short as the time of Sathan loosed: and therefore the [Page 81] assumption is false: For howsoeuer the thousand yeares expire in the time of Antichrists raigne, yet we are not to beginne the raigne of Antichrist with the loosing of Sathan. For within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment, Antichrist not onely Apoc. 20. 4. was, but also persecuted those that refused his marke: and yet we are not to confound the time of his persecution, much lesse of his hotest persecutiō, with the time of his continuance. Now the time of the diuel loosed, as the Papists teach, is the time of Antichrists most greeuous persecution, which was a cōsequent of mens refu­sing his marke, & that a fruite of his discouerie & acknowledge­ment: but he was not acknowledged vntill he came to his full grouth, whereunto he attained not at the first. And it is to be thought that the heate of his persecutiō wilbe slaked before his end, himselfe being consumed and wasted by the spirit of Christs 2. Thes. 2. 8. mouth, & his See impouerished, if not ouerthrowne by the kings of the earth, which before the end of the world, shall not onely hate the whore of Babylō (the Popes cōcubine) but also shal make her Apo. 17. 1 [...]. desolate & naked, & shal eate her flesh, & her they shal burne with fire.

6. Thirdly, he argueth from Math. 24. 21. mistaken by some of the fathers, that vnlesse those daies (meaning of Antichrists per­secution) should be shortned, and consequently the persecution very short, no flesh could be saued: but how can it be very short if it shall con­tinue a thousand yeares? I answere, first, that the tribulation there spoken of, is to be vnderstoode of the calamities of the Iewes in the siege of Ierusalem, as I haue manifestly proued: And second­ly, that we are to distinguish betwixt the time of Antichrists con­tinuance, and the time of his hotest persecution, which Bellar­mine confoundeth; the latter notwithstanding beeing much shorter then the former. Fourthly (saith he) Christ preached onely three yeeres and a halfe, therefore decet etiam, it is also fit, that An­tichrist be suffered to preach no longer. Answere, 1. In this argu­ment Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man, as Christ is, which we haue proued to be most false. 2. he taketh vpon him to be the Lords counsailour, auouching that it is not fit that Antichrist should preachlonger then Christ did: he might haue added that it was not fit, or to speake more fitly, not like that Antichrist in the same time should be able to preuaile with [Page 82] more then Christ did, & much lesse to peruert almost the whole world in three yeeres and a halfe; whereas Christ as he was man, could conuert but a few of the Iewes, &c. 3. Although Christ in his owne person preached but a few yeres; yet he being the eter­nall word and wisdome of his father, hath euer since the begin­ning spoken by the mouth of his Prophets & ministers, by whose ministerie also as it were the breath of his mouth, he shall waste and consume Antichrist. 4. Neither can it be prooued by any shew of reason, that Antichrist is to preach just so many yeeres, as Christ our Sauiour did: Or that he shall in three yeeres and an halfe subdue by force, I know not how many kingdomes, & con­uert by preaching, & gather to himselfe the remnāt of the Iewes, and all counterfeit Christians, dispersed through so many nati­ons, as a man cannot trauell through in three yeeres and a halfe: not to speake of his repairing Ierusalem, & erecting the temple, and many good morrowes, which by many poëticall fictions the Papists assigne to their deuised Antichrist. His fift and sixt reasons are not worth the mentioning. For the time and times, and halfe a time, as hath bin shewed, belong not to Antchrists raigne, and therby we vnderstand 3, yeeres & a halfe, as also by the 7. times, Dan. 4. 19. in the 4. of Daniel, 7. yeeres, according to the interpretatiō of the holy Ghost (expoūding, as it seemeth) times by yeres. Dan. 11. 13.

7. In the last place he laboureth to take away the exceptions which some particular man, as namely, Chytraeus, Bullinger, & the authors of the Centuries, make against his former allegatiōs out of Daniel & the Apocalypse, but scarsly toucheth any one of the 6 exceptions before mentioned. For whereas Chytraus answereth, §. 3. & 4. that the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. of the Apoc. may not be vnderstood literally for three yeres and a halfe, because it is con­trary to experience: and besides the Apostle affirmeth that Anti­christ shall continue vntill Christs comming. Bellarmine replieth, that he beggeth the question. But I answer againe as before, that experience sheweth that the persecutions vnder the beast with 7 heads, continued longer then three yeeres and a halfe: & when as Iohn affirmeth that the Antichrist was come in his time, & Paul foretelleth, that he should after a sort continue (though at the last in a kind of consumption) vnto the second comming of Christ, [Page 83] surely their meaning was, that he should continue aboue three yeeres and a halfe. 2. He findeth fault with him & Bullinger, who thought that the holy ghost mentioning 42. moneths & 1260. dayes, by a certaine time, meant an vncertaine; replying that the nūber which is meant, is certaine, when it consisteth of great & small nūbers mixed. But they speake of the time, and he of the number, and therfore his reprehension is vnjust. For although the holy ghost do meane no other number then 42, and 1260, yet by the certaine time mentioned, that is, moneths & dayes, he meaneth an vncertaine, which may be as some thinke 42. sabbothes of yeeres, and 1260 yeeres. And thirdly, whereas Illyricus, and the other authors of the Centuries by 1260. daies, vnderstand so many yeeres; Bellar­mine denieth that daies are put for yeeres any where in the scrip­ture, and yet cannot deny, but that by 390. dayes in Ezechiel, is Ezec. 4. 5. 6 meant 390. yeeres, and by 40. dayes so many yeares, a day for a yeere, as the holy ghost speaketh. And likewise Apoc. 2. 10. by ten Vid. Iun. in Apoc. 2. daies is meant 10. yeeres, as some of the learned thinke. Indeed if any shall by 1260 dayes, vnderstand (as Bellarmine doth) the just time of Antichrists reigne, and withall expound them either by 1260. yeeres, as Bellarmine chargeth some, or by three yeeres and Cap. 3. a halfe, as the Papists do; they may be refuted by the reason be­fore alledged, because after the reuelation of Antichrist the spe­ciall time of Christs comming may according to this exposition be foretold, which notwithstanding shall not come by obserua­tion, but suddenly, neither shall precisely be foreknowne, as be­ing knowne onely to the Lord.

The 9. Chapter: answering his sixt demonstration concerning the end of the world.

1. THe sixt and last demonstration, to proue that Antichrist is not yet come, is taken frō the end of the world. But because Bel­larmine saw that this could not be made a signe of Antichrists comming without absurdity (for it is absurd thus to reason, the world hath not yet an end, therefore Antichrist is not yet come) therefore he changeth the question. For whereas he propounded this question to be concluded, that [Page 84] Antichrist is not yet come, he concludeth that he came not long since. So that for all this demonstration Antichrist may alreadie be come, although perhaps not so long since, as some doe ima­gine: But let vs see how he proueth that he was not come long since. If Antichrist were come long since, then also the world long since should haue had an end: but the world hath not yet an end, there­fore Antichrist was not come long since. The proposition he pro­ueth, because Antichrist commeth a very little while before the ende of the world, and as it were immediately before the second comming of Christ. But this whole demonstration may easily be refuted by this one distinction: for we must distinguish betwixt the com­ming of Antichrist and his death, betwixt his beginning and his ende. Antichrist indeed is not vtterly to be destroied before the second comming of Christ: but this doth not proue that there­fore he was not come long since. The Apostle Paul doth tell vs that Antichrist is to be destroied at the second comming of Christ: notwithstanding both he doth insinuate and Iohn plaine­ly professeth that the Antichrist which they had heard was to come in the last houre, was alreadie come in his time: and thereupon inferreth that euen then was the last houre or age of the world, which the holy ghost calleth an houre, that we should not thinke it long.

2. Now al the testimonies which Bellarmine alledgeth, if they were to be vnderstood of Antichrist (as indeede few of them are) do serue to proue, that the destruction of Antichrist shalbe in the end of the world, which we doe freely confesse. But of these places, as some make not for him so the rest are against him. The 7. of Daniel verse. 8. 9. 26. Apoc. 20 4. Mat. 24. 14. are altogether impertinent. For Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist or the last iudgement, but of Antiochus and Gods iudgements on the Seleucidae: Iohn speaketh not of the comming of Antichrist o [...] last iudgement, but of the binding and loosing of Sathan, and seats of iudgement erected for the faithfull, as Augustine also ex­poundeth: Christ in that place of Mat. speaketh not a worde of De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. [...] Antichrists comming or of the end of the world, but of the prea­ching of the gospel before the destruction of Ierusalem. The rest of the places make against him, & as he alledgeth them, against [Page 85] the trueth. For first Daniel 12. 12. Where Daniel (saith Bellar­mine) after he had said that the kingdome of Antichrist should conti­nue 1290. dayes, addeth, Blessed is he that expecteth and commeth to 1335. dayes. From whence the Papists would inferre, that Anti­christ hauing reigned three yeares & a halfe, should be destroyed forty fiue dayes before the day of judgement. This place as I haue proued, is to be vnderstood of Antiochus. But suppose it spake of Anti­christs reigne, and end of the world, see what would follow thereof. First, that the reigne of Antichrist is not three yeeres and a halfe precisely, or 1260. dayes; but 1290. dayes. Secondly, that Antichrist shalbe destroyed before the end of the world, where­as Paid telleth vs, that Christ shall destroy him at his appearing, 2. Thes. 2. [...] and not 45. dayes before. Thirdly, then so soone as Antichrist is reuealed, men shalbe able certainly and distinctly to foretell the very day of judgement, to wit, the 1335. after Antichrists com­ming, and 45. after his death: which Christ denieth Math. 24▪ 36. And lastly, if this were true, then after the comming, or at least after the death of Antichrist, all men would be in expe­ctation of Christs second comming. And therefore those dayes will not be (as Christ saith) like the daies of Noah: neither will his Ma [...]. 24. 37 38. 39. comming be suddaine & vnlooked for, as himselfe saith Mat. 24 if the very day of his comming be knowne before hand, & accor­dingly Mat 24. 44 1. Thes. 5. 2. 3. looked for. But let Christ be true, and all Papists lyars.

3. 2. Mat. 24. 29 Shortly after the tribulation of those dayes, the sunne shall be darkened, &c. In this chapter of Mathew our Sauiour speaketh not at all of Antichrist vntill the 23. & 24. verse, which diuers of the Fathers, yea and the Papists themselues vnderstand as spoken of Antichrist. There shall arise false Christs, and false Pr [...] ­phets, and they shall worke great signes & wonders, &c. From whence it appeareth, that Antichrist is not one onely man, as Bellarmine saith, & that the signes of Christs cōming are to follow the tribu­lations vnder Antichrist, which we do confesse. 3. 2. Thes. 2. 8. And then shall that out-law be reuealed, whom the Lord Iesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, &c. Whence Bellarmine would prooue that the second cōming of Christ shall follow very short­ly after the comming of Antichrist. But we must distinguish be­twixt the first comming of Antichrist, and his reuelation and ac­knowledgement. And it cannot be denied, but [...] there is a [Page 86] great distance betwixt his reuelation, and destruction. For he w [...] to be reuealed as the Apostle saith, when that which hindered was taken out of the way, which we haue proued to haue beene done many hundred yeeres since: and consequently that Anti­christ appeared long since, howsoeuer he shall not vtterly be de­stroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. And lastly, we are to distinguish betwixt Christs consuming him with the spirit of his mouth, and his vtter destroying him at his glorious appea­rance. There are therefore these degrees to be noted betwixt the first comming of Antichrist and his destruction. For after he is come, he sheweth himselfe in his colours, and that by degrees, more & more aduancing himselfe, vntill he come to his full pitch & height of his Antichristiā pride. After he is come to his height, he is acknowledged, and that by degrees: after he is acknowled­ged, Christ consumeth him by the spirit of his mouth, that is, by the preaching of the euerlasting gospel, Apo. 14. 6. 7. After which followeth the destruction of Babylon, that is, Rome, Apoc. 14. 8. effected and brought to passe by the Kings of the earth, who as­sisted the beast vntil Christ laid him open & consumed him with the breath of his mouth: & after that in the last place followeth the vtter destructiō of Antichrist at the second cōming of Christ. 4. Lastly, 1. Ioh. 2. 18. Children, this is the last houre, and as you haue heard that Antichrist co [...]meth, &c. Where Bellarmine maketh the Apostle reason thus, We know Antichrist shall come in the end of the world, and now we see many petite Antichrists, as it were his fore-run­ners: therefore we know that this is the last houre and age of the world. But if this reason of Bellarmines framing were good, we might vpon his former grounds conclude thus. At the fulnesse of time, Christ was to come: But euer since the beginning there haue bin Patriarchs & Prophets, which Bellarmine calleth the fore-runners of Christ; therfore the fulnesse of time hath bin euer since the be­ginning. But whether shall we say that Bellarmine is so ignorant that he knoweth not how to make a syllogisme, or so shamelesse as to make the Apostle argue sophistically. The Apostles reasō is this, When the Antichrist commeth it is the last houre: Now (saith he) Antichrists are come, (meaning by Antichrists the same with the [...]. Iohn. 4. 3. [...]. [...]. 7. antichrist, which else where he affirmeth was thē entred into the world, or else there are 4. termini foure termes in th'Apostles argu­ment) [Page 87] therfore now is the last houre. And if then were the houre of Antichrist his comming, what reason haue the Papists to re­straine his comming, vntill three yeeres & a halfe before the end of the world? And thus, as you see, Bellarmines allegations are ei­ther altogether impertinent, or else against himselfe.

4. But as I said before, suppose they all spake of the day of judgement, & end of the world following vpon Antichrist: yet none of them joineth the end of the world with his comming & birth, but with his death & destruction. And the like may be said of his allegation frō the common consent of the fathers & con­fession of his aduersaries, For our aduersaries (saith he) confesse, that Antichrist shall raigne (we say he shall continue) vnto the end of the world: & therfore sh [...]rtly after his death shalbe the end of the world. Yea we further confesse, that his destruction shall concurre with the consummation of the world: for Christ at his cōming shall destroy him▪ But this proueth not that his cōming shalbe within three yeers & a halfe before the end of the world. For Iohn saith, He was come in his time, & Paul saith, he should be reuealed, whē that which hindered was done out of the way, which was done many hundred yeeres ago. Therfore though his end concur with the end of the world, yet there shall be a greater distance then Bellarmine imagineth, betwixt his comming and the end of the world. This Bellarmine foreseeing, perceiued very well, that i [...] this demonstration by it selfe alone, there is no force at all. And therfore he joyneth it with the fift, of both which together he saith, an vnanswerable demonstration may be made, to prooue that Antichrist is not yet come, & that the Pope is not Antichrist. For, saith he, if presently after the death of Antichrist the world shall haue an end, and Antichrist shall dye, after he hath raigned but three yeeres & a halfe; then it followeth, that Antichrist shall not appeare nor begin [...]o raigne til within 3. yeers & a halfe before the end of the world. But the Pope hath raigned longer then 3. yeers & an halfe, and yet the world cōtinueth, therfore the Pope is not antichrist. The vanity of the former demonstratiō which is made the groūd of the last, I haue sufficiently shewed before: & therfore that which is said of two ciphers in ciphering, the same may be said of these two demon­strations ioyned together, that naught to naught makes naught. [Page 88] For now I will not stand to tell you, how the three yeares and a halfe which in the former demonstration were 1260. dayes pre­cisely, are now growne to 1335. dayes. For Antichrist shall not begin to reigne, saith Bellarmine, vntill within three yeares and a halfe before the end, and yet from the beginning of his reigne, vntill the end of the world, shall be 1335. dayes; so that in Bel­lermines precise account of halfe a yeare, 75. dayes, that is 10. weekes, and 5. dayes are nothing.

Thus haue we answered these sixe demonstrations, which we haue shewed to haue beene farre from proouing demonstra­tiuely, either that Antichrist is not yet come, or that the Pope is not Antichrist. Wherefore to conclude, if the Papists demon­strations in so weighty a cause, whereupon all Poperie depen­deth, be such trifling trumperie, as is scarse worth the answe­ring, what shall we thinke be their ordinary arguments in other causes of lesse importance. And this was his third principall ar­gument, wherein he hath spent seauen whole chapters.

The 10. Chapter: Concerning the name of Antichrist.

1. NOw followeth his fourth disputation con­cerning the name & marke of Antichrist. From the name he fetcheth this vnanswe­rable argument, as he calleth it. If the Insolubile argumen­tum. name of Antichrist spoken of Apoc. 13. be yet vnknowne, then is not Antichrist as yet come; and consequently the Pope is not An­tichrist: But Antichrists name spoken of Apoc. 13. is yet vnknowne: therefore Antichrist is not yet come, &c. Of this vnanswerable ar­gument, there is no part sound, as shall appeare. The proposition he proueth, because when Antichrist is once come, his name shalbe c [...]only knowne. Which he prooueth first by a similitude: As Notissimū. Christs name before his comming was vnknowne, although the Pro­phets had foretold many things concerning Christ, and Sibylla had prophecied that his name should conteine 888. but after he was once come, all men know that his name is Iesus: so although before Anti­christs [Page 89] comming his name be vnknowne, yet after he is once come there will be no more question what his name is, then of the name of Christ, which all euen Turks and Iewes and Pagans know to be Ie­sus. Secondly, from a common adiunct of all prophecies, to be doubtfull and obscure, vntill they be fulfilled, as Irenaeus teacheth and prooueth, Lib. 4 Chap. 43. For answer, first I deny the pro­position, and the Hypothesis whereupon it is grounded, & con­trariwise affirme that the name of Antichrist, meaning the name which Antichrist shall impose vpon men, spoken of Apoc. 13. might be vnknowne for a time, yea was to be vnknowne for a long time after his comming. For the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne as the name of Antichrist, vntill Antichrist himselfe be knowne and acknowleged. But Antichrist himselfe was not commonly to be knowne & acknowleged at his first comming: For then he could not be able to seduce many, few or none be­ing so desperately madde as to follow him whom they know to be Antichrist. First therefore the mysterie of iniquity was to worke secretly to the seducing of many: afterwards, Antichrist was to be reuealed, first, by his manifest appearing and shewing himselfe more plainely and openly; after by his acknowledge­ment: whereof also there are degrees; first by some particularly; secondly, by whole Churches generally; and yet neuer in this world to be acknowleged of those, that receiue and retaine his marke. Againe, the name of Antichrist is a mysterie, & Antichri­stianisme is a mysterie of iniquity, In the whore of Babylons fore­head In Apoc. 17 5. is written a mysterie. And so far is it frō the vnderstanding of all to tell the name of the beast, that the holy Ghost speaking of this name, saith, Here is wisdō, he that hath vnderstāding, let him reckon the number of the beast, meaning the number of his name. Apoc. 13. 18.

2. In the similitude taken from Christ, there is no likene: how­beit Be [...]armine taketh great felicity in cōparing Christ with An­tichrist. Christ as he was one particular man, so at the time of his circumcision a proper name was giuen vnto him: Antichrist as he Luke. 2. 21. is not one particular person (as hath bin proued) but a state, could not haue a proper name giuē vnto him. And accordingly it is said to be the name of the beast, which beast as hath bin shewed, sig­nifieth not one particular man, but a whole state. Againe, Christ [Page 90] comming to saue, his name Iesus the name of the Sauiour was t [...] be made knowne, that he might the rather be embraced: Anti­christ comming to deceiue & to destroy, was (according to his diuellish pollicie) to conceale that name whereby he should be known to be Antichrist, least being knowne he shold be forsaken of all. And as touching S [...]bylla, she did not only foretel that the name of Christ should cōtaine the nūber 888. as indeed the name [...], Iesus doth: but also setteth downe certaine Acrostiches, that is, verses, the first letters whereof containe this sentence, [...] Lib. 8. [...], Iesus Christ the sonne of God the Sauior, which are also cited by Augustine. But of antichrist she speaketh nothing De ciuit. dei. lib. 18. Chap. 23. so plainly. Howbeit she plainly calleth Rome Babylō, as Iohn doth and in the 8. booke describing antichrist, as som thinke, she saith,

[...]. &c. that is: There shalbe a Prince with many heads (which is to be vnderstood either by a metonymy for his triple crowne, or by a Synecdoche for the successiō of Popes) hauing a name neere to Pōti, that is, Pōti­fex the Pope. But to returne to my purpose. By this which hath bin said, you plainly see that there is no similitude betwixt Christ and antichrist in this behalfe, Christ hauing a proper name; but Anti­christ hauing none, & withal you haue heard reasōs why Christs name shold be wel known, wheras Antichrists was to be obscure and for a long time vnknown, or at the least not acknowledged.

3 His other proofe touching the obscurity of prophecies before they are fulfilled, proueth nothing for him, vnlesse he ad, that as before their fulfilling they are very obscure, so also after their ful­filling they are very plaine: which after indeed he addeth in the end of the chapter, Siquidem omnia vaticin [...]a (saith he) cum implet [...] sunt, clarissima officiuntur, for all prophecies when th [...]y are fulfilled be­come most cleare. I answer, that although they become more cleare after then before, yet many times they remaine darke & obscure to very many. As appeareth in the prophecies of the scripture ful­filled in Christ, but not yet vnderstood of the Iewes, nor acknow­ledged to haue bin verified in Christ. And euen as the prophecies concerning Christ are by true Christians easily vnderstood; how­beit to Iewes & infidels they remaine darke & obscure, because the God of this world hath blinded their eyes, that they should not see the shining light of the Gospel: so also the prophecies [Page 91] concerning Antichrist, which already are fulfilled in the Papacy, howsoeuer many of them are plainly vnderstood of the true pro­fessours; yet to the followers of Antichrist, whō God hath giuen ouer to strong illusions, that they may beleeue lies, they seeme to be darke & obscure, and not as yet fulfilled. Notwithstanding the former part of his assertiō we do embrace: that prophecies vntill they be fulfilled are (for the most part) darke and ambiguous, and herein with Bellarmine we approue Irenaeus his iudgement. But hereupon we infer, that therfore the writings of the fathers, who liuing before the reuelatiō of Antichrist, & expounding the pro­phecies concerning Antichrist, were most vncertaine ghesses (as Sed nec isti patres vo­luerunt sententias illas suas, alio loco haberi, quam suspi­cionum & coniectura­rum. Bel­larmine. Lib. 5. Bellarmine euen in this chapter cōfesseth) the prophecies being to them darke and ambiguous, which now since the fulfilling ther­of haue bin more plaine and perspicuous: & therfore that it is no arrogancy in vs which see the euent agreeing with the prophecy, to take vpon vs to expound diuers prophecies concerning Anti­christ, the true vnderstanding whereof was hid from the fathers. For if God would haue had them plainly known before their ful­filling, surely he would haue made thē knowne by those his ser­uāts th'apostles by whō they were deliuered. And so Irenaeus saith, that he would not take vpon him certainely to define what this name shold be, Scientes (saith he) quoniam si operteret manifeste prae­senti tempore praeconari nomen eius, per ipsum vti (que) editū fuisset, quiet Apocalypsin viderat, Knowing that if this name ought in these times to be published, it should no doubt haue bin declared by him, to whō the re­uelation was giuen. Likewise Andreas the Bishop of Caesarea, The exact account (saith he) and computation of the number, and like­wise Apud. Are­tham in A­pocalpys. all other things which are written of Antichrist, opportunity of time and experience shall make manifest to them that are vi­gilant. For as some of the doctors say, if it were necessary that this name should manifestly be knowne before hand, it should haue beene reuealed by Iohn himselfe.

4. Now let vs come to his assumption, where he affirmeth that Antichrists name is yet vnknowne. We confesse that in the Church of Rome this name is either not known as of the ignorāt, or not acknowledged as of the obstinat: But in the true Church of God, as Antichrist himselfe is known, so is this name acknowledged. But let vs heare Bellarmines disputation prouing this assumption. [Page 92] Fatentur omnes (saith he in the beginning of the chapter) perti­nere omninò ad Antichristum verba illa Ioannis, Apoc. 13. All men doe confesse that those words of Iohn Apoc. 13. doe wholy belong to Antichrist. And he shall make all both small and great, rich and Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. poore, free and bond, to receiue from him a marke in their right hand or in their forehead; and that none should buy or sell, vnlesse he haue the marke or name of the beast or number of his name. Here is wise­dome: he that hath vnderstanding let him reckon the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Now▪ concerning this number saith he, there are many opinions. The first of those who thinke that by this number is signified the time of Anti­christs comming, &c. But this opinion we doe with Bellarmine re­ject, because it is called the number of his name, and not of the time; and also because Antichrist shall compell all sorts of men to take his name, and the number of his name; which cannot be vnderstood of the time. Thirdly, because Irenaeus reporteth from those who had seene Iohn face to face, that the name of the beast shall according to the computation of the Greekes by let­ters which are in it, containe 666. The second opinion is of those who thinke Antichrists name to be [...] or [...], of which we will speake anone in his due place. The third opinion is of many Papists who thinke that his name shalbe [...], thereby vnderstanding an aduersary, but that is not a name that he shall assume to himselfe, or impose vpon others, but a name rather giuen him of his aduersaries. Neither is it the name of the beast here spoken of. The fourth of Rupertus, who imagined that by this threefold number 666. is signified, the threefold preuarication of Sathan: first in himselfe; secondly, in our first pa­rents; thirdly in Antichrist. The fift of Beda, who supposeth that it is a number of perfection, which Antichrist shall chalenge vn­to himselfe. But these three opinions Bellarmine re [...]ecteth, and that worthily. For first, the holy Ghost saith it is the number of the name of the beast: and secondly, this name & nūber of it, An­tichrist causeth men to take vpon them. The sixt opinion, wherin he resteth as the most true, is theirs which confesse their igno­rance, and professe that this name is not yet knowne.

5. To these opinions many more might be added, but to [Page 93] make short worke: the last of these opinions is Bellarmines: the second is ours: therefore let vs consider how he prooueth his owne opinion, and disprooueth ours. That this name is vn­knowne, Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenae­us, as if he should haue said, This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time; therefore not in our time. I deny the consequence, Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie, as himselfe professeth & as the truth is: for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis, pene sub nostro saecu­lo. Iren. Lib. 5. yeeres agoe: and as himselfe saith, the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age. For it was giuen in the end of the first Century, and he liued in the second, and therefore it is more safe (saith he) to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie, then before hand to determine any thing. For if the Lord would haue had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time, he would haue made it knowne by Iohn himselfe, to whom the reuelation was giuen. But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie, he saith, this name was very obscure; so he signifieth, that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine. And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time, we may now define, time hauing reuealed that trueth, which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde: otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus, as Bellarmine doth, euen vnto the end of the world. But may we then reason thus: this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time, therefore it shall neuer be knowne? to what end was this prophecie giuen, if it shall neuer be vnderstood? Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth, that this name could not be knowne in his time, to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time, he is ridiculous. There are many names, saith Irenaeus, that haue this number, therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name. Againe, if in Irenaeus his time God would haue this knowne, he would haue reuealed it by Iohn. 3. It is dange­rous to define before hand his name, for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth, and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him. All this we grant. But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous, as to [Page 94] conclude: In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast, therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell. God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time, therefore he will not haue it knowne now. It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the pre­phecie, to define what this name should be: therefore it is dangerous now, when the prophecie is expounded by the euent, to apply the one to the other? And what doth he inferre hereuppon? Therefore no doubt the Protestants, who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist, shalbe deceiued of the true Antichrist, when he commeth. But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vnto vs the true Antichrist, that knowing him we might auoyde him: whereas vpon the Pa­pists he hath sent strong illusions, that they may beleeue lyes, because they loued not the truth that they might be saued, 2. Thes. 2. 11.

6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne, because there is great controuersie about it, what it should be. But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne, because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie. Notwithstanding as in other controuersies, the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall, howsoe­uer others will not acknowledge it: so I doubt not, but that the trueth in this matter is knowne, although some cannot, and o­thers will not, as yet see it. For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne, it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne, especially seeing the knowledge of the one ma­keth the other euident. The chiefe thing here to be considered is, what this beast is. For if the beast be knowne, it will not be hard to tell what his name is, especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast, as appeareth by the whole context, is, as I haue shewed, the former beast, which without doubt figu­reth the Romane or Latine state. The name of this beast is Romane or Latine. If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name, as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree, shall enforce men to take vpon them; then without doubt this is the name [Page 95] where of the holy Ghost speaketh: but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane. For [...], in Hebrew (signifying Romane) [...] in Greeke, signifying Latine, and Romanus in Hebrew Characters, doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vpon them, as hath beene shewed heretofore. See. Lib. 1. Chap. 8.

7. But let vs see what Bellarmine obiecteth, against this truth. Of those many reasons which we doe vse, Bellarmine maketh choise of two, as being the easiest to answer, as his maner is; and against them he argueth, namely, the conjecture of Irenaeus, and the agreement of the number. But besides these, we produce three other arguments, as you haue heard, which together with Lib. 1. c. [...]. these make the matter euident. It is true indeede that Irenaeus be­sides Latinus, produceth two other names, [...], & [...], and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before [...]. But we build not vpon Irenaeus his authority, but vpon those reasons, whereon his conjecture is groūded, which are two: the one, because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe: the other, because it containeth 666: his words be these. But the name La­teinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est, and it is very likely. For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome. For they are the Latines that now raigne. Which in effect is as much as if he had said, this name is very likely, be­cause it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast, spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum, that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome, that is the La­tine or Roman state. Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine, which in Irenaeus his time was of some force, now it is nothing worth: for then the Latines bare the sway, now they doe not. For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex, [...] most mighty king; so without doubt he shal seize vpon the most mighty kingdoms. Whereas therfore the king­dome of the Latines was in those times most mighty, but now other­wise; there was some likelyhood then, that he might by subduing them be called Latinus, but now there is no such probability. I answere, the name whereof Iohn speaketh is not the name of Antichrist properly the second beast, but the name of the former beast; [Page 96] which name of the former beast, Antichrist the second beast causeth men to take vpon them. And so Latinus, is not the name of Antichrist properly, but of the beast, that is, the Latine or Romane state. Neither was it Irenaeus his meaning, that the name of the beast is [...], because Antichrist was to subdue the Latines, but because the Latines then had Verissimum reg­num, the most true and soueraigne kingdome: and therefore most truely were the beast described Apoc. 13. 7. If therefore the La­tines then had the greatest kingdome, and were the beast whose authority the second beast, that is, Antichrist was to take vpon him, Apoc. 13. 12. this coniecture that the name of the bea [...] [...], which was probable before the prophecie was fulfilled, Apo. 13. 12 is now more then probable, the prophecie being verified in the euent. And the decay or rather dissolution of the Latine or Romane Empire, before which Antichrist was not to be reuea­led, is so farre from making this coniecture lesse probable, that it rather confirmeth it. Neither doe we read in the Scriptures that Antichrist should be a most mighty King, or should sease vp­on the most mighty kingdomes: only this we read, that he should exercise the power of the former beast, which most fitly agreeth to the Pope.

2 As touching the agreement of the number 666. Bellar­mine obiecteth, first, that the number agreeth not with the names propounded: and secondly, although it did, yet it followeth not, that any of these is the name of the beast. That the number agreeth not he sheweth, because [...], if it be written with a simple Iota as it ought to be, it wanteth fiue of that number. I answere, that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce i long by ei diphthong; and the Graecians vsually expresse i long by ei. And it is to be obserued, that Irenaeus setting downe these two names [...] and [...] as containing the number 666, taketh it for granted, that [...] may so be writtē: wheras of [...] he saith, that it maketh that number, if it be written writh [...] diphthong. Against the name [...], that is, Romane, he objecteth, that it is not masculine, vnlesse the last letter signifiyng 400. be taken a­way. I answere that collectiue names in Hebrew are indiffe­rently [Page 97] expressed in either gender. And suppose the name were feminine, yet that hindereth not, but that it may be the name here spoken of. For the Holy-ghost speaketh of the name of the beast, that is, the Romane state, which else-where is called the whore of Babylon, and foemina, a woman: And therefore well may the name be feminine. But although the number agreed (saith Bellarmine) yet i [...] followeth not, that either Romane or Latine should be the name. First, because neither of them is his proper name, but commune. Neither ought it, seeing it is the name of the beast, which signifieth a whole state. Secondly, because many other [...]es make this number: And therefore it followeth not that any of these is the name here spoken of, because they containe the number 666. For diuers Authours haue noted diuers other names, as Hip­polytus [...] (which indeed maketh not that number, but ra­ther prooueth the authour (alledging [...]) to be counter­feit; neither is it a Nowne, and much lesse a name) Aretas, seauen others, [...] (which maketh not that number,) but [...], (which is [...] barbarous) [...]: Primasius [...], Rupertus and Haymo [...] and Pic [...]x. Vnto these he ad­deth out of lying Lindanus, Martin Lauer (for Luther) in Latin letters, taken (as they neuer were) for numbers, after the maner of the Greeke: out of G [...]ebrard Lithers name in Hebrew, viz Lultor: to which Bellarmine in his wisdome ad­deth, Dabid Chitreiu, for Dauid Chytreus, and [...] a Saxon, to signifie Luther: Which latter names shew the Papists to be fraught with malice and voide of judgement, forcing these mens names, as they might their owne, to this purpose. But we an­swer, that although there are many names which containe 666. yet notwithstanding, none can be the name here spoken of, vnlesse also it be the name of the beast, that is, the Latine or Romane state, and vnlesse it be such a name, as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree, causeth men to take vpon them. Consider therefore with what conscience Bel­larmine would perswade vs, that any of these may bee the name here spoken of, as well as Latine or Romane: Seeing first, either of these is the name of the beast, whereas none of [Page 98] those is or can be. Secondly, seeing those are such names as An­tichrist will not cause men to take vpon them; whereas the Pope (whom we haue prooued to be Antichrist) inforceth either of these names vpon men, suffering none to buy or sell, or to liue among them, vnlesse he professe himselfe to be a Romane or La­tine in respect of his religion. And thirdly, whereas these names agree fitly to him, to whom all other markes of Antichrist agree, many of those doe not; and those which doe, as [...], an euill guide, which [...] agreeth to the Pope, [...], &c. yet cannot be this name, for the reasons before alledged. And thus I hope this Gordian knot is vntied, and this vnanswerable argument answered by this [...]. The name of the beast is not yet knowne, therefore (saith he) Antichrist is not yet come. I an­swer, although the name were vnknowne, yet might Antichrist become. But now the name of the beast is knowne: how farre then is Billarmine from proouing by this argument, that Anti­christ is not yet come?

The 11. Chapter: Concerning the marke, which Antichrist shall impose vpon men.

1. COncerning the marke of Antichrist, Bel­larmnine reciteth three opinions, vnto which he addeth a fourth of his owne coyning. The first of the Protestants, who teach that the marke of Antichrist is some [...]ne of obedience and conjunction with the Pope. The second opinion is of some Catho­licke Papists, who thinke this marke to be the letters of Antichrists name. The third of Hippolytus, and some others, who imagine that this marke of the beast is, not to vse the signe of the crosse, but rather to detest and [...] it. The first opinion viz of the Protestants, he detesteth as r [...]sh and [...]irde: The second of the Catholicks, he rejecteth as false, which he signifieth when he saith, they were deceiued. The third he would willingly embrace, because it seemeth to make against vs; but the authour is counterfeit, and [Page 99] his testimonie falsified by Bellarmine. And although indeed he do reject it, as he might well, because it is absurd [...] to faine a priuatiue marke, as if the not vsing of some marke, were the marke whereof the Holy-ghost speaketh: yet he affirmeth, (such is his blind malice) that herein we are notable fore-run­ners of Antichrist. In the fourth place he addeth his owne con­ceit, that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue or reall marke, which as yet is not knowne: whereby as he would ouerthrow all the former opinions, so especially he confuteth the last. From whence notwithstanding, as if it were true, he would faine in­ferre that we are the fore-runners of Antichrist. And this opi­nion he doth confute by two reasons. First, because the marke must be positiue; and secondly, because it is as yet vnknowne. And this is the summe and effect of his whole eleuenth Chap­ter. But what of all this? or whereunto doth all this discourse tend? You will say, to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist. He had indeed propounded that question to prooue, but in this Chapter he concludeth nothing for the Pope. Onely he telleth vs, that there be three opinions concerning the marke, and to them he addeth a fourth of his owne, and there an end. Other Papists when they handle this argument, reason thus: Antichrist shall compell men to take the marke of the beast; the Pope doth not compell men to take the marke of the beast. Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Which argument if he had vsed, and had also made good the assumption, he should haue said something to the purpose. But Bellarmine concludeth no such matter, Nec enim a [...]sus est, nec potuit. For well doth he know, that from this marke of the beast we conclude the affirmatiue, namely, that the Pope is Antichrist.

2. How then doth he argue? surely it is not easie to tell. For after the sophisters guise, he hideth his conclusion, that he may the more easily deceiue. [...], as the Philosopher saith. But so far as I can gesle, either by resoluing the discourse it selfe, or by conferring the same with the former chapter, whereunto he seemeth to refer vs, he would seeme to reason thus: If Antichrists marke be not yet knowne, then is not Antichrist yet come: But Antichrists marke is not yet [Page 100] knowne; therefore Antichrist is not yet come: and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition he omitteth, and so taketh it for granted: although in truth there is no necessitie of the consequence. For as we said before of his name, so now we say of his marke: that after Antichrist is come, his marke might bee vnknowne, yea was for a time to bee vnknowne. Otherwise he should not be able to enforce his marke vpon ma­nie, few or none being so desperately wicked, as knowing his marke, to suffer themselues by the same to be branded to de­struction; as all they are, who doe receiue and retaine it. Apoc. 14. 9, 10. And further I adde, that although this marke bee knowne to very many of those who haue the Marke of God: Apoc. 9. 4. yet to them that are branded with this marke of the beast, and doe retaine the same, that is, who liue and die Papists, it neither is, or shall be knowne, or at least not acknowledged of them during this life. And therefore no maruaile though Bellarmine confesse his ignorance in this behalfe.

3. But let vs see also how he prooueth the assumption, viz. that the marke of the beast is not yet knowne. Forsooth by this reason: If neither that be the marke of the beast which the Protestants teach, nor yet that which the Catholicks imagine (so many of them as take vpon them to know what this marke is) th [...] assuredly this marke is not yet knowne: But neither is that the marke which the Protestants speake of, nor yet that which the Ca­tholickes haue supposed: Therefore this marke is not yet knowne. As for the Papists, we confesse that either they know not, or at the least acknowledge not this marke, for if they did, the most of them would refuse to take it. Wherefore leauing them to Bellarmines discretion, whether to be confuted or allowed; let vs consider whether that be the marke, which the Protestants haue supposed, or not. The heretickes of this time (saith Bel­larmine) teach that the character of Antichrist is some signe of obedi­ence and coniunction with the Pope of Rome. But what this signe is, they doe not expresse after the same maner. Bullinger vnderstandeth by the marke the Chrisme, wherewith young ones are annointed in [...]. 61. in Apoc. Chron. ta [...]. 10. their confirmation. Bibliander saith, it is the profession of the Romish [Page 101] or Popish faith. Chytraeus to these addeth the oath of fidelitie, which many are compelled to sweare to the Pope: as also the priestly vnction which is receiued in the head and the hand, impressing (as the Pa­pists speake) Characterem indelebilem: Finally to fall downe before Images, and the hoste, and to be present at Masses for the dead. Sed facile est (saith he) has nugas refutare. But it is easie to refute these toyes. But before I come to answer his trifling cauillations, I thinke it needfull first to referre the reader to the former booke, See lib. 1. Chap. 8. §. 4. &. 5. where I shewed what this marke is, and that this marke which is but one in substance, is diuersly expressed and testified; and ther­fore that there is no opposition in the opinions of the Prote­stants, concerning this matter, all these notes, which they menti­on, belonging to the marke of the beast. And secondly, to deli­uer briefly the Popish conceit concerning this marke. For the Pa­pists imagine that the character is a visible marke of Antichrists name, which the followers of Antichrist shall haue imprinted in their foreheads, and carrie as a signe in their hands, that it may be as it were their warrant to buy or sell: And so Bellarmine (to omitte others) writeth also of the name and the number. The proper name of Antichrist (saith he) must be shewed for a token of Chap. 10. lib. 3. de. pontif. Rom. all that buy or sell. To which purpose he approueth the judgement of Rupertus, who saith, that Antichrists name is such a one as he shall glory in, Adeo vt jubeat inscribi in frontibus hominum, Insomuch that he shal cause it to be written in the foreheads of men. And againe, the beast (whose number this is) shall command all merchants that they vse this number for a signe or token in their contracts. But who could be so grosse as to imagine that Princes and Magistrates, and men of all sorts, would euer suffer themselues to be branded as it were with Antichrists visible marke? or if that were Antichrists pra­ctise, who should not be able to discerne him? Why, their ordina­rie glosse could tell them, that the marke is receiued in the fore­head by confession, and in the right hand by operation, as we also hold. Antoninus also and Lyra teach that Character est deter­minatus modus viuendi secundum legem alicujus, quo à caeteris di­stinguuntur; A Character or marke is à certaine manner of siuing ac­cording to the lawe of any, whereby men are distinguished from others: which also agreeth with our judgement. Againe, the Scriptures [Page 102] often times make mention of markes and seales, which cannot Ezec. 9. Apoc. 9. 4. [...]t 7. 2. et. 2 17. 2. Tim. 2. 19. without absurditie be vnderstood of visible markes.

4 Now let vs see how easily this trifler is able according to his vaine brag, to refute those toyes of ours. His reasons are two: the former, because that which we deliuer concerning the marke, a­greeth not with the words of the text: which he sheweth by foure instances. First, because the text speaketh but of one character, we speake of many. We answer, that as of the Lambe, so of the beast also there is but one character in substance, although the same by diuers meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified; that is, subjection to the Pope as their head, and the acknowledg­ment of the See of Rome, and of the Popes supremacie, &c. And this marke (to answer his second instance also,) is common to all, as being inforced vpon all sorts of men without excepti­on. Heare the words of their law; Subesse Romano pontifici, omni Extr. de maior. et obed. C. v­ [...]a sancta. humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis: For euery humane creature to be sub­iect to the Pope of Rome, we declare, affirme, determine, and proneunce, that it is altogether of the necessitie of saluation. See more lib. 1. cap. 8. § 6. & 7. Thirdly, saith he, The scripture sheweth this character to be such a one, as may indifferently be caryed either in the right hand or in the forehead. But none of these markes which the Protestants mention are such. The Chrisme is receiued in the forehead, and not in the hand, &c. The scripture saith thus, Apoc. 13. 16. And he causeth all, both small and great, &c. That he may giue them a marke on their right hand, or else vpon their foreheads. That is, by his vsur­ped dominion and tyranny, he shall make all sorts of men sub­ject vnto him: and in testimony of their subjection, to receiue his marke on the forehead by profession, or in the right hand by practise and operation. Of the carying of this marke, and the ca­rying of it indifferently either on the forehead, or in the hand, the scripture speaketh not. The marke is subjection vnto him, which (as hath beene said) is diuersly expressed and testified. Fourthly, the Scripture saith, that none in the kingdome of Anti­christ, shall be suffered to buy or sell, vnlesse he haue this marke: but how many (saith he) are there within the dominion of the Pope, who hauing none of these markes, doe buy and sell, as namely the Iewes? [Page 103] I answer, that Antichrist was to sit in the Church of God, and to tyrannize ouer Christians. Now of all those that professe the name of Christ, the Pope suffreth none where he hath to doe, either to buy or sell, except he haue his marke. See the Bull of Martin the fift, annexed to the councell of Constance, where expresse and straight charge is giuen, that whosoeuer doth not liue in subjection to the Pope, and communion with the Church of Rome (meaning such as Wicliffe and Husse) shall not be suf­fred See lib. 1. cap. 8. §. 7. to buy or sell, or to enjoy the comforts of humane societie. Whereas therfore the Pope permitteth that to the Iewes, which he will not permit to the professours of the Gospell of Christ: that, as it sheweth his greater opposition ot the seruants of Christ, then to the enemies of Christ the Iewes; so it bewrayeth him to be Antichrist.

5. His second reason is thus concluded. If all these things, which the Protestants mention, were vsed in the Catholick Church before the comming of Antichrist, then none of them belong to the marke of Antichrist, (for otherwise Antichrist should haue lear­ned them of the Church:) But all these things as namely Chrisme and the rest, which the Protestants mention, were vsed in the Catho­licke Church before the yeere 607. that is, before the comming of Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Protestants: therefore none of these belong to the marke of the beast. First I answer to the proposition, that although these things had beene vsed in the Catholick Church before the reuelation of Antichrist, yet that hindereth not, but that now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast. For we doubt not to affirme that before the re­uelation of Antichrist there were many corruptions crept into the Church, both in Doctrine and in the worship of God (the mysterie of iniquitie more and more working, euen from the Apostles times, vnto the reuelation of Antichrist) which cor­ruptions Antichrist was to retaine with increase. If there­fore the seeds of Antichristianisme, which were sowne be­fore Antichrists appearing, were signes of his approaching; the same being as it were growne vp, confirmed and increa­sed, may without absurditie bee sayd to belong to the marke [Page 104] of Antichrist already come. Especially if we consider the diuersi­tie in vsing of them since the reuelation of Antichrist and be­fore. For there was not in the Catholicke church an vniuersall subjection to the Pope as the head, vntill he by much ambition and contention obtained the supremacie, and was called the vni­uersall Bishop, and head of the vniuersall Church, which he could neuer obtaine vntill the yeare 607. Seeing then there was not an vniuersall subjection to the Pope before that time, these things if they had beene vsed at all, could not be vsed as signes thereof; as since they haue: Neither were they imposed before and enjoyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope, as since they haue: so that the cause of vsing them now, is not the example of the ancient Church, but the authoritie of the Popes lawe, in­joyning and commaunding them. Therefore although these thinges had beene vsed in the Church before the yeere 607, yet now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast: And therefore the connexion of the proposition, is first to be de­nied. But now if these things were not vsed in the first 600. yeeres, will not he then in confuting those toyes, shew himselfe a meere trifler?

6. But let vs consider of the particulars. And first, that Chrisme was vsed before the yeere 606. he proueth by the testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine. I answer, that these Fathers speake of the annointing with Oyle vsed in the Sacrament of 1. Chrisme. Baptisme, which also without warrant of the Scriptures is retai­ned among the Papists. But of the chrisme of saluation, which the Papists make the element of their counterfeit sacrament of confirmation, whereof there is no institution in the Scriptures, no worde, no element, these Fathers speake not. The ceremonie of imposition of hands, with prayer for the confirmation and strengthning of those, which before had beene baptized, was in­deed vsed in the primitiue church: neither is it altogether misli­ked of vs, although not much vsed among vs, because it was so much abused by them. But this ceremonie was done without vnction or chrisme: for further proofe whereof see D. Fulke his answer to the Rhemists, Acts. 8. 17. And therefore notwithstand­ing that ancient practise of the Church, this Chrisme vsed in [Page 105] confirmation, may belong to the marke of the beast. And the ra­ther because the Papists make their confirmation with Chrisme, not onely a sacrament, but also a most necessary and Principall sacrament. So necessary as that they haue set it downe as a law, that no man is to be esteemed a Christian without it. Nun­quam De conse­crat. dist. 5. C. vt ic­iuni. erit Christianus nisi confirmatione episcopals fuerit Chrisma­tus. He shall neuer be a Christian, who is not confirmed with Chrisme by a Bishop. So principall, as that they preferre it be­fore Baptisme, affirming that it is maiore veneratione veneran­dum, with greater veneration to be reuerenced. Now if it be a pri­uiledge De conse­crat. dist. 5. C. de. his vero. peculiar vnto Christ the author and bestower of grace, to ordaine Sacraments of grace; then must it needes be ac­counted a practise Antichristian, if any man shall take vpon him to ordaine a Sacrament, and not onely to obtrude the same vpon all as necessary to saluation, but also to preferre it before that excellent Sacrament of Baptisme ordayned by Christ himselfe. Therefore as the ordayning and enforcing of this Sacrament vpon men is a note of Antichrist, so those which doe not onely receiue it when they are young, but also re­taine it when they are olde, remayning in the communi­on of the Church of Rome, may be said to haue the marke of the beast.

7. Secondly, that to adhere to the Romaine Church was a marke of a true Catholicke before the yeere 606. he prooueth by 2. Romanae ecclesie adhaercre. the authority of Augustine, Ambrose and Victor Vticensis. But we speake of the Church of Rome that now is, that is, the aposta­ticall Church of Rome: he argueth of the ancient Church which was apostolicall. Indeed whiles the Church of Rome did cleaue vnto Christ, so long might it be a note of a good Christi­an to cleaue vnto it, although these testimonies doe scarce proue it: but after that Church became apostaticall and adulterous, as appeareth by their fundamentall heresies, and horrible Ido­latries, and consequently of a faithful Church became an harlot, and of the Church of Christ the synagogue of Antichrist: it hath beene the marke of an Antichristian to liue in the com­munion of that Church. Besides this great difference betwixt the present and the ancient state of the Church of Rome, there [Page 106] is also great oddes in the manner of adhering or cleauing there­to. Then, as 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. Then the Church of Rome was accounted but a part of the Catholicke Church, and so a man might be a good Christian although he were not of the Church of Rome: now the Church of Rome alone must be accounted the Catholicke Church; and consequently he that is not a member of that Church, must not be taken for a Catho­licke or true Christian. For when the Pope got the title of vni­uersall Bishop, or head of the vniuersall Church, then the church whereof he was head, was accounted the onely Catholicke and vniuersall Church. Hereunto agreeth that Glosse, Constat ecclesi­am ideo esse vnam, quia in vniuersali ecclesia est vnum caput suprem [...], Clementin. Lib. 5. ad nostrum in gloss. cui omnes de ecclesia obedire tenentur seil. Papae. It is euident that the Church is therefore one, because in the vniuersall Church there is one supreame head, whom all that are of the Church are bound to obey. And agreeably therunto saith a late writer, whose bookes were published at Venice in the yeere 1588. Non potest quis se Christianum fateri, qui curae Papae dicit se non subesse. No man may Rod. Cupers 127. num. 29. professe himselfe to be a Christian, who doth not confesse himselfe to be subiect to the Popes cure or charge. And therfore in the conclusiō of his booke he professeth himselfe to be Mancipium S. R. E. The bond seruant of the holy church of Rome, Non ignorans (he saith) haud possehaberese deum patrem, si sanctam vniuersalem Romanam ecclesiam non habuerit matrem, knowing that a man cannot haue God to be his father, vnlesse he haue the holy vniuersall Church of Rome to be his mother. Seeing therfore the Church of Rome is become the whore of Babylon, as hath bene prooued, and the synagogue of Antichrist; & seeing the Pope compelleth all men to cleaue to the church of Rome, suffering none to buy or sel, or to enioy any benefits of humane society, which professe not themselues to be members of the Church of Rome: it followeth that this cleauing to the Apostaticall Church of Rome, or liuing in the communi­on thereof, belongeth to the marke of the beast.

8. Thirdly, as touching the oth of obedience and fealty 3. Iura [...] ­ium obedi­entiae. made to the Pope of Rome, Bellarmine prooueth that it was vsed [Page 107] in the time of Gregory the great, and therefore before the yeere 606. as appeareth in the Epistles of Gregorie. I answere, that although Lib. 10. E­pist. 31. before the yeere 606. the Bishops of Rome tooke more vpon them, then became the ministers of Christ: yet Bellarmine is not able out of all antiquity to alleadge one example of such an oath of fealty and allegeance imposed by the Pope vpon forraine Bishops, and much lesse vpon Kings and Princes, as all Catholicke Bishops, as they call them, Priests, graduates, Princes and potentates are compelled to sweare vnto the Pope of Rome. That one example, which, as it seemeth, is all that he can alledge, of an oath taken not long before the yeere 606. is little to the purpose. For it is not an oath of obe­dience and allegeance to the Pope, but of faith and religi­on towards God, conformable to the faith and religion then professed by the Bishop, and Church of Rome. For it is the oath of a certaine Bishop who sweareth to renounce his for­mer heresies, and to professe and maintaine that faith and religion, which then the Bishop and Church of Rome did pro­fesse: which oath in effect is no otherwise to be vndestood, then if a minister among vs, being reclaimed from Pope­ry or some other heresie, should take an oath before a Bi­shop, that whiles he liueth, he will professe and maintaine that religion which is now professed and established in the Church of England, and other reformed Churches; which is not to sweare allegeance to them, but the like allegeance with them vnto Christ.

9. Fourthly, the annointing of Priests, we confesse to be as ancient as the Priesthood of Aaron, from whence they pro­fesse 4. Vnctio sacerdota­lis. they haue receiued this Iewish ceremony; which toge­ther with the sacrifices, Priesthood and ceremonies of the law, are abrogated by the sacrifice & death of our Sauior Christ. And why then do they not as well retaine circumcision, the sacrifices of Buls and Goats, & other ceremonies of the Leuiticall Priest­hood, that they might more plainely shew themselues, whiles they seeke to be the Apes of the Iewes, to be as indeede they are, according to the censure of Paul in the Epistle to the [Page 108] Galathians, Apostates from Christ. But as their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian, wherby the Leuitical priesthood and many Iew­ish ceremonies are retained, as though Christ had not put an end to them: whereby Christ is denyed to be our onely Priest: whereby Christ himselfe (as they say) is daily offered, to the disgrace of his owne sacrifice, as though that once performed had not beene sufficient: to the ouerthrow of his humaine na­ture, which they hold to be in many places at once inuisible and incircumscriptible, without quantity and dimension, and conse­quently no body; to the disparagement of his diuine excellen­cie, whiles euery shaueling Priest taketh vpon him by brea­thing out a few words after a magical maner to create his maker, and when he hath done to offer him as a sacrifice to the father, euery sacrifice being inferiour to the sacrificer: to the deifying of a piece of bread consecrated to most sacrilegious Idolatry: as I say, their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian, so their vnction, whetherof Bishops on the head, or of Priests on the hand, vn­doubtedly belongeth to the marke of Antichrist. And although they were able to shew some practise hereof in the Church be­fore the yeere 606. yet this hindreth not, but that this Priestly Vnction may belong to the marke, because as I said, some cor­ruptions were before the reuelation of Antichrist crept into the Church, which by him were to be retained with increase and maintained, as also because this ceremony is vsed not by autho­rity of their example, but as receiued from Moses by the autho­rity of the ceremoniall law, as though it were not abrogated by Christ, and as imposed vpon the Church by the law of the Pope: And lastly because it is a ceremony belonging to such a sacrific­ing Priesthood, as was not known in the primitiue Church. But as I suppose they are not able to produce any sufficient testimony or authenticke proofe to declare the vse of this ceremony in the primitiue Church, which some of them impute to the rudenes, and vnsetled estate of that time. For whereas he alledgeth two testimonies of Nazianzene, both places are to be vnderstood [...]ighius. figuratiuely, of consecration to the ministerie. For as appea­reth De sacra vnctione C. cum venis­set. by the testimony of Innocentius 3. this ceremony of annoin­ting was not vsed in the Greeke Church, whereof Nazianzene [Page 109] was, but reiected as Iewish, vntill he imposed the same vpon them, about the yeere 1200.

10. As touching the fift: Sacrifices of praise we offered for 5. Missa pro defune­lis. those that dyed in the Lord; but no propitiatory sacrifices, such as their masses be, were offered for them. The oblations for the dead, whereof Augustine speaketh, prooue not that masse, Lib. de ha­res. C. 53. See D. Fu [...]ke. in Apoc. 14. 13. s. 5. con­tra. Rhem. were vsed as propitiatory sacrifices for the quicke and the dead. Vnlesse therefore he can prooue that they had before the yeere 607. masses as superstitious and Idolatrous as since: the fre­quenting of Masses may now belong to the marke of the beast, which before did not.

11. Adoration of images and of the Eucharist, may most fitly be said to belong to the marke of the beast. For those 6. Adora­tio imagi­num et Eu­charistiae. that are made drunke with the cup of the whore of Baby­lons fornications, that is, which are besotted with the Ido­latries of the Church of Rome, are the same with those that receiue the marke of the beast: But the adoration of Ima­ges and of the Eucharist, is notorious Idolatry or spiri­tuall fornication; and therefore those that are besotted with these Idolatries haue receiued the marke of the beast. And as touching the worshipping of Images, it is most plainely forbidden and condemned in the Scriptures, and Councels, and writings of the fathers, who liued in the first 600. yeeres. The Wine of this fornication, wherewith all sortes haue beene made drunke, was first set abroach to the world in the second Councell of Nice, about the yeere 789. For further proofe whereof read B. Iewell in his 14. article against M. Harding. And the like may be said of the adoration of the Eucharist, which is a consequent of the eleuation of the sa­crament and transubstantiation, neither of which were vsed or heard of in the first 600. yeeres, as the same Iewell prooueth Artic. 75. 10. And Artic. 8. he sheweth that the adoration of the sacrament cānot be warranted by any commandement of Christ, nor by any word or example of th'apostles or ancient fa­thers, but that it is a thing lately deuised by Pope Honorius about the yeere 1226. But let vs weigh his proofes. That Images [Page 110] were worshipped he prooueth by the testimony of Ierome, who in the life of Paula, speaking of her zeale and deuotion in visiting those places, where our Lord Iesus had beene conuer­sant; he sheweth how at length she commeth to the sepulcher and kisseth the stone, which the Angell had rouled away frō the mouth of the sepulcher, and licked the place where Christs body lay: and seeing that very Crosse (as was supposed) where­on Christ was crucified, Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat, Falling downe before the crosse she wor­shipped the Lord, as if she had now seene him hanging on the Crosse. I answere that this practise was not common, but peculiar to her; and to her not vsuall, but onely at that time, and in that place: neither did she worship the Crosse (as the Papists doe the images of that Crosse, cult [...] latriae with diuine worship) but seeing the Crosse whereon Christ was crucified, and being rauished with the memory of his death, she falling before that Crosse, worshipped Christ. Now that the adoration of the Eucharist was also in vse before the yeere 606. he prooueth by the testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine. Ambrose his words are these, Itaque per scabellam terra intelligatur, per terram caro Lib. 3. de spiritu S. chap. 12. Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysterijs adoramus, et quam A­postoli in Domino Iesu, vt supra diximus, adorarunt. Therefore by the footestoole let vs vnderstand the earth, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in the Lord Iesus, as we said before. But it is one thing to adore and honour Christ in his sacraments, as the ancient Christians and we doe: and another thing to adore the sacrament, as if it were Christ himselfe, as the Papists doe, deifiyng a piece of bread, and adoring it with such a worship as indeed belongeth not (I say not to the man Christ, but) to the humanity of Christ, whereof alone and not of the deity the bread is a sacrament: For the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ crucified, and the wine of his blould-shed. But if Bellarmine would haue read but fiue or sixe lines further, he should haue sound a better testimony against their adorati­on of Saints and images, then this was for the adoration of [Page 111] the sacrament. For Ambrose proouing that the holy Ghost was to be adored, because he is adored that according to the flesh was borne of the holy Ghost: Ac ne quis h [...]c deriuet (saith he) ad Mariam virginem: Maria erat templum dei, non de­us templi, et ideo solus ille adorandus qui operabatur in templo: And least any should deriue this to the virgine Mary: Mary was the Temple of God, not God of the Temple; and therefore he alone is to be adored who did worke in the Temple. Augustine vnder­standing In Psal. 98. by the footestoole mentioned Psalme. 99. 5. the flesh of Christ saith, Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salu­tem dedit. Nemo autem [...]arnem illam manducat nisi p [...]us adora­uerit: He gaue his flesh it selfe to be eaten of vs to saluation, but no man eateth that flesh vnlesse he first haue adored it. Where Augustine speaketh no more of the sacrament or of the bodily eating of the flesh, then Christ himselfe doth Iohn 6. & therfore this allegation is impertinent; or if it were not, yet is it one thing to adore the flesh of Christ, and another thing to adore a piece of bread, which by the testimony of Christ Iohn 6. and of Au­gustine, is prooued not to be turned into the body of Christ, be­cause both doe signifie, that the wicked doe not eate the body of Christ. To conclude therefore, whereas Bellarmine argueth thus, These things were vsed before the yeere 606. therfore they belong not to the marke of the beast: the summe of my answere is this, that they were not vsed in the first 600. yeers: and againe, if they had bene vsed then, yet they may belong to the marke of the beast now, for the reasons before alledged.

The 12. Chapter. Of the generation and nation of Antichrist.

1. THe Iesuits fift disputation is concerning the generation and nation of Antichrist, whereof he shall come, and of which he shal especially be receiued. From whence as he vainely supposeth, is gathered a most euident demonstration, that the Pope is not Antichrist. For Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, and consequently [Page 112] he is to be a Iew both by nation and religion: But none of the Popes since the yeere 607. hath boene receiued of the Iewes as their Messias; neither hath any one beene a Iew either in nation or religion: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist: or rather as hee ought to conclude from the premisses, therefore not any one of the Popes is Antichrist. For in all this disputation Bellarmine presupposeth that to be true, which we haue prooued to be most false, that Antichrist is but one singular person, and ac­cordingly reasoneth, as if we held that this or that Pope were the Antichrist. We holdeindeed that euery Pope for his time, as he is the head of the catholicke Apostasie, so is an Antichrist: but the Antichrist is the whole rowe and order of them from Boniface the third downeward. If therefore Bellarmine argu­eth vpon a false supposition, we are like to haue but a simple de­monstration of it. But let vs examine his disputation. Before he proposeth his proposition, as the basis or ground of his demon­stration, he dealeth with vs as cunning tradesmen, who being desirous to vtter their bad wares at a good price, first, shew those that are worse, that the naughtinesse of the worse may commend and set foorth those that be not so bad. So he bring­eth forth diuers opinions concerning the generation of Anti­christ, and first those that are false and absuide, as namely, that Antichrist should be borne of a virgine by the operation of the diuell, as Christ was borne of a virgin, by the operation of the holy Ghost. Which opinion is propounded by the au­thor of the treatise concerning Antichrist, falslie ascribed to Au­gustine. Secondly, that the diuell himselfe is Antichrist, who shall fayne himsefe to haue taken flesh of a virgine, at Christ truely did; which is the conceit of Hippolytus: vpon whose counterfeit authority the Papists in other points concerning this controuersie, doe so much relie. Thirdlie, that Anti­christ shall bee a true man, but withall a Diuell, by the incar­nation of the Diuell; euen as Christ, who is God, by in­carnation became man: which opinion (saith Bellarmine) Origen thought to bee possible. These opinions shew into what absurdities men doe fall, when as they will needes [Page 113] be comparing Christ with Antichrist, as the Papists in many things do. Fourthly, that Nero who died aboue 1500. yeares a­goe should come againe in his owne person to be Antichrist.

2 But these wares are all so corrupt, that Bellarmine will not for his credit sake cōmend them vnto vs. And therefore he ma­keth a second shew of such opinions as are more probable, viz. That Antichrist shall be borne in fornication and not in marriage, which is the opinion of Damascen and some others. And secondly, That be shalbe borne of the Tribe of Dan, which is the iudgement of twelue of the Fathers, & other approued Authors amōg the Papists; and generally of all Papists almost besides Bellarmine himselfe. But although these opinions be, as he saith, very pro­bable, & the latter cōmended by a whole Iury of auncient wri­ters, yet because they cannot be proued out of the scriptures, he will not put thē into our hands, as though he meant to warrant thē. So that now we must needes thinke that we shall be well dealt withall, and that no corrupt or counterfeit stusse shall be com­mended vnto vs, but that which is currant and warrantable by the word of God. But what say you Bellarmine, cannot this o­pinion that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, be proued out of the scripture? what say you then to those three places of scripture, which are to this purpose vsually alledged in the Church of Rome? the first Gen. 49. 17. Dan shal be a serpent in the way, &c. The second, Ier. 8. 16. The neying of his horses was heard frō Dan. The third, Apoc. 7. where 12000. of euery Tribe being sealed to saluation, the Tribe of Dan is leftout, because Anti­christ was to come of that Tribe. To the first of these places Bellarmine answereth with vs, that the propheticall blessing of Iacob, was verisied in Sampson, who was of the Tribe of Dan: & that Iacob meaning in these words to blesse Dan, his meaning cannot without absurditie be peruerted to the signification of a curse. And I adde, that they might with as good reason alledge that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Beniamin, of whom it is said, verse 27. that he shal rauin as a Wolfe. Ieremy vndoubted­ly speaketh not of Antichrist, nor yet as Bellarmine saith, of the Tribe of Dan, but of Nabuchadonosor, who was to come by the coast or countrey called Dan, to destroy Ierusalem, as Ierome [Page 114] rightly expoundeth. Why Dan is omitted in Apoc. 7. it is not wel knowne saith Bellarmine, especially seeing Ephraim also which was one of the greatest Tribes is left out. But here Bellarmine doth prae­uaricari, and by trifling betray the truth. For it is not true that Ephraim is left out: for seeing Manasses is mentioned Verse 6. wee must needes by the Tribe of Ioseph mentioned Verse 8. vnderstand the Tribe of Ephraim Neuer thelesse, this may tru­ly be said, that there are other causes of this omission, then that which is alledged concerning Antichrist. For else we may say as well, that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Simeon, because he is not mentioned in the blessing of Moyses. Deut. 33. The truth is, that where the holy Ghost numbreth the 12. Tribes, and mentioneth Leui, which for the most part is not As Apoc. 17. reckned among the 12. Tribes, because it was scattered among them all; some one of the other Tribes is left out, otherwise, where 12. are named, 13. should be reckned. The mentioning therfore of Leui, is the cause why some one of the rest is not ex­pressed, but either comprehended vnder an other that is men­tioned, as Simeon vnder Iuda Deut. 33. Ephraim & Manasses be­ing two seuerall & great Tribes, vnder Ioseph. Deut. 27. 12. Ezec: 48. 32. are altogether omitted, as Dan. Apo. 7. Now Dan seemeth to be omitted, rather then any other, because that was the first Tribe which fel from God vnto Idolatry: & for the same cause (as some thinke) the genealogie of that Tribe is omitted in the first booke of the Chronicles.

3 These opinions therfore though countenanced with the authoritie of the Fathers, Bellarmine dareth not deliuer as mat­ters of truth, because they cānot be proued out of the scriptures. The which in truth is the cause why we reiect all the fancies of the Papists concerning Antichrist, wherin they differ from vs, because that although many of thē were also the opiniōs of the auncient writers (who could but ghesse at the meaning of prophecies not then fulfilled) yet they cannot be proued out of the word of God, wherein Antichrist is sufficiently described. This libertie therefore which Bellarmine lawfully taketh vnto himself in reiecting the testimonies of the Fathers in this point not warranted by the scriptures, must in equitie also be graun­ted [Page 115] vnto vs. For vpō the same principle or ground which Bel­larmine here setteth downe, we reason against the Popish con­ceits after this maner: Those opinions concerning Antichrist which cannot be proued out of the scriptures, are not to be held as certaine truthes, or beleeued as matters of faith, although they haue the testi­mony of the Fathers: But all the Popish cōceits cōcerning Antichrist, are such as cannot be proued out of the scriptures: therefore none of the Popish conceits concerning Antichrist, are to be receiued for cer­taine truthes, though diuers of them haue the testimony of the Fa­thers.

4 Now let vs heare in the third place what those things are which Bellarmine would haue vs to take vpon his word for cer­taine and sound in this point. There be two things saith hee, most certaine: one that Antichrist shall come for the Iewes especially, and shalbe receiued of them for their Messias. The other, that he shall be borne of the Nation of the Iewes, and shall be circumcised, and shall at the least for a time obserue the Sabbath. On which two points the propositiō of the syllogisme before rehearsed doth consist, the which Bellarmine thought to set out as true, by setting by §. 1 it other opinions more absurd then it is. But although there be degrees of falsehood in all these opinions, yet all of them are false, as being grounded vpon this false supposition, that Anti­christ 1 is but one singular man. And secondly, by the same rea­son that moued Bellarmine to reiect the former opinions, may 2 these also be reiected, namely, because they cannot be proued out of the scriptures; but contrariwise may be disproued there­by. For Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall raigne in the church of Christ, and shall be an Apostate, 3 and the head of the Apostasie, as Bellarmine confesseth, and therfore not the head of the Iewes (who cannot be said to make an Apostasie before they be called) but of back-sliding Chri­stians. Againe, Antichrist is one of the seuen heads of the beast mentioned Apoc. 17. that is, of the Romaine state, hauing his 4 seate in Babylon, that is, in Rome, in the gouernment whereof hee succeedeth the Emperour: who, whiles hee ruled in Rome, hindered the reuelation of Antichrist, as it hath beene shewed heretofore out of Apoc. 17. 13. & 2. Thess. 2. [Page 116] All which do sufficiently proue, that Antichrist was not to be a Iew, either by nation or religion, but a Latine or Romaine, which name with the marke therof, he causeth all sorts of men to take vpon thē. And lastly, for as much as the Papists them­selues hold the calling of the Iewes: it would be knowne whe­ther they shall reuolt, after their calling from Christ to Anti­christ, or whether they shall be called after the destruction of Antichrist, or during the time of Antichrists raigne, which shalbe as they say, the terme of three yeares & a halfe precise­ly, or 1260. daies. But themselues denie that the Iewes shall re­uolt after their calling, or that they shalbe called in the time of Antichrists raigne: & that they shalbe called after the destruc­tion of Antichrist, which shall not be before the ende of the world, it is absurd.

5 But let vs see how he proueth these things which he saith are most certaine & sure, & from whence he draweth his most euident demonstration. First that Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, he proueth by testimonies of scrip­ture, by authoritie of Fathers, and by reason. Out of the scrip­ture he produceth two testimonies, the former Ioh. 5. 43. which place I haue heretofore freed frō the corruptiōs of the papists, shewing that our Sauiour Christ doth not speake absolutely, Another shal come, but cōditionally, If an other shal com, & ther­fore doth not foretel what they were afterwards to do, but tel­leth them what in respect of their present dispositiō they were readie to do, if an other should come in his owne name vnto them, not sent of God. 2. Neither doth he speake definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitly of any false teacher. 3. he speaketh of those Iews, to whō he speaketh, who could not be the receiuers of Antichrist, vnlesse he were come aboue 1500. yeares agoe.

6 His second testimony is 2. Thess. 2. 10 11. Because they recei­ued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued: therfore God shall send them the efficacie of errour that they may beleeue lyes, &c. Which words he vnderstandeth of the Iewes, who because they receiued not Christ shal therefore be seduced by Antichrist. But the place is plaine inough to them that wil vnderstand. The Apo­stle immediately before these words saith, that Antichrist shall [Page 117] preuaile with thē that perish, because they receiued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued: And immediately after these words, (Therfore God shall send them the efficacie of error, that they may beleeue lyes) he addeth, that all might be iudged or condemned that haue not beleeued the truth, but haue taken pleasure in vnrigh­teousnesse. In which words the Apostle doth not goe about to define of what Nation or people Antichrist shalbe receiued: but hauing described Antichrist as by other arguments, so in the last place by this effect of seducing, now he describeth the followers of Antichrist, who shall be seduced of him not by their nation, but by their condition before God. And withall cleareth the iustice of God in giuing them ouer to be seduced to their destruction. The followers of Antichrist are described by their conditiō before God, that they are reprobates, or such as perish, according to that, Math. 24. 24. that it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by him: which is set downe, not so much to be a note wherby to discern Antichrist: as to signifie the estate of those that follow him, whom before hee had described, that they are such as perish, and that worthily. For as I said, in the next words he cleareth the iustice of God, after this manner: On such as haue not receiued the loue of the truth that they might be saued, nor beleeued the same, but haue delighted in vnrighteousnesse, the Lord sendeth iustly the effi­cacy of errour, that they may beleeue lyes, that they may all bee condemned: But the followers of Antichrist are such as haue not receiued the loue of the truth, that they might be saued, nor beleeued the same, but haue delighted in vnrighteousnes: ther­fore the Lord iustly sendeth vpon them strong illusions, that they may beleeue lyes, that all such as beleeue not the truth, but delight in vnrighteousnesse, may be condemned.

This is the discourse of the Apostle, cōcerning the followers of Antichrist, which cannot with any shewe of reason be re­strained to the Iewes, vnlesse it may be said that they alone are such as perish; that they alone haue not receiued the loue of the truth that they might be saued; that they alone haue not belee­ued the truth, &c. for he saith, that all might be condemned, &c. For it is certaine, that as Antichrist, which in this chapter is de­scribed, [Page 118] is not the head of the Iewes, but of counterfeit Christi­ans: so the Iewes (as they are Iewes) are not the followers of Antichrist here described. Antichrist is the head of the aposta­sie or reuolt from Christ, and consequently the head of Apo­state Christians. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall rule and raigne ouer the Church of Christ. Antichrist was to sit in Babylon, that is, Rome, and therein was to succeed the Emperours: who whiles they ruled in Rome, hin­dered the reuelation and dominion of Antichrist. All which points as they do fit the Pope, so they do proue that the Papists be the followers of Antichrist, and haue receiued the name and marke of the beast. And hereof there can be no doubt, if this description also agree vnto them, as most euidently it doth. For seeing they are the Apostate Christians described, 1. Tim. 4 1. 3. certaine it is, that they haue not receiued the loue of the truth, that they may be saued. That strong illusion is sent vpon them that they might beleeue lyes, &c. it appeareth plainly in their written vanities, which they call vnwritten verities, in their legends, portuises, and festiuals fraught full of incredible lyes, in their ridiculous dotages & deuout superstitions, wher­in they plainely shewe themselues to be besotted and made drunke with the whore of Babilons cuppe of fornications, and to be giuen ouer to beleeue vntruthes. That they will not be­leeue the truth, appeareth by their manifolde grosse errors, frō which they wil not be reclaimed And that they delight in ini­quitie appeareth by their doting vpon the doctrine & religi­on of Antichrist, which as there it is opposed to the truth, so before is called the mystery of iniquitie. This descriptiō therfore of the followers of Antichrist, ought to be an admonitiō for all Ver. 12. Ver. 7. Papists to renounce that religiō of Rome, if they would not be in the number of thē that perish: & a caueat for all Christians, who professing y ^• true religiō, haue no true loue therof, but are ready to accept & embrace the religiō of Rome, least this heauy iudgement of the Lord fal vpō thē, that because they haue not receiued the loue of y ^e truth to their saluatiō, the Lord send vpō thē strong illusiō, that they beleeue lies vnto their destruction.

7. Yea, but (saith he) this place cannot be vnderstood of Christi­ans, [Page 119] but of the Iewes: for he saith, that Antichrist shalbe sent to them who would not receiue Christ, which is true of the Iewes, but vntrue of Christians. The Apostle speaketh of those that receiue not the loue of the truth that they might be saued, which may be verified of vnsound Christians (as the Rhemists themselues on this place do graunt) that is, of all those who content themselues with a bare profession of the faith, hauing neither a true faith, nor yet a sound loue of the truth. A sound Christian doth not only professe the name of Christ, but also hath some good vn­derstanding & knowledge of the truth, and withall an assent thereto, in which two, namely knowledge & assent, consisteth the historicall, or dogmatical faith: & not only a knowledge & assent (for so much the diuels haue) but also a loue & liking of the truth; & not onely that (for euen hypocrites & temporary beleeuers may attaine to a loue & liking of the truth for some temporary respects) but also a speciall application of the pro­mises of the Gospell vnto himselfe, & particular apprehension of Christ his merits, whereby he is receiued of the beleeuer to iustification & saluation. Now the Papists are such as professe Christ, but indeed receiue him not, nor yet the loue of his truth that they might be saued. And therfore this place is verified of them. For doth any man I beseech you, receiue Christ or be­leeue in him, who doth not beleeue that Christ is his Redee­mer & Sauiour? But if thou be a Papist, thou must not beleeue that Christ is thy Redeemer & Sauiour; thou must sing Mag­nificat, but thou maist not say with Mary, that thy soule reioy­ceth in God thy Sauiour: nor with Paul, that Christ hath loued thee, or giuen himselfe for thee. Gal. 2. 20. Must thou beleeue that Christ is thy Sauiour & redeemer? thē must thou beleeue that thou art redeemed by Christ, and shalt be saued by him. Must thou beleeue that thou hast redemption by Christ? then must thou also beleeue that by him thou hast remission of sinnes. Ephe. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. But this to beleeue without speci­all and extraordinary reuelation, is damnable presumption saith the Papist. Therefore they professe Christ, but they receiue him not. Nay, they are so farre from recei­uing Christ by a lustifying faith, that they might be saued, that they haue not so much as the historicall faith, which [Page 120] consisteth in knowledge of the truth & assent thereto. For the most of them haue no knowledge, pleasing themselues in their implicite faith: vnder which name grosse & palpable ignorace is commended in the laitie of the church of Rome. And the rest assent not to the truth, but set themselues against it. So that whereas all the faith which they professe themselues to haue, is but that faith which is also in the diuels, yet they haue not euen that little which they do professe. But the Apostle (saith Bellar­mine) speaketh in the pretertence, which haue not receiued the loue of the truth, &c. not in the future: therefore this speech cannot be vn­derstood of any other but those who before the Apostle wrote this, had refused to beleeue the preaching of Christ & his Apostles, that is to say, the Iewes. Answ. The Apostle speaking both of the sinne of the Antichristians, and of their punishment, which presup­poseth their sin going before, he expresseth their sin in the pre­tertence, which is to be referred not to the time of the Apostles writing, but to the time of their punishment. Antichrist shalbe receiued of those that perish. But why shal they perish? because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth, &c. But this appea­reth more plainly, ver. 12. God shal send thē strōg illusiōs to be­leeue lies, that al may be condemned, [...] that haue not beleeued, that is, that shall not haue beleeued the truth, Qui non crediderint veritati, but haue delighted, that is, but shall haue delighted in iniquitie, Sed acquieuerint in iniustitia. Conferre with this place Mar. 16. 16. Goe preach the Gospell saith our Sauiour Christ, to euery creature, baptising them (as it is in Mathew 28. 19.) [...], H [...] that hath Qui credi­derit & bap tizatus sue­ [...]it &c. beleeued and hath beene baptised shall be saued; that is, shall haue beleeued, and shall haue bene baptised, but he that hath not beleeued, that is, shall not haue beleeued, shall be con­demned. Otherwise, if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter­tense, as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should bee receiued onely of those who before that time had reiected the truth, he must with all hold, that Antichrist shall be receiued in the end of the world of those who died aboue 1500. years since.

8 To these testimonies of scripture he addeth the authoritie [Page 121] of diuers Fathers, who supposed that Antichrist was to be receiued of the Iewes, and accordingly expound the place alledged out of 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11.

Ans. So they held that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, & accordingly expounded some places of scrip­ture, which no man now vnlesse he will be too ridiculous, can vnderstand of Antichrist. Therefore as Bellarmine in that point answered a whole dozen of Fathers, so may I answere here with as good reason, that although this opinion might seeme probable to the Fathers in their time, liuing before the reuelation of Antichrist, yet now there is no probabilitie in it, seeing it cannot onely not be proued out of the scripture, but as you heard, is confuted both by the scripture and the euent.

9 Let vs therefore in the third place consider his reason: Antichrist shall without doubt ioyne himselfe first and chiefly to those who are readie to receiue him: But the Iewes are readie to receiue him, not the Christians nor the Gentiles, therefore Antichrist first and principally shall ioyne himselfe to the Iewes. First to the propo­sition I answere, that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer, but to those in the Church that are readie to re­ceiue him. For as Cyprian truly noteth, They be the seruants of Epist. 1. lib. 1. God whom the diuell troubleth, and they are Christians whom An­tichrist impugneth, Ne (que) enim quaerit illos, quos iam subegit, aut gestit euertere quos iam suos fecit. For he seeketh not those whom he hath alreadie subdued, or desireth to ouerthrowe those whom hee hath already made his owne, the enemie & aduersary of the church: whome hee hath estraunged and kept foorth of the Church, them he neglecteth and passeth by as captiues and ouercome: those he assaulteth, in whom he perceiueth Christ to dwell. If therefore An­tichrist be ledde by the spirit of Sathan, then no doubt he shall passe by both Iewes & Insidels, & set himselfe [...], 2. Thess. 2. 4. that is, both in the Church of God, and against it, that the vnsound he may seduce, and the sound he may persecute. The assumption standeth on two parts. 1. affirmatiue, that the Iewes are readie to receiue Antichrist. 2. negatiue, that the Christians and Gentiles are not readie to receiue him. The former hee pro­ueth, because the Iewes do yet looke for their Messias, who shall be a [Page 122] temporall King, such a one as Antichrist shall bee. But this reason is built on false suppositions. First, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, which we haue proued to be false. Secondly, that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes, which as it hath bene disproued out of the scriptures, so can it not with any colour of reason be proued out of the same. For as hath bene shewed, Antichrist is the head of the Catho­like Apostasie or Apostate Christians, sitting in Babylō, that is, Rome, professing her selfe the church of God, being one of the seuen heads of the Romane state, succeeding the [...]mperours in the gouernment of Rome, &c. Thirdly, as Antichrist shall not be such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes: so there is no necessitie that there should such a one come to the Iewes, as they expect. The second part also of his assumption is false. For although sound and constant Christians bee not readie to receiue Antichrist, but alwayes haue bene readie to resist him euen vnto the death: yet vnsound and back-sliding Christians, who embrace not the loue of the truth that they might be saued, either are as readie to receiue Antichrist, as they are apt and prone to decline from the truth (a searefull caueat to those which waxe wearie of the Gospell) or alreadie haue reuolted from Christ to Antichrist, & haue receiued the marke of the beast. Yea, but Christians saith he, doo not expect Antichrist, as the Iewes doo. The Iewes looke for him with ioy, as for their Messias, but the Christians with feare. I answere, as true Christians looke not at all for the expected Messias of the Iewes to be Antichrist, but acknowledge him that is come: so Papists, but that they cannot see the wood for trees, might in stead of looking for Antichrist, looke vppon him.

10 The second thing which Bellarmine deliuereth concer­ning Antichrist for a certaine truth, is, That Antichrist shall be a Iew both by Nation and Religion; that is, he shall be a Iew borne, hee shall be circumcised, hee shall be an obseruer of the Iewes Sab­both, and other Iewish ceremonies. But how is this certaine truth proued? forsooth from the premisses. For the Iewes will not receiue one for their Messias, that is not a Iew borne, nor circumcised. [Page 123] Nay, it is not to bee doubted, but that as the Iewes looke for their Messias out of the family of Dauid; so hee will faigne himselfe to be of the Tribe of Dauid, although indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. But this Popish conceit, built vpon their owne vaine imaginations, needeth no answere. For seeing I haue ouer­throwne their former assertion, wherevpon this is grounded; therefore this building of it selfe falleth to the ground, Who­soeuer (saith hee) shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, he shall be a Iew borne, and circumcised, but Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias: as hath bene proued, there­fore Antichrist shall be a Iew borne, &c. The proposition is not altogether true, for the Herodians receiued Herod for Epiphan. lib. 1. de haeresi Iu­daeor. 7. their Messias, and thence had their name. But I will not stand vpon that.

The assumption I haue alreadie disproued, shewing that Antichrist was not to be receiued of the Iewes for their Mes­sias, and therefore there is no validitie in this argument. In the next place therefore for want either of reason, or authoritie of scripture, he vnderproppeth this tottering wall with testimo­nies of Fathers; but such as either himselfe before hath reiec­ted, or else in this question may by the same reason be little regarded. The twelue Fathers (saith hee) which affirmed that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, doo therefore holde that hee should be a Iew borne. But himselfe hath tolde vs, that we are not to beleeue them, because their opinion cannot bee prooued out of the scriptures: and therefore by the same rea­son, neither they, nor the rest are to be beleeued in this point, which hath no ground in the word of God.

And thus his most euident demonstration is come to no­thing. For although the Iewes receiue not the Pope for their Messias, but rather esteeme of him as of an other Pharao, and withall apply vnto him all that is spoken either of Antichrist, as the Papists say, or of the type of Antichrist R. Ieu [...] Gerson. Antiochus, as we say, Dan. 7. & 11. this hindereth not, but that the Pope may bee Antichrist. Yea, this may bee some inducement to perswade vs, that if those thinges which bee spoken of Antichrist, or his type, may in the iudgement of [Page 124] the Iewes, who are no parties, be applyed properly to the Pope: that then the Pope is that Antichrist, that in Daniel is figured, and in other places of scripture not vnlike to that fi­gure described.

Chap. 13. Of the seate or See of Antichrist.

1 OVr aduersaries sixt disputatiō is, con­cerning the seat or See of Antichrist, concluded in this syllogysme. Anti­christ shall sit at Ierusalem, and not at Rome: the Pope sitteth at Rome, & not at Ierusalem: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, concer­ning which all the cōtrouersie is, is first proued by testimonies of scriptures, & afterwards defēded against our obiectiōs. His [...] or proofe standeth on three testimonies of scrip­ture. The first Apoc. 11. 8. where Iohn saith, that Enoch & E­lias shalbe slaine of Antichrist in Ierusalem. And their bodies shal lie in the streets of the great Citie, which is called spirituall Sodome or Egypt, where our Lord also was crucified. But what if Iohn spea­keth neither of Antichrist, nor of Enoch & Elias, nor of Ierusalē? that hee speaketh not of Antichrist, it may bee doubted. For verse 7. hee saith, that the beast which ascendeth out of the deepe (which seemeth to bee the former beast described in the beginning of Chap. 13.) shall kill the two witnesses. And verse 2. it is said that the court of the Temple should be giuen to the Gentiles, and that they should tread vpon the holy Citie 42. moneths, which is the time allotted to the persecution of the beast with seuen heads, Apoc. 13. 5. Besides, the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall bee the Prince of the Iewes and counter­feit Christians: therefore by their owne doctrine, this persecu­tion of the Church by the Gentiles, should not be the persecu­tion vnder Antichrist. And that Enoch and Elias be not here spoken of, it hath bene shewed before: & thirdly, that the holy Ghost doth not meane Ierusalem, I haue heretofore proued. [Page 125] But suppose that S. Iohn did speake both of Antichrist, as it Chap. 6. Lib. 1. ca [...] 2. § 17. seemeth he doth not, and also of Ierusalem, which I am sure hee doth not: yet notwithstanding, this followeth not, that where­soeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him, or by his authoritie, that there should be his principall seate. Whereas therefore Bellarmine argueth thus, Where the two witnesses are put to death, there is the seate of Antichrist, at Ierusalem the two witnesses are put to death, therefore at Ierusalem is the seate of An­tichrist: I answere first to the proposition, that it being gene­rally vnderstood, is false: if particularly, then Bellarmines argu­mentation is not a syllogisme, but a paralogisme. And to the assumption I answer negatiuely, & that answer I haue hereto­fore made good, prouing that not Ierusalem is here meant, but ciuitas Romana (the Citie and Empire of Rome) which euery where in the Apocalyps, is called the great Citie, wherein, and by authoritie wherof, our Lord was crucified. See the first booke, chap. 2. § 16. 17.

2 His second testimonie is, Apoc. 7. 16. wherevnto I haue answered before in the second chapter of the first booke, §. 18. But as from that place hee would proue that Rome is not the seate of Antichrist, so by another argument which he addeth, he proueth that it is Ierusalem. For saith hee, If Antichrist be a Iew, and professe himselfe to be the Messias and King of the Iewes, then no doubt he will sit in Ierusalem: but the former of these I haue disproued in the former chapter, and therefore further answere needeth not. Yea, but foure of the Fathers auouch that Antichrist shall sit at Ierusalem. Although they did, yet Bel­larmine hath taught vs that we are not bound to beleeue them, vnlesse their assertiō can be proued out of the scriptures. And yet of these foure Fathers which he alledgeth, Lactantius spea­keth not of Antichrist. Hierome and Theodoret, where they de­liuer Hierony [...]. ad Algas. 9. 11. Theodo­ret. in 2. Thess. 2. & Epitom. 1. Anselm. their owne iudgement, doo not affirme that he shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem, but in the Churches of Christ.

3 His third testimonie is 2. Thess. 2. 4. In so much that he sit­teth in the Temple of God. Of which words there be many expositi­ons saith Bellarmine: some by the Temple of God vnderstand the mindes of the faithfull, in which Antichrist shall sit after he hath [Page 126] seduced them: which interpretation agreeth fitly to the Pope, who only sitteth as it were a God in the mindes of men, pre­scribing lawes to binde the conscience, and that with guilt of mortall sinne, as they speake. Others expound these wordes of 2 Antichrist and his whole people, who is therefore said to sit in tem­plum August. de ciuit. Dei, because Antichrist shall professe himselfe with his people, to be the true church of God: which also most fitly agreeth to Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. the Pope and church of Rome, which vaunt that they alone are the 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. Others by the temple, vnderstand the churches 3 of the Christians, which Antichrist shall make subiect to himselfe. Chrysost. &c. The which as we proued it to be the most true exposition, so doth it properly agree to the Pope of Rome. Others by the tem­ple 4 of God, vnderstand the temple of God at Ierusalem, wherin An­tichrist shall sit, and this (saith Bellarmine) is the more common, more probabte, and more literall opinion. I doubt not but that it is an opinion more plausible to the Papists, who care not what they holde concerning Antichrist, so that it agree not to the Pope.

But of these three things which Bellarmine avoucheth in commendation of this conceit, two are false, and the third is to no purpose. For neither is this exposition more common a­mong the auncient Fathers, then that other, which by the tem­ple vnderstandeth the churches of the Christians: which here­tofore we haue shewed to haue beene the iudgement of Theo­doret, Li. 1. ca. 4 § 15. Ierome, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Oecumenius, &c. And al­though it were the more common exposition, yet that would not proue it to be more true, for truth goeth not by voices, nei­ther is to be weighed by multitude of suffrages, but by weight of reason. Neither is it more probable: for if the temple shall neuer be reedified, as hath bene shewed, then is there no pro­babilitie that Antichrist should sit in it. Neither were that ma­teriall, though it were more literall, vnlesse the literall were vsuall. For in all the Epistles by the temple of God is meant the Church: and there is an vsuall metonymie betwixt the [Page 127] words which signifie either the assembly, or the place of the assembly. So [...], which signifieth the place, is often vsed for 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16 Ephe. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. the assembly or church: and Ecclesia that is church, is often v­sed for the place. Neither can the temple erected by Anti­christ be truly called the temple of God. Yea but (saith Bellar­mine) in the scripture of the new testament, by the temple of God are neuer vnderstood the churches, that is to say, the temples of Chri­stians. The more absurd is he to vnderstand this place of a ma­teriall temple, contrary to the vsuall acceptation of the word in the writings of the Apostles. The Apostle therfore by temple, meaneth not a materiall temple of wood and stone, but a spiri­tuall temple compact of liuing stones: and by sitting in the temple, not a corporall gesture, for Antichrist is to sit there as God, that is, he is to rule and raigne in the church of God, as if he were a god vpon earth. But of this whole matter, see more in the first booke, chapt. 2. § 13. & 14. & 15.

4 Now let vs come to his [...] or disproofe of our asser­tion, who hold that Antichrist shall sit not at Ierusalem but at Rome, and in Rome professing her selfe the church of God. First by a fond cauillation, wherein hee greatly pleaseth him­selfe, he seeketh to driue vs to an absurditie. For (saith hee) if Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, and if the Pope be Anti­christ, then the church wherein the Pope sitteth is the true church: and consequently the Protestants and all others that be not of that church, are out of the church, &c. This cauill is to be resolued in­to three syllogismes. 1. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of Christ, The Pope of Rome is Antichrist, therfore saith Bellarmine, the Pope sitteth in the true church of Christ.

But hee might as well conclude thus: Hee that profes­seth the name of Christ is a Christian: the Papist, the A­nabaptist, the Familist, &c. professeth the name of Christ, therefore the Papist, the Anabaptist, the Familist is a true Christian. But hath not Bellarmine learned so much Logicke as not to foist into the conclusion, that which is not contai­ned in the premisses? the word true is not cōtained in the pre­misses, and therefore sophistically thrust into the conclusion. For Antichrist may sit in the church, although not in the true [Page 128] Church. Generally the Church of Christ signifieth the com­pany of Christians, that is, of those that professe the name of Christ. But as of Christians, some are onely in title and profes­sion, some indeed & in truth: so of Churches, some are onely in title and profession Churches of Christ, others are his true Churches. Now Antichrist he was to be an Apostata, and the head of the Catholike apostasie: therfore the church where­of Antichrist is the head, although it be in title and profession a church of Christ, as being a company of them that are chri­stened, and professe the name of Christ: yet it is but an aposta­ticall church; a church which of a faithfull Citie is become an harlot; and of the true Church of God, the whore of Babylon. But may not this absurditie rather be returned vpon the Pa­pists, who by the templeof God 2. Thess. 2. 4. vnderstand that temple which Antichrist shall build at Ierusalem? Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God, saith the Apostle, Antichrist shal sit in that temple which himselfe shall build at Ierusalem saith the Papist, therefore that temple which he shall build at Ieru­salem shall be indeed the temple of God. Whereas in truth ac­cording to their owne conceits, it were rather to be called the temple of the diuell. If any man obiect that it might after a sort be called the temple of God, because the temple of God did stand there, and because Antichrist will pretend to make it to the honor of God, wherevnto the former temple was erec­ted: I answere by the like reason the church of Rome may be called the church of God, bicause once it was a true church, and stil is in title & professiō the church ofChrist: although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ, then Antichrists ima­ginary temple at Ierusalem would be the temple of God.

5 His second syllogisme which is inferred vpon the former is this. If the Pope sit in the true Church of God then the church of Rome is the onely true Church (for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one): but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God, as was proued in the former syllogisme, therefore the church of Rome is the onely true church of Christ. First, I answere to the proofe of his proposition. The Catholike & inuisible Church of Christ is one sheepfolde vnder one shepheard Christ: but [Page 129] particular & visible churches are more then one, as the church of Corinth, the church of Rome, the seuen churches in the Apo­calyps, and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome, although it were a true visible church, yet were it but a particular church, and therefore not the onely true church. But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ, but the whore of Babylon, an adulterous, and Idolatrous, and Apostaticall church, which once was Rome, as Petrarch saith, now Babylon; once Bethel, now Bethauen: once the Church of Christ, now the synagogue of Antichrist, as hath bene proued. And there­fore there being no truth either in the proposition, or the as­sumption, I answere the proposition by this [...], al­though the Pope did sit in the true church, yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the onely true Church: and the assumption by this [...], but the Pope doth not sit in the true church, and therefore there is no shewe of reason in this cauill.

6 His third syllogisme is inferred vpon the second: If the Church of Rome be the onely true Church, then those which are not members of this Church, whereof the Pope is head, as namely the Protestants, are out of the Church. But now (say I) the church of Rome is so farre from being the onely true church, as that it is that Babylon, Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commaunded to seperate, if wee will bee saued: there being no saluation in that Church for those that receiue and retaine the marke of the beast, Apoc. 14. 9. therefore this also is a fond and sophi­sticall cauill. Notwithstanding, as the adulterous and aposta­ticall state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab, so the Church of Rome vnder the Pope, may be called the church of God: in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church, as the administration of some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord, and also of some reliques and remain­der, as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church. In Isra­ell, although an Apostaticall and Idolatrous state, the sacra­ment of circumcision was retained: so in the church of Rome, the sacrament of baptisme. The church of Israel professed [Page 130] Iehouah to be their God, although they worshipped him Ido­latrously: so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ, but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry. In Israel euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal: and so we doubt not, but that in the corruptest times of Popery, the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receiued the marke of the beast. And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ, although greeuously fallen from Christ, because they still professed the name of Christ, and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptisme, and had among them some fewe names that had not defiled themselues: so I confesse with Caluin, that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ, both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church, as administration of Baptisme, and profession of the name of Christ, and some secret reliques of the inuisible church, which haue not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4 Baal. But that which is saide to the church of Sardis, may most iustly be avowed to the church of Rome. Thou hast a name that thou liuest, but indeed art dead: thou professest Apoc. 3. 1. thy selfe to be the church of Christ, but art the synagogue of Antichrist: thou art called the church of Rome, which once was famous for her saith, but art the whore of Babylon, the Apo. 3. 4. mother of all the fornications, and abhominations in the chri­stian world.

7 Heere Bellarmine obiecteth two things: If there re­maine in the church of Rome but ruines and reliques of a true church, then the church may be ruinated, and the truth hath lyed, who saith, that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it.

Ans. The Catholike and inuisible church of Christ, which is the whole company of the elect, can neuer faile: But visible and particular churches which consist of hypo­crites many times and vnsounde christians (which are in the visible church, but are not of the inuisible) as the greater part, may faile and fall away, although not one sound christian that 1. Ioh. 2. 19. is of the inuisible church doth fall away. As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel seuered from Iuda, the [Page 131] examples of Corinth, Ephesus, and many other famous Chur­ches, which were planted by the Apostles. Againe saith Bel­larmine: If the Church be ruinated, and the ruines remaine in Poperie, then the Papists haue the Church, although decayed and ruinated, but the Protestants haue no Church; not entyre, for the entyre Church is ruinated: not ruinated or decayed, for the ruines are among the Papists. What haue they then? a new building, which because it is new, is none of Christs, and therefore who seeth not, that it is safer to liue in the church decayed, then in no church at all? But in this cauill there is not so much as any shew of reason, vnlesse he take that for graunted, (which we do most confidently denie, and they are neuer able to proue) that the church of Rome not onely is the true church of Christ, but also the onely true church. For otherwise the church of Rome may fall, and yet the Catholike church of Christ may stand, yea, shall stand, maugre the force of Antichrist, and malice of Sathan himselfe. And as for the church of the Protestants, it is no new building, as Antichrist vaunteth, but is a part of the Catholike church of Christ, reformed and renewed accor­ding to the word of God, and the example of the primi­tiue church: euen as the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias, was no new building, but the olde frame, as it was vnder Dauid, renewed and reformed according to the lawe of God.

8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments, concluding that Rome is the seate of Antichrist, I haue for the Lib. 1. cap. 2. most part taken away before. It shall suffice therefore now, to answer those which before were not touched. That Rome is the seat of Antichrist we proue, because it is mysticall Babylon, sci­tuated on seuen hilles, & hauing dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, &c. Bellarmine among other answers before refuted, saith, that by mysticall Babylon we are to vnderstand Rome Hea­thenish, not Rome christned, because S. Iohn speaketh of that Rome which had dominion ouer the kings of the earth, and which is said to bee drunke with the bloud of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesu. I aunswere, that although these notes agreed not to Po­pish [Page 132] Rome, yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus, that that citie which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, & then persecuted the Saints, is called Babylon: because it was to be the seate or See of Antichrist. But now 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 regarde of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ, as before hath beene shewed.

9 Againe, whereas we proue that Antichrist shall sit in the church of God because the Apostle saith, he shall sit in the Temple of God, and withall affirme that this cannot be vn­derstood of the Temple of Ierusalem, which now is vtterly de­stroied, & is no more to be reedified, as Daniel testifieth chap. 9. verse 27. hee answereth that Daniel would say something that he doth not say: eyther that the Temple should not be reedified vn­til a little before the ende of the world. But Daniel doth not say vn­till a litle before the end: but as their owne translation readeth, Vs (que) ad consummationem & finem perseuerabit desolatio, the desola­tion shall continue vntill the consummation and ende: or as Ierome saith, Vs (que) ad finem mundi, vnto the ende of the world: or as other, Vs (que) ad consummationem eam (que) praecisam. As it is said of Michel, 2. Sam. 6. 23. that she had no childe vntill the day of her death. And of Ioseph, that he knew not Mary vntill shee had brought forth her first begotten sonne, Math. l. 24. & of Christ, that he will be with the faithfull vntill the ende of the worlde, Mat. 28. 20. Not that Michel at her death, or a little before had chil­dren: not that Ioseph euer knew Mary: nor that Christ will euer forsake the faithful: So that this word vntil in the scriptures sig­nifieth rather perpetuitie then cessation before the time, which seemeth therby to be limited. Whereas therfore Daniel saith that the temple should lie desolate vntil the end & consummatiō of the world, it is as much as if he had said, that it should neuer be reedified. Or if that were not Daniels meaning, thē he must say, that although the temple should be built againe, yet as it was desolate before it be built, so afterward the abhominatiō of desolation, that is, Antichrist or his Image, should remain in it to the end. Yea but the [Page 133] Primitiue Church beleeued that the temple should neuer be built againe, and held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable. And as touching the abhomination of desolation, it hath bene shewed that our Sauiour Christ by a metonymie vnder­standeth Luk. 21. 20. and Mat. 24. 15. thereby the armies of the Romanes, who in respect of their paganisme were abhominable, and in regard of their ef­fect desolations, such as brought vpon Ierusalem the finall de­struction and desolation. Daniel saith per alam detestationum de­solantem by a synecdoche for per legiones &c. as Esay 8. 8. Or last­ly, this must be Daniels meaning, that the temple shall neuer per­fectly be reedified, but that the reedifying is to be begunne, and that in the temple so begunne Antichrist shall sit. Thus shamefully the wilfull patrones of errour, sticke not to drawe the scripture to their fancies, not caring to conforme their iudgement to the scripture. Daniel in that place speaketh not a word of Anti­christ, nor yet of Antiochus his type, but of the vtter desolation and finall destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes: and of this desolation, according to their owne translation, he saith, that it should continue to the ende and consummation: that is, (saith Bellarmine) the temple shall neuer perfectly be built againe, but yet it shall be built againe, and in it being so built, Antichrist shall sit. How built? is it like that Antichrist, who shall according to their conceit be the most mightie Prince and Monarch in the world, that he I say, will suffer that temple which he chu­seth for his chiefe seate, to be vnbuilt: or that so great and so proud a monarch will sit in a temple without a roose or vnsini­shed, professing the same also to be his principall seate? Why but Christ saith, the destruction of the temple should be such as that one stone should not be left vpon another; and Daniel saith according to their owne translation, that this desolation of the temple should continue to the ende. How then can his meaning be, that it should be reedisied either in whole or in part? The stories also of the church do testifie, that as Daniel Socrat. li. 3 c. 20. and our Sauiour Christ had foretold the finall destruction and desolation of Ierusalem: so when Iulian the Apostate, desiring Theodoret li. 3. ca. 20. Sozom. li. 5 cap. vlt. to conuince the preaching of our Sauior of vntruth, endeuou­red by the Iewes to reedifie the temple: the Lord to verifie his [Page 134] word, would not suffer it to be built either in whole, or in part: but by a fearefull earthquake ouerthrew the foundations, by fire from heauen burnt the tooles of the worke-men, by winde and tempest scattered the lime and morter, and by fire procee­ding out of the earth burnt the workemen as they digged. Ie­rusalē & the temple were types of the church of Christ. There­fore when as by the preaching of the Gospell to all nations the church of Christ was planted among the Gentiles, the citie and temple were to haue an ende as our Sauiour hath prophe­cied, Math. 24. 14. then shall be the ende, to wit, of the citie and temple of Ierusalem: which being once ouerthrowne by the legions of the Romanes, should according to Daniels pro­phesie remaine desolate vntil the ende of the world: or as our Sauiour foretold in other wordes, that Ierusalem should be tro­den Luk. 21. 24. vnder foote of the Gentiles, vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

10 Lastly, whereas Theodorus Bibliander proueth by the testimony of Gregory the great, that Antichrist was to sit in the church, & to exercise an vniuersall dominiō ouer the same, be­cause Gregory saith that Iohn of Cōstātinople challenging the title Lib. 4. Epist. 38. of vniuersall Bishop, therein was the forerunner of Antichrist: and secondly, because hee saith that an army of Priests were prepared for Antichrist, thereby signifying that he should be a prince of Priests: Bellarmine answereth, that the contrary is to be inferred vpon Gregory his wordes. For the forerunner must not be equall to him, whose forerunner he is, but lesse and in­feriour. If therefore Iohn of Constantinople, who was the fore­runner of Antichrist, challenged the title of vniuersall Bishop, An­tichrist himselfe shall challenge greater matters, and shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God. But I reply, that although the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople was very great and Antichristian: yet it was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome. Iohn of Constantinople sought a superioritie ouer all other Bi­shoppes, but challenged not that height of authoritie and foueraigntie which the Popes since haue vsurped, not on­ly ouer Bishoppes and Ecclesiasticall persons, but also ouer [Page 135] the Kings and Monarchies of the earth. Neither hath the Antichristian pride of the Pope rested heere, but as I haue shewed heretofore, in some thinges hee matcheth himselfe Li. 1. cap. 5. with Christ, in some things he aduanceth himselfe aboue him, and aboue all that is called God. To the second Bellarmine an­swereth, that it was not Gregories meaning, that Priestes as they are Priests, belong to the army of Antichrist, but as they are proud. But hence it followeth not saith hee, Antichristum fore principem sacerdotum, sed fore principem superborum, that Antichrist shall be the prince of Priests, but that he shall be the prince of proud men: shamelesse, and yet ridiculous. Doth it not follow, that if he be the prince of Priests as they are proude, that he is the prince of proude Priests, such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of? It followeth therefore vpon our argu­ments, notwithstanding all his cauils, that Antichrist was to haue his chiefe seate in Rome, and in Rome professing her selfe the church of God, but being indeed the whore of Ba­bylon.

Chap. 14. Concerning the doctrine of Antichrist.

OVr aduersaries seuenth disputation is con­cerning 1 the doctrine of Antichrist. For whereas it is certaine, saith Bellarmine, that there are foure principall doctrines of An­tichrist, none whereof is taught by the Pope; therefore it followeth necessarily, that the Pope is not Antichrist. I answere, that there are more doctrins of Antichrist that false prophet then foure, among which those two doctrines of diuels which are mentioned by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4. as notes of that Catholike Apostasie, whereof Antichrist is the head, are to bee numbred, forbidding marriage, and commaunding abstinence from meates. But yet not all these foure are the doctrines of Antichrist, and those which be, doe not vnfitly agree to the Pope: as shall appeare in the par­ticulars, which wee are to examine in order. [Page 136] For from these foure doctrines Bellarmine fetcheth foure ar­guments. The first, Antichrist shall deny Iesus to be Christ, and consequently shall oppugne all the ordinances of our Sautour, as Bap­tisme, confirmation, &c. and shall teach that circumcision, the Sab­both, and other ceremonies of the old lawe are not yet ceassed: But the Pope doth not deny Iesus to be Christ, nor bring in circumcision instead of Baptisme, nor the Saboth in stead of the Lordes day, &c: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, and so also [...] assumption [...]ath two parts, the former concerning the de­niall of Christ it selfe, the second concerning the consequents thereof. Of the former, I haue sufficiently spoken heretofore: prouing [...] [...]ntly [...] that as Antichrist was to deny Christ, so Li. 1. ca 4. § 6 7. 8. the Pope do [...] no [...] in deed onely, but in word also and doc­trine, although not openly directly & expresly (for Antichrist was not to be an open and professed enemy), yet couertly, in­directly, and by consequent. And of such denying of Christ, Bellarmine himself in this chapter vnderstandeth Iohn to speak in the place by him alledged for the proofe of his proposition. 1. Ioh. 2. 22.

2. But [...]iuing that this exp [...]ion will not cleare me Pope [...] Antichristn [...]me he [...] [...]th that. Ancichrist is to [...] Christ [...] [...] openly, and [...] all meanes. Which bold as­sur [...]ion I haue her [...]of [...] [...]fficiently disproued, when I pro­ued that AntiChristianisme is as the Apos [...] [...]eth it, a myste­ry of iniquities; an [...] that Antichrist is [...] [...]and disguised e­m [...]; who vnder the name and profession of [...]tianitie deni­eth, yea oppugneth Christ and his truth. Bu [...] [...] [...]s weigh his reasons. The first whereof hath all his w [...] [...] such asser­tions as we haue before prooued to [...] then vanitie it selfe: and it is thus concluded. He that [...] be in nation and re­ligion a Iew, and shall be receiued of the Iewes f [...] their Me [...] shall [...]ugne Christ, and teach that our Christ is not the Me [...] But Antichrist shall be in nation and re [...] [...] and shall be re­ [...]iued of the Iewes for their Messias [...] befor [...] [...]th bene shewed; therefore he shall oppugne Christ openly, &c. I [...] [...]ere first to the proposition and assumption ioyntly, that the [...]e is no necessitie nor yet likelyhood that there should come to the Iewes such a one as they expect; and yet Bellarmine every where taketh [Page] [Page 137] this for granted. But the assumption I haue proued heretofore to be a new fable, and therfore further answere is superfluous. Chap. 12.

3 The second argument is gathered out of 1. Iohn. 2. 22. Who is a lyer, but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ, and this is An­tichrist. For all heretikes (saith he) are called Antichrists, which any way deny Iesus to be Christ. Therfore the true antichrist himself shal simply & by all meanes deny Iesus to be Christ. And this is proued, because by the heretikes the diuell is said to worke the mystery of iniquitie, because they deny Christ couertly, but the comming of An­tichrist is called a reuelation, because he shall openly deny Christ. I answere first, that Iohn in that place speaketh neither of the body of Antichrist in general (as else-where in his Epistles the word [...] is vsed) nor of the head of that body in par­ticular, who is most worthily called [...] the Antichrist; but of some other members of that body, that is to say, of those Antichrists or heretikes of that time, as Cerinthus and others, which denied the diuinitie of Christ; and denying the sonne, did consequently also denie the Father, for hee is the Father of the Sonne, as appeareth plainely by that which followeth in the text [...], This is that An­tichrist that denieth the Father and the Sonne. Secondly, the diffe­rence betwixt the petite Antichrists & the graund Antichrist, is not in respect of the couert and open deniall of Christ; or if there be a difference to be made in this behalfe, it is in this, that diuers heretikes and petite Antichrists, such as Simon Ma­gus & some others, haue denied Iesus to be Christ more plain­ [...]y and directly, which the graund Antichrist according to his greater cunning and efficacie of deceit (comming as the Apo­stle saith, [...] in all deceiueablenesse of iniqui­tie 2. Thess. 2. 10.) was to denie more cunningly and couertly. But the dif­ference is both in respect of the Apostasie & oppositiō against Christ, and also in regard of the ambition and aduancing of themselues. The Apostasie and opposition may be considered either in respect of the parts and points wherin it consisteth, or in respect of the parties which make it. In both respects the Apostasie & opposition of the petite Antichrists is but parti­cular, that is, of fewe men in fewe things: but the Apostasie and [Page] [Page 138] opposition of the graund Antichrist is more eatholike and ge­nerall, that is, in the most parts of Christianitie, and of the grea­test part of Christendome. Likewise, the ambition of petite Antichrists is to seeke preheminence with Diotrephes in parti­cular 3. Iohn. 9. [...]. churches, and ouer some other men: But the graund An­tichrist claimeth an vniuersall soueraigntie ouer all men, and a double Monarchy ouer al the world: and not contented to ad­uance himself aboue all other men, euen Kings and Emperors, and that by many degrees; but in many things also matcheth himselfe with Christ the King of Kings, & in some things ad­uanceth himself aboue him. Yea, but this difference betwixt the smal Antichrists & the great Antichrist is proued, because by the small Antichrists or heretikes, Sathan is said to worke the mystery of iniquitie, wheras the cōming of Antichrist is called a reuelation. The mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7. is Antichristianisme, or that An­tichristian Apostasie frō Christ mentioned Ver. 3. which is ther­fore called a mystery of iniquity, because it being a diuellish op­positiō vnto Christ, is cunningly cloaked vnder the professiō of Christ. This mystery as it was a working in the Apostles time in the heretikes & petite Antichrists by degrees: so was it more fully wrought & accomplished in Antichrist himself, the head of the catholike Apostasie: vnder whō it deserueth so much the more to be called the mysterie of iniquitie, as it masketh vnder more glorious shewes and visards of outward profession, and shrowdeth it selfe vnder the name and title of the catholike and onely true visible church. The mysterie therefore of iniquitie, which in the former part of this Antithesis is appropriated vn­to heretikes, doth indeed most truly belong to Antichrist him­selfe; and therefore if it be called a mystery because it is a couert and cunning deniall of Christ, then vnder the graund Anti­christ Christ shall be most cunningly denied, when he is most gloriously professed. Now Antichrist is said to be reuealed, when the head of the Antichristian body is manifested, and of this reuelation there be degrees; the first his shewing of himself in his colours, by challenging & vsurping an vniuersall supre­macie & soueraigntie ouer all the world; and secondly his ac­knowledgemēt after he was come to his full growth, of which [Page 139] we haue heretofore spoken. It appeareth therefore that Anti­christ was not to denie Christ plainly and openly; and conse­quently, that the first part of his proposition (wherevpon the latter is inferred) is false.

4 The latter part of his proposition is, that Antichrist shal abo­lish all the ordinances of Christ, & in stead of them, bring in the cere­monies of the Iewes, as circumcision in stead of baptisme, & the Iew­ish Sabboth in stead of the Lords day. But how is this proued? be­cause he shall openly deny Christ, and shall in nation and religion be a Iew. But as both these assertions haue bene proued false: so are we to thinke of this which is inferred vpon them. For seeing he was to be a disguising hypocrite, and his religion a mysterie of iniquitie: it cannot be thought that he sitting in the Temple of God; and professing the name of Christ, should abolish all his ordinances; but rather that he would depriue & corrupt them, and take away the right vse thereof, by diuellish doctrines, by superstitious Idolatries, by mixture of Iewish and Heathenish ceremonies. But both the parts of his proposition he seeketh further to proue by testimonies of Fathers, and by reason. The testimonies of the Fathers in this question deserue no further credit, thē as they cōspire with the prophesies of scripture, and agree with the euent. But let vs examine them seuerally. First Hillary is alledged as though he testified, that wheras the Arri­ans affirmed that Christ is not the sonne of God by nature, but onely by adoption: the Antichrist shall teach that he is not so much as the adoptiue sonne of God. But if you read the place, Lib. 6 de trinit. fol. 102. you shal find that Hillary applieth the speech of Iohn, 1, Epist. 2. 22. to those heretikes who professing Christ to be their Sauiour, but denying him to be the natural son of God, & cōsequently denying him to be Christ, affirmed that he is the adoptiue son of God: & therfore inferreth out of that place of Iohn, that they cannot auoyd, but that they are Antichrist. Wherfore the Anti­christ, of whō Hillary speaketh; confesseth the name of Christ; De cōsum­mat. mun­d [...]. neither doth he denie him openly & directly, but indirectly & by consequent. The next authority of Hippolytus is counterfeit, and the testimony here alledged as currant, (that the marke of Antichrist shall be nego baptismum, nego signum crucis, I deny bap­tisme, I deny the signe of the Crosse) heretofore hath bene reiected [Page 140] by Bellarmine himselfe, and refuted as false. Chap. 11. Where he hath taught that there is but one marke of the beast, and that not a priuatiue (as this is) but a positiue marke, which is not yet knowne. Thirdly, he alledgeth Augustine, as though he affir­med De ciuit. Dei lib. 20 c. 8. that Antichrist should suffer none to be baptised. Yet Augustine speaketh not of Antichrist, but of the diuell, and af­firmeth, that euen then when the diuell shall be loosed, many shall be added to the church: and that the diuell himselfe be­ing loosed, shall not be able to hinder Baptisme, but surely so valiant shall be both the parents for the baptising of their children, and also those which shall then first beleeue, that they shall ouer come that strong one being vnbound. The speech of Ierome on the 11. of Daniel, if it deserue credit, it must be taken either as a pro­phesie it selfe, or else a true exposition of Daniels prophesie. Verse. 21. 22. But Ierome was no Prophet. And Daniels speech vndoubtedly is to bee vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom this exposition (if it were good) should literally agree. But Antiochus did not rise of the Iewes, neither did he faigne himselfe to be the Prince of the couenant. And for further answere, and better vnderstanding of the place, read Polan. on Polan. in Daniel. cap. 11. ver. 21. 22. in 2. Thess. 2. Daniel 11. If Sedulius affirme as Bellarmine citeth him, that Antichrist shall restore all the ceremonies of the Iewes, his speech is incredible, for many of them cannot be obserued but in the Temple, which shall neuer be reedified. If he speake of many, it may be verified of the Pope, and of some other here­tickes, who notwithstanding haue not openly denied Christ. Gregorie in the same place which Bellarmine alledgeth, doth af­firme Lib. 11. Epist. 3. that Antichrist shall haue in reuerence not onely the Sabboth day, but also the Lords day; which cannot stand with such an open deniall of Christ as Bellarmine imagineth. His words be these. Qui veniens diem Sabbati atq dominicum ab omni faciet opere custoderi, Who when he commeth (speaking of Anti­christ) shall cause the Sabboth day, and the Lords day, to be kept from all worke. And of this there may better reason be giuen, then of the other, because (as hath bene proued) Antichrist was to be a pretended Christian.

5 These were his authorities: now let vs weigh his reason, [Page 141] which is thus concluded. In whose time the publike seruice of God, and diuine sacrifices shal cease by reason of the vehement persecutiō, he shall openly deny Christ, and shall abolish all his ordinances, and in stead of them, bring in Iewish ceremonies: But in Antichrists time, by reason of the vehement persecution, the publike seruice of God, and diuine sacrifices shall cease; therefore, &c. I answere by distincti­on: If by the seruice of God he meane the true worship of God, the proposition is vntrue. For in the Papacie the true publike worship of God, by reason of the vehemencie of per­secution hath ceased, and yet the Pope doth not openly deny Christ and abolish his ordinances, although he do vilely de­priue them, and mingle them not onely with Iewish, but also Heathenish ceremonies. If by the publike seruice, and diuine sacrifices he meaneth generally any seruice of God, although superstitious, any sacrifices although idolatrous (such as is the sacrifice, of the Masse) then the assumption is false: for such su­perstitions and will-worshippes do best beseeme Antichrist. But of this argument concerning the persecution of Anti­christ, we haue spoken before, chap. 7.

6 This may suffice for answere to his proposition and the proofes thereof. Whereas therefore he assumeth, that the Pope doth not deny Christ, &c. I answere: if he meaneth a direct deniall in open profession, that the Pope may be Antichrist, although he do not so denie Christ: If he meaneth a deniall of Christ in deed and in truth, although couertly, indirectly, and by consequent, I haue heretofore proued that he doth so de­nie Christ, not onely in word and doctrine, as he is a false Pro­phet, but also in deed and fact, as he is a man of sinne, denying him in his life, and as he is an aduersary, not onely denying, but also oppugning Christ and his truth. See the first Booke. chap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8.

7 The second doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine, is to af­firme himselfe to be the true Christ. From whence he gathereth his second argument. Antichrist shal affirme himselfe to be Christ. The Pope doth not affirme himselfe to be Christ, therfore the Pope i [...] not Antichrist. That Antichrist being hostis & amulus Christi, (that is, an enemy of Christ opposed vnto him, in emulation of [Page 142] like honour) shall indeed challenge vnto himselfe those offices, prerogatiues and authoritie which properly belong to Christ (which in effect is as much as if he should say, I am Christ) we denie not: and withall auouch that the Pope of Rome doth so affirme himselfe to be Christ. But that Antichrist shall openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world, that we deny to be agreeable to that An­tichrist, who is described in the word of God. For Antichrist was to be a dissembling hypocrite, as hath bene proued, and his religion is a mysterie of iniquitie cloaked vnder the profes­sion of Christianity. Neither could he seduce so many Christi­ans, if hee should plainely and openly professe himselfe to be the true Christ. But let vs see how Bellarmine proueth that An­tichrist shall openly and expresly name himselfe Christ. For­sooth out of Ioh 5. 43. If an other come in his owne name, him will you receiue: Where saith he, our Lord seemeth of purpose to haue added these words (in his owne name) foreseeing that the Luthe­rans and Caluinists would say, that Antichrist shall not come in his owne name, but in the name of Christ as being his Vicar. But I haue heretofore proued, that Christ in this place doth not speake absolutely an other shall come, but conditionally, if an other shall come, nor definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitely of any false Prophet that should come in his owne name, not sent of God. Neither doth it follow, that if Antichrist shal come in his owne name, that therefore he will professe himselfe to be Christ. For all false Prophets come in their owne name, because they are not sent of God, and yet the most of them haue not pro­fessed themselues to be Christ. And it is plaine that our Saui­our Christ in this place maketh an opposition betwixt him­selfe and euery false Prophet in this respect, that he came vnto them in the name of his Father, that is, not taking vpon him­selfe this honour to be our Prophet and Priest, without au­thoritie and commission from God, but sent from the bosome of his Father, and yet was not receiued of the Iewes: but if an other, meaning any other false Prophet, should come vnto them not in the name of the Father, but in his owne name, that is, hauing no commission or authoritie from God, such a [Page 143] one should be embraced of them. And further we are to con­sider, that Christ professing himself to be the Messias, seemeth to deny that he came in his owne name, (for hee signifieth that false Prophets come in their owne name, but hee came in the name of the Father) therfore to come in his owne name, signi­fieth to come of himselfe, without any calling or commission frō God: And therfore our aduersaries cannot with any shewe of reason conclude out of this place, that Antichrist shall pro­fesse himselfe to be Christ. And yet this is all the proofe which he can bring out of the scriptures. Yea, but though the scrip­tures teach no such matter, Yet some of the Fathers affirme, that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be Christ: yea, but Bellarmine hath told vs, that we are not to giue credit to such coniectures of theirs as haue no ground in the word of God. For how could they, being no Prophets, certainly foretell such things of An­tichrist without booke, that is to say, without warrant of the scriptures. And whereas he addeth, that these Fathers affirme, that he shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, and therfore shal professe himselfe to be the Messias, I answer, that in like sort a dozen of them affirmed that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, wherof notwithstanding there is no probabilitie.

8 To the proposition therfore I answer, that Antichrist was not plainely and openly to professe himselfe to be Christ, but to challenge the office and authoritie of Christ, which is in ef­fect although indirectly & by consequent, as much as if he said I am Christ. To the assumption I answere, that although the Pope doth not plainly & directly say, I am Christ, but forbea­reth the name of Christ, as Caesar did the name of a King: yet notwithstanding, in that he challengeth the office & authoritie of Christ, it is as much in deed and in truth, although indirectly and by consequent, as if he made himself Christ, Christ being a name of office. For certainly whosoeuer professeth himselfe to be y ^e foundatiō, the head, the husband, & Lord, &c. of y ^e vniuer­sal church, he maketh himself Christ, althogh he do abstain frō the name. For who is the head and Lord, &c. of the vniuersall church, but Christ? who hath authoritie to ordain sacramēts, to [Page 144] prescribe lawes to the conscience, to deliuer doctrines and arti­cles of faith as necessary to saluation, to forgiue the sinnes of the quicke and the dead? who is the Prince of Priests, the great Priest after the order of Melchizedec, the Pastor of Pastors, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whom Kings and Emperours do raigne, who hath authoritie to commaund the Angels, to bestow the kingdome of heauen on whom he plea­seth. Finally, vnto whom is all power giuen in heauen and in earth, but onely to Christ? But the Pope doth challenge al this to himselfe, and much more, as hath bene shewed. He forsooth is the foundation, the head, husband and Lord of the vniuer­sall Lib. 1. cap. 5. Church, &c. And to conclude, if you respect his nature, Atquè ac Christus Deus est ens secundae intentionis, compositum ex Deo & homine, As well as Christ he is God, an essence of the second intention, compounded of God and man: if his office, vnctione Chri­stus est, he is by annointment Christ, hauing the very same of­fice which Christ had when he was vpon the earth. And ther­fore Bellarm. de pontif. Rom. lib. 5. cap. 4. if this be a propertie of Antichrist to leaue vnto our Saui­our the name and title of Christ, & to take to himselfe the dig­nitie, office, and authoritie of Christ: it cannot be auoyded but that the Pope is Antichrist.

9 The third doctrine of Antichrist (saith Bellarmine) is this: He shall affirme himselfe to be God, and will require that hee may be worshipped as God. From whence he reasoneth thus: Antichrist will affirme that he is God, and will be worshipped for God: The Pope of Rome doth not affirme himselfe to be God, neither would be worshipped as God, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is proued out of 2. Thess. 2. 4. So that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as though he were God. Answ. The meaning of the Apostles words is thus much, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, as God, that is, he shall rule and raigne in the church of God, as if he were a God vpon earth, shewing himselfe not so much by words as by deedes, that hee is a God. Or as the vulgar Latine edition and English trans­lation of the Rhemists doe reade, tanquam sit Deus; as though he were God. And thus Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecume­nius, expounde this place, [...], (saith Chryso­stome) [Page 145] [...], he saith shewing himself, he said not, saying, but endeuouring to shewe, for he shall worke great workes, and shall shewe forth wonderfull signes: and the word [...] shewing, as Beza obserueth, is answerable to the Hebrew Moreh, faci­ens se apparere, prae se ferens, or as we say, taking vpon him as if he were a God.

It is not therefore necessary that Antichrist should in worde plainly & openly professe himselfe to be God: it is sufficient, if in deed and behauiour hee taketh vpon him as if hee were [...] God. As for example, if he shalbe content to be acknowled­ged, saluted and called God. If he shall cause, nay if he shal but willingly suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God, if he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles, attributes, and workes which are proper & peculiar to the Lord. But Bellarmine per­ceiuing that this place in this sense may fitly be applied to the pope: therefore he contendeth that it is not sufficient that Anti­christ should indeed shew himselfe to be God (as the Pope doth) but that he shall openly name himselfe God: and that he shall vsurpe, not only some authoritie of God (as the Pope doth) but also the very name of God. And that he saith is prooued out of these words of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. in so much that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himselfe tanquā sit Deus, as though he were God. Where saith he Paul doth not onely affirme that Antichrist shall sit in the temple, (for we also sit in temples, and yet are no Antichrists) but also expoundeth his maner of sitting, namely that he shall sit as God: to whō alone a tēple is properly erected. And this hesaith is more cleerly set down in the Greek text: for it is not said [...] as God, but [...] that hee is God. But in this cauill are contained diuers errours: 1. by temple, which as we haue proued, signifieth the church of God, he vnderstandeth a materiall temple, which should be built at Ierusalem. 2. by sitting in the temple, which signifieth his raigning in the church, he vnderstandeth the cor­porall gesture of sitting in that materiall temple. 3. by his sit­ting in the temple of God as God, which signifieth his ruling ouer the church as if he were God, hee vnderstandeth thus much, that the materiall temple should be erected and conse­crated [Page 140] [...] [Page 141] [...] [Page 142] [...] [Page 143] [...] [Page 144] [...] [Page 145] [...] [Page 146] to his honor, as if he were God. As though that temple which should be erected to his honour, as if he and no other were the true God, were called of the Apostle the temple of God: or as though he pretending himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes sent from God, would not also pretend the building of that temple to the honour of God. 4. Whereas he saith that the Greek text hath not [...] but [...], it is plaine that the text hath both. In so much that he sitteth in the temple of God [...] as God, shewing himselfe [...], that he is God. Now Anti­christ may sit in the temple of God as God, and by his deedes and demeanour beare the world in hand that he is a God vpon earth, and yet not professe himselfe openly and plainely to be God.

10 And in this sense (to come to his assumption) doth this place properly agree to the Pope of Rome, who sitteth in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of God as if he were a God vpon earth: and in his behauiour and course of life, taketh vpon him as if he were a God and so would be re­puted of others. For first in their owne lawe the Pope is not Dist. 96. c. satis eui­denter. obscurely called God. The Canonists call him Dominū Deum nostrum Papam, Our Lord God the Pope. But for further proofe of this point, I referre you to the former booke, chap. 5 §. 6. &c. where I intreated of the Antichristian pride of the Pope. To which former testimonies I will adde one practise of the Pope in his great yeare of Iubile, when as in solemne proces­sion he is carried in a seate of gold vpon noble mens shoulders (his god of bread being carried before him vpon an backeney as his attendant) and at length commeth to the gates of Para­dise which hee beateth open with a golden hammer, at which time he is worshipped of all sorts present as a God, from whō they expect indulgence, remission of sinnes and eternal life, according to his large promises made to all those which shall come to Rome to celebrate the Iubiley. In a word, he is nu­men quoddam visibilem quendam Deum pre [...]se ferens, a certaine diuine maiestie shewing himselfe to be a certaine visible God. The premisses therefore considered, together with my allega­tions in the place before named, this argument may be re­turned [Page] vpon our aduersary after this manner: whosoeuer sit­teth Lib. 1. ca. 5 §. 6. 7. in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth and raigneth ouer the church as if he were a God vpon earth, and declareth himselfe either by word or deed that he is God: for example, if he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles, attributes and workes which are proper vnto God, and shall be willing to be saluted, acknowledged and adored as God, he vndoubtedly is Antichrist. But the Pope of Rome ruleth ouer the church as if he were a God vpon earth, and declareth himselfe both by word and deed that he is God, challenging vnto himself those titles, attributes and workes which are peculiar vnto the Lord, &c. as hath bene proued, therefore the Pope is Antichrist: yea but the Pope saith Bellarmine, doth not declare himselfe to be God, for he acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of the Lord. Hee might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe regem regūterrae, ac Dominū Dominorum, the king of the kings of the earth, and Lord of Lordes, because he acknowledgeth himself seruū seruorū Dei, the seruant of gods seruants. Neither doth his verball professiō ouersway his reall practise. But he should haue remembred that the second beast which is Anti­christ, Apoc. 13. 11. as hee speaketh like the dragon belching out blasphemies against God: so hee hath two hornes like the lambe, & as a dissembling hypocrite imitateth in some things the humilitie of Christ. And therefore that the Pope could not be such an Antichrist as is described in the scriptures, vnlesse he were an hypocrite, who doth by open profession pretend himselfe to be the seruant of God, when as in truth he aduan­ceth himselfe against him. And yet this is all that our aduersa­ry alledgeth to proue his assumption, that the Pope doth not shewe himselfe to be God.

11 The fourth and last doctrine saith the Iesuite is this, he shall not onely affirme that he is God, but that he onely is God, and shall oppugne all other Gods both true and false, and shall suffer no Idols. But this absurd conceit of the papists, is not onely re­pugnant vnto the truth, but also contradictory to their owne doctrines cōcerning Antichrist. For is it credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God, [Page 148] and none but he: or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Chri­stians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledge and worship him as the onely true God? Againe, the Anti­christian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon, which be­cause of her owne idolatrie is called a whore, and because she infecteth all nations that adhere vnto her with her idolatries Apoc. 17. 2. 5. and superstitions, she is said to make them drunke with the cup of her fornications, and also to be the mother of all the forni­cations, that is, idolatries of the earth. Yea, & the Papists them­selues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes is de­scribed as an Idolater, as properly spoken of Antichrist. And do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes, and consequently that he is sent and annointed of God? Now if he shall professe himselfe sent from God, shall we thinke that he wil say there is no God besides himselfe? Or if hee being but a mortall man, shall say there is no God besides himselfe, may we not well thinke that either they will hisse at him as a foole, or stone him to death as a blasphemer? Nay, do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion a Iew, an obseruer of the Sabboth, and other Iewish ceremonies? And do they not alledge Ierome to proue, that An­tichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the couenant, and a In Dan. 11 chiefe maintainer of the lawe and testament of God? And are not his two hornes like the Lambe expounded by some approued In Apo. 13 Authors among them, of the two testaments which hee shall seeme to professe?

12 But let vs see how this wise conceit is proued: Forsooth by testimonies of the scriptures and the Fathers. Out of the scripture hee alledgeth two places, the former 2. Thess. 2. 4. Who is extolled aboue all that is called God, or worshipped. As if hee should say, Antichrist shall bee aduanced aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, therefore hee shall auouch that hee alone is God, and will suffer no other God either true or false to bee worshipped besides himselfe. I denie the con­sequence. For first Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, and yet suffer, yea require them to bee worshipped. Iupiter was supposed [Page 149] among the Heathen to aduance himself aboue all other Gods, and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods. Antichrist the second beast, aduanceth himselfe aboue the Image of the Apoc. 13. former beast, which is the Empire renewed, whereon he sitteth as the rider death vpon a beast, and yet requireth the same to be worshipped. The Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue Angels, Apoc. 17. Kings, and Princes, who are called Gods; aboue the Saints, the Host, the Crosse, and whatsoeuer [...] is in the church of Rome, and yet requireth them all to be worshipped. Secondly, Antichrist may aduance himself aboue or against al that is cal­led God, or is worshipped, and yet not professe himselfe to be the only God. For so Antiochus Epiphanes aduanced himselfe a­gainst euery God, yea, against the God of Gods, Dan. 11. 36. and yet he was neuer so mad as to professe himselfe the only God. Thirdly, seeing Antichristianisme is not open Atheisme, but a mystery of iniquity; & Antichrist is described in the scriptures as an hypocrite & pretended Christiā: we may be assured that although in deed & in truth he shall aduance himselfe against God, & against Christ our Sauiour, & list vp himself aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped; yet he shall professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, and a worshipper of God. Fourthly, the words of the text do not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuit imagineth. For first he is called a man of sinne, & sonne of perdition, & therfore we are to conceiue of such an aduancement of himselfe, as is inci­dent to a mortall & wretched man. Secōdly, he is said to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped. By all that is called God, we are to vnderstand all to whom the name of God is communicated, as to Angels in heauen, to kings and Princes on earth. And of this aduancing aboue Kings, we are the rather to vnderstand this place, because afterwards it is said, that the Romane Empire hindered Antichrists ad­uancing or reuealing himselfe. And by [...] we are to vnder­stand any thing which is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped: Such in the Church of Rome are the Host, the Crosse, the Saints, & their Images & reliques. Aboue al which a man may aduance himselfe (as the Pope doth) and yet may [Page 150] acknowledge some other God besides himselfe. Thirdly, the greatest height of pride that is incident to any creature what­soeuer, is not to seeke to be aboue God, for that cannot be ima­gined, but to be as God. And indeed the height of Antichrist his pride and aduancing of himselfe, is noted in the words fol­lowing, [...] in so much that he shall sit in the temple of God as God. Whosoeuer therefore being but a mortall man, shall aduance himself aboue all that is called God & worshipped, insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of Christ as if he were a God vpon earth, he is to be deemed Antichrist (that is aemulus Christi, one that would faine be equall to Christ) although he neither professe himselfe to be the onely God, who onely is to be worshipped, neither yet a­bolish all other worship of God both true and false. And if in this sense this place do properly agree to the Pope, as indeed it doth, then can it not be auoided but that he is Antichrist.

13 The second testimony which he alledgeth to prooue this fond conceit is Dan. 11. 37. neither shall he care for any of the Gods, but shall rise against all. I answere, Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, and he of whom he speaketh was an Idolater, and therefore this allegation is altogether imper­tinent. As touching the first, it is euident that Daniel from the 21. verse of that chapter to the end, doth most plainly & pro­perly describe Antiochus Epiphanes. For howsoeuer in this place Bellarmine would proue by the authoritie of Ierome, that these words are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, & not of An­tiochus: yet in another place when part of this verse is obiec­ted Li. 3. ca. 21 by some protestants as sitting the Pope, he telleth vs plain­ly that Daniel speaketh ad literam [...], literally of Antiochus, who was a figure of Antichrist. Secondly, hee of whom Daniel speaketh was an Idolater, and establisher of Idolatry. So farre was hee from professing himselfe to be the onely true God, or suffering none to be worshipped besides himselfe. For if he speake of Antiochus Epiphanes, (as most certainly he doth) it may easily be proued both by Historie of the Machabees, and by other stories, that he was both an Idolater himselfe, and an inforcer of Idolatry vpō others. See I. Maccab. 1. 50. 2. Mac. [Page 151] cab. 6. 2. &c. Polybius also testifieth that in sacrifices & honouring the Graecian Gods, he surpassed other Kings which went before him, Apud A­thenaeum. as might appeare by the Olympiaeum at Athens, and the Images a­bout the altar at Delos. This Ierome also auoucheth, and Bel­larmine confesseth. But of whomsoeuer Daniel speaketh, he doth plainly describe him in the next verse to be an Idolater. Ver. 38. And it is a world to see what silly shiftes the Iesuit maketh to auoyd this truth. For first he readeth the words thus: And he shall honor the God Maozim in his place: Secondly, he omitteth the words following (the God which his fathers knew not, he shall honour with golde, &c. which most plainly specifie his Idolatry who is here described) and busieth himselfe wholy in giuing a false interpretatiō to the god Maozim. The God Mao­zim saith he, signifieth either Antichrist himself, and then the mea­ning is he shall honor himselfe, that is, cause himselfe to be worship­ped: or else it signifieth the diuel whom Antichrist being a sorcerer shall worship in secret, which interpretation he preferreth before the other. And therefore this place doth not proue that he which is here described shalbe an Idolater.

14 I answere first, that although either of his interpretati­ons of the God Maozim were true (as neither is) yet the one hindreth not, and the other proueth that he which is heere de­scribed is an Idolater. For let the word Maozim signifie what it may, yet the words following plainly conuince the partie here described of Idolatry, the God which his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold. And if the God Maozim signifie any but the true God, and if also the words are so to be read as Bellar­mine readeth them: And he shall honor the God Maozim, and the God whō his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold and siluer, &c. then by these words the Idolatry is encreased. For first it is said, that he shall worship the God Maozim ac­cording to Bellarmines reading, whereby is not meant as he saith the true God, nay he saith to make Christ the God Maozim, Li. 3. ca. 21 it is intollerable blasphemy, O therefore first in these words is signified an Idolater: and secondly it is added, that the God also which his fathers knew not hee shall worship, where againe his Idolatry is most plainely noted.

2. But indeede Bellarmines interpretation is meerely [Page 152] false, and that which he inferreth therevpon, altogether absurd. The God Mahuzzim signifieth the God of fortitudes, that is, the most mightie or almightie God, which title as it is proper to the Lorde, as Ieremy calleth him [...] Iehouah, my Iere. 16. 19 strength and fortitude: And likewise Dauid, Psal. 31. 5. so may it not be ascribed to any other. And therefore it is a sencelesse imagination, that Daniel by the God of fortitudes would signi­fie either Antichrist himselfe, a wicked and wretched man, or the father of Antichrist the Diuell. And further, as touching the former interpretation, it seemeth to be absurd, that when Daniel according to his reading saith, he shal worship the God Maozim, his meaning should be, that Antichrist should wor­ship himselfe, as though he that worshippeth, and hee that is worshipped were one and the same. And thē in like sort in the latter clause, by the God which he shall worship, which his fathers knew not, we must absurdly vnderstand himselfe. For whereas he cauilleth at the word worship, and saith, wee must reade glo­fie, as though Daniels meaning were, that Antichrist should glorifie himselfe, and cause himselfe to be worshipped: it is cer­taine that the vulgar Latine (which hee preferreth before the Hebrew, and which by the Councell of Trent hee is bound to stand to) hath venerabitur, shall worship. & himselfe both in the second clause of the verse, hee readeth according to the vulgar colet, shall worship: and in his second interpretatiō, which he saith is the better, he doth so reade and vnderstand the word. His first interpretation therfore, that the God Maozim should sig­nifie Antichrist himselfe, is sottish and absurd.

15 Let vs therefore consider whether the second which he preferreth before the other, be any better. In the second place saith he, it may be said, which pleaseth me better, that Antichrist shall be a Magician or sorcerer, (such as very many Popes of Rome haue bene) and that according to the manner of other Magicians, he shall in secret worship the Diuell, (as diuers of the Popes haue done homage vnto him) by whose helpe he shall worke wonders, and that he is called the God Maozim. Answ. Whereas Bellar­mine preferreth this exposition before others, it seemeth hee hath forgotten the question which hee tooke vpon him to de­fend, [Page 153] namely, that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater. For if he shall be a worshipper of the diuell, and also of a God whom his fathers knew not, I hope by this exposition he shall bee proued an Idolater. But let vs see what hee further alled­geth to proue this exposition, which although it be false (for Daniel here neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor yet of the Di­uell) yet it maketh against himselfe. Forsooth Maozim as hee supposeth is not the name of God, but of a certaine strong and se­cret place, in which shall be the chiefe treasures of Antichrist, and wherein he shall worship the diuell. For it followeth in Daniel, that he shall fortifie Maozim with a strange God whom hee knew, and surely [...] Mahoz signifieth as well fortitude as a tower or place of munition. His meaning then is, that the diuell is here called the God Maozim, because Antichrist shall worship him in a certaine tower, which if it were true, hee should rather bee called the God Maoz, but Daniel speaketh in the plurall number, the God of fortitudes or munitions, signifying accor­ding to the Hebrew phrase, the most mightie and strong God, Deum summiroboris, as Tremellius readeth.

And whereas hee saith it followeth, that hee shall fortifie Maozim with a straunge God, whom he hath knowne, I answere, that there is no such matter in the originall text, which word for word is thus: And he shall doo to the munitions of Ma­huzzim with a straunge God, that is, hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, Ierusalem and the citties of Iewry to a straunge God. Yea, but faith Bellarmine, one of these interpretations (either that Antichrist is the God Maozim, or if he be any other (for he dare not now say it is the diuell) hee shall not be worshipped of Antichrist, but secretly and in a most hid­den place) one saith hee, of these interpretations must be good, or else there will bee a repugnancie in Daniels words. For if he care for no God, how shall he publikely worship Idols? yea, rather if he care for no God, how shall he worship any priuately? For it is more like that he which is an Atheist, and careth for no God indeed, will in Machiuilian policie worship some God publikely, although priuately he careth for none. And it more fitteth the disposition of Antichrist to be secretly an Atheist, [Page 154] and openly an Idolater, then contrariwise although Bellarmine here doth hold the contrary.

16 But now perhaps you expect, that hauing freed this place of Daniel from Bellarmines corruptions and deprauati­ons, I should open vnto you the true meaning thereof, and shewe how this prophesie was fulfilled in Antiochus, who in many things was a type of Antichrist. And the King saith the Angell, Verse. 36. (or this King Hamelec, that is, Antio­chus Epiphanes, of whom I haue all this while entreated, name­ly, from the 21. Verse) hee shall doo what hee will, his will shall be to him for a lawe; wherein hee might seeme to be a liuely figure of the Pope, of whom it is saide, Sic volo, sic iubeo, slat pro ratione voluntas: And againe, Iudicium (que) est pro lege suum. And this was the ground of all his actions, wilfully follow­ing in all things his owne will. Then more particularly the Angell describeth his actions, both in respect of religion and policie.

His actions tending to irreligion (of which onely we are now to speake) are first summarily comprised, Verse. 36. and afterward more fully expressed. The summe is this, that hee should alter and abrogate all the religions of the Syrians, as well the false religions of the Idolaters, as the true religion of the Iewes. The abrogation of all the religions of the Syri­ans, is here called the magnifying himselfe, [...] aboue or against euery god, whose worships he did put downe. The prophana­tion of the Iewish religion ordained by the true God, the God of Gods, is here signified by speaking [...] great & swel­ling 1. Mac. 1. 43. 46. 2. Mac. 6. 2. words against him, which wee are to vnderstande of his blasphemous edicts to abolish the whole religion of God: both which we see performed by Antiochus Epiphanes. 1. Ma­cab. 1. 43. 46. &c. The same thinges are againe repeated, Verse. 37. & 38. First, as touching the goddes and religions of the Syrians in generall, whether true or false, he saith Verse 37. that vnto the Gods of his fathers he shall not attend, neither will hee listen to the desires of women: that is, as some expound, his wiues, who entreated the continuance of those religions wher­vnto themselues were addicted: so that neither the reuerence [Page 155] of his fathers, nor the loue of his wiues could stay him from following his owne will in abrogating their religions, neither will be regard any of the Gods, viz. of the Syrians, because hee will magnifie himselfe against all, in abrogating the religions of them all, whether true or false. And more particularly concerning the true religion of the true God, he saith Ver. 38. [...]. And as touching the God Mahuzzim, that is, the God almightie, and there he pauseth, in his place he will honour, euen a God whom his fathers knew not, will he honour with golde and with siluer, with precious stones and with Iewels; and (verse. 39.) hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, of the Almightie vnto a strange God, that is, he shall deale so despightfully with the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, that hauing abrogated his wor­ship and religion, he shall set vp in the temple of God the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius to be worshipped (as it is recorded 2. Mac. 6.) who was a God whom his fathers knew not, that is, acknow­ledged Strabo geograph. lib. 16. not, nor worshipped. For the Syrians worshipped A­pollo and Diana. And the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, Ieru­salem and other cities of Iewry, which had bene as it were the munitions and cities of God, hee committed them to the tuiti­on of a strange God, namely, Iupiter Olympius. The same prophesie in effect was before deliuered, Dan. 7. 25. See Tre­mell. in Dan. 7. & 8. & 8. 11. by conference of which places with this in hand, it is manifest, that by the God Mahuzzim, is meant the true God.

17 This prophesie therefore being meant of Antiochus Epiphanes, & fulfilled in him, cannot properly belong to Anti­christ or any other. Notwithstanding as in some other things, so in the premisses Antiochus may not vnsitly be thought to haue bene a type or figure of Antichrist. In so much that both the auncient Fathers haue vnderstood these prophesies of An­tichrist, and many also of the late writers (besides the Iewes) haue applyed the same particularly to the Pope. For besides that it is most true of the Pope, that hee doth what he will, see­ing Legi non subiac [...]t vlli. hee is subiect to no lawe, and no man may say to him, Sir why doo you so? The rest also after a sort may be verified [Page 156] of him, that both hee setteth himselfe against the Idols of the Gentiles, and also hath abrogated the true worship of God. And that in stead of Christ the Almightie God, he hath set vp in his churches, besides many other Idols, the abhominable I­doll of the Masse, a God which his fathers the first Bishops of Rome knew not, which notwithstāding he honoreth with gold and siluer, and precious stones, and hath committed the chur­ches, cities, and countries of Christendome, to the tuition and patronage of diuers Saints, who as they are indeed, so are they called by Paulus Ionius a Popish Bishop, the tutelar Gods of the Papists. Hist. lib. 24. in fine.

18 And these were his testimonies of scripture. In the next place, for want of better proofes, he slyeth to the authoritie of the Fathers as his last refuge, as though they testified that An­tichrist shall not be an Idolater, nor one that will suffer Idols. But I answer, that the Fathers do either speake of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles onely, and in that sence their speeches are verified in this behalfe of the Pope, who neither honoreth nor suffereth the Idols of the Gentiles: or else if they speake of all Idols and Idolatry in generall, when they say Idola seponet as Ireneus, or adidololatriam non admittet as Hippolitus, or idola odio habebit, as Cyrill, or adidololatriā non adducet ille, as Chryso­stome, they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalfe is bet­ter then the Pope. But indeed as the Pope is, so Antichrist in the scriptures is described to bee an Idolater, as hath bene shewed.

19 Hauing thus doughtily proued this Popish conceit, the Iesuit proceedeth to the disproofe of our assertiōs & expositi­ons of some places of scripture, and especially that of 2. Thess, 2. Our assertion concerning the doctrine of Antichrist, hee saith is onely built vpon the scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses. In token whereof saith hee, they alledge not one Interpreter or Doctor for them. But this is a malicious slaunder, witnesse this place which he mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where we 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 Romane Empire, which hindered, was [Page 157] taken out of the way, &c. Our assertions concerning Anti­christ, are groūded on the prophesies of scriptures expounded by the euent, which is the best expóunder of prophesies. And with our assertions the opinions of the Fathers agree, where they are consonant to the scripture and the euent. Contrari­wise, the assertions of the Papists concerning Antichrist, as they are repugnant to the scriptures and the truth of the euent: so are they wholy grounded either vpon the vncertaine (and many times misalledged) coniectures of the Fathers, who were no Prophets, and therefore being not able to foresee the euent, did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies: or else on the blinde conceits of Popish writers, who being deceiued with the efficacie of illusion, and made drunke with the whore Babylons cuppe of fornications, were giuen ouer to beleeue lyes. And whereas our writers expounding those wordes of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. 4. (who is lifted vp aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped) doo apply the same vnto the Pope vpon very good and sufficient proofes, and from thence do plainely conclude the Pope to be Antichrist, (for euidence whereof, I referre the Reader to the 5. chapter of my former booke.) He culleth out some stragling sentences out of some one of the vnsoundest writers of our side, (as their maner is) which he may best hope to answere. As though we had no more, nor no better arguments to proue, that the Pope aduan­ceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worship­ped, then these two: First, because he professeth himselfe to bee the Vicar of Christ: And secondly, whereas Christ subiected himselfe willingly vnto the scriptures, the Pope challengeth authoritie to dispense with the scripture. Howbeit the former of these two reasons hee depraueth, and the latter he is not able to satisfie. For Illyricus his reason to proue that the Pope ad­uanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, is not because he maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ, but this, because hee vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ, doth notwith­standing vsurpe greater authoritie, then the sonne of God claimed vnto himselfe, of which, that which Bellarmine Catalog. test. pag. 3. alledgeth as a second reason, is by Illyricus added as a proofe: [Page 158] Wherevnto Bellarmine is no otherwise able to answer, then by impudent and shamelesse deniall, either that Christ subiected Contrary to Galat. 4. 4. Luke. 2. 51 himselfe to the lawe and word of God, or that the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense with the scriptures, or that any Catholike (meaning Popish) writer hath said, that he may dispense with diuine precepts; both which notwithstanding I haue heretofore proued by many instances and most euident allegations. See the first booke. chap. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. For that which hee addeth of Christs subiecting himselfe to the prophesies, and not to the precepts, as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his pro­position, and of the other in the assumption, it is partly false and partly ridiculous, and indeede not worth the an­swering.

Chap. 15. Of the miracles of Antichrist.

1 WEe are now come to the eight maine argu­ment, which Bellarmine vseth to proue that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist; because forsooth those things which the holy Ghost in the scriptures hath foretold concerning the miracles of Antichrist, do not agree to the Pope & church of Rome. For concerning the miracles of Antichrist, the scriptures (saith he) mention three things. 1. that Antichrist shall worke many miracles. 2. what maner of miracles they shall be. 3. there are recorded examples. Of al which points I haue intreated heretofore, prouing from Bellarmine his owne grounds, that the Pope is Antichrist. And first that many signes and won­ders should be wrought by Antichrist & his adherents, which Lib. 1. cap. 7. they call miracles, the scriptures testifie, the euent hath proued, and we do confesse. And secondly, that all these signes & won­ders, howsoeuer he and his followers do boast of them, and in respect thereof contemne the true professors: yet are as the A­postle saith, lying signes and wonders, both in respect of the ende, which is to seduce and to confirme lies, & in respect of the sub­stance, which is counterfeit. For wheras Bellarmine addeth that they are also called lying signes in respect of the efficient and au­thor [Page 159] of them, which is the father of lyes, according to whose power Antichrist was to come, who as some of the Fathers affirme, was to be a notable Magician or sorcerer. This seemeth to be somewhat far fetched, vnlesse we will take the word [...] to be masculine (as none doth). Notwithstanding, because the Apostle ascribeth the working of these miracles to the power of Sathan, we will trace him in his owne steppes, not doubting to apply this note also to the Pope and church of Rome: seeing it cannot be doub­ted, but that as very many not onely of their Cleargy, but euen of their Popes, haue bene notable Magicians and sorcerers: so also very many of the miracles in the church of Rome, haue bin the operatiōs or illusiōs of the diuell. As for their Cleargy, who knoweth not, but that there haue bin fewe learned men among thē, who haue not bene knowne, or at the least suspected, to be coniurers, and skilfull (as some call it) of the blacke Art. But as touching the Popes, because it may seeme incredible, that any known Magician or sorcerer should be aduanced to the Apo­stolike See, as they call it: therefore it may be thought, that the sorcery & witchcraft of the most of thē, who indeed were sor­cerers, was hidden & vnknown. Notwithstanding euē in their owne writers there are recorded as knowne Magicians & sor­cerers aboue 20. Popes, diuers wherofgaue themselues wholy to the diuell, that in thē the prophesie of the Apostle might be fulfilled, viz. that they might come to the Papacie by the helpe of the diuell, or as the Apostle speaketh, 2. Thess. 2. 9. that their comming might be according to the efficacie of Satan: And as this hapned often, so especially about those times wherein An­tichrist in the Papacie was in a maner come to his full growth, that is to say, in Syluestex 2. & Gregory 7. and all the Popes be­twixt them, who were a sort of infamous sorcerers. And there­fore if any miracles haue bin wrought by such Popes, (as Saun­ders braggeth of many signes & wonders wrought by Gregory 7.) we need not doubt, but that as themselues were Magicians Demonsir. 20. and sorcerers, so their signes and wonders were wrought by the power of the diuell.

2 And thus Bellarmine through all the causes sheweth the miracles of Antichrist, to be lying signes and wonders. [Page 160] But to what ende I beseech you serueth all this discourse? Will Bellarmine conclude from hence that the Pope is not Anti­christ, either because there are no miracles in the church of Rome, which was the first point, or because those miracles which they haue, be not lying signes and wonders, which was the second? If this were his ende, why then doth hee not from this proposition as it were his groundworke, assume and conclude after this manner. By Antichrist and his adherents many signes and wonders shall be wrought (which they call miracles) as the scripture testifieth: By the Pope and his adherents many signes and wonders haue not bin wrought which they call miracles, therfore the Pope is not Antichrist. But Bellarmine durst not reason thus, see­ing the Papists bragge of nothing more then of their signes and wonders, which they call miracles. And therefore from this ground I haue heretofore inferred the contrary. For if it be a peculiar note of Antichrist and his adherents in these latter times to worke many signes and wonders, which they call miracles: then can it not be auoyded, but that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, and the church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist, seeing they alone do bragge of miracles. See the first booke. chap. 7. §. 1. & 2. Secondly, why doth hee not reason thus? By Antichrist and his followers, lying signes and wonders shalbe wrought: But by the Pope and church of Rome, there haue bene no lying signes and wonders wrought, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Indeed this would Bellarmine haue the simple rea­der gather from his words, and that is the drift of all that dis­course. But this he could not assume and conclude, because his owne conscience doth tell him that, which all the worlde knowes, that their church is full of lying signes and wonders, which they call miracles. Therefore from Bellarmines owne ground I reason thus: If it be a peculiar note of Antichrist and his Synagogue in these latter times to work many lying signes and wonders, then it must be confessed, that the Pope is Anti­christ, and the church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist, because among them are many lying signes and wonders: but the first is testified in the scriptures, and therfore the latter can­not be denied, seeing I haue proued that the church of Rome is [Page 161] full of lying signes and wonders, which notwithstanding they call miracles. See the first Booke. Chap. 7. §. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

3 It is plaine therefore, that of those three things which Bel­larmine obserueth out of the scriptures concerning the mi­racles of Antichrist, the two first doo fitly serue to proue the Pope Antichrist. Neither will the three examples of Anti­christ his miracles which Bellarmine setteth downe in the third place, disproue the same. For of these three examples, to wit, First that Antichrist, or at least his Ministers, shall make fire to come downe from heauen in the sight of men. Secondly, that he shall put life into the Image of the beast, and cause it to speake. Thirdly, that he shall faigne himselfe to die, and to rise againe. The two first (which indeed belong to Antichrist) doe fitly agree to the Pope (as hath bene shewed in the first booke, chap. 7. from the 8. §. to the ende of the chapter.) The third belongeth not to Antichrist. From whence notwithstanding, Bellarmine argu­eth thus. The third miracle of Antichrist (saith he) is, that he shall faigne himself to die & to rise againe, for which miracle especially the whole world almost shall admire him. But neuer did any Pope faigne himselfe to die and rise againe, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. I answere to the proposition, that no such miracle in the scrip­ture is assigned vnto Antichrist, but that it is a sond imagina­tion of the Papists, which by some of them, and namely by Lib. 3. de pontif. Rom. cap. 5 Bellarmine himselfe is propounded more fondly, to wit, that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die, and by the helpe of the diuell shall rise againe. For if his death be but counterfeit, he shall not neede the diuels helpe to raise him. Notwithstanding, they would grounde this miracle vpon those words, Apoc. 13. 3. And I sawe one of his heads as it were wounded to death, but his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondred after the beast. I answere, that in these words the holy Ghost speaketh not of Antichrist, & that he of whom he speaketh, doth not saigne himselfe to die, and rise againe. As touching the first of those two beasts described in this chapter, the former is not Anti­christ, but the latter. The former which is described vnto the 11. Verse, is the Romane Empire, especially vnder the perse­cuting [Page 162] Emperours, as hath bene shewed, euery part of that de­scription fitting the same. And that the latter beast signifieth Antichrist, it is in a maner confessed of all. Heare what Bellar­mine saith in the beginning of his tenth chapter, speaking of the Lib. 3. de Pontif. Ro. ca. 10. 16. 17. and 18. Verses of this 13. chapter of the Apocalyps, which are spoken concerning the second beast, Fatentur om­neo (saith hee) pertinere omnino ad Antichristum verba illa Ioannis Apoc. 13. & fuciet omnes pusillos cum magnis, &c. All men con­fesse, that those words of Iohn, Apoc. 13. And he shall make all both small and great, &c. do wholy appertaine to Antichrist. And in this very chapter how doth Bellarmine proue, 1. that Antichrist shall worke great signes, because it is said, verse 13. & fecit sig­na magna, and he wrought great signes. 2. that many of the signes of Antichrist shall be phantasticall, and onely in appearance, because it is said in the same verse, that he doth cause fire to de­scend in the sight of men. 3. that Antichrist shall cause fire to come downe from heauen, and make the Image of the beast to speake, because it is so prophesied of Antichrist, verse 13. and 15. Now if this be confessed, that the latter beast is Antichrist, then can it not be truly affirmed, that the former beast is Anti­christ, vnlesse we may say, that the former and the latter are one and the same. But that cannot be truly saide. For of the latter Iohn saith, And I sawe [...] an other beast. verse. 11. If it be an other, then is it not the same, and the great difference in the descriptions of both, doth shewe that they are diuerse beasts, The one arising out of the Sea, hath tenne hornes, the other arising out of the earth, hath two hornes like the Lambe. The latter exerciseth the power of the former, and that in his sight, causeth men to worship the former beast, whose deadly wound was healed, maketh an Image to the former beast which had a deadly wound, & liued. verse 14. Therfore the se­cond Vers. 12. beast which signifieth Antichrist, is not that beast which had the deadly wound and was cured thereof, nor yet the head which was so wounded.

4 Againe (to come to that obiection which Bellarmine ma­keth vnto himselfe, and doth not satisfie) this miracle and the two first doo not belong to one and the same subiect: if [Page 163] therefore the two first concerning fire and the Image, belong to Antichrist, then this doth not; or if this do, then the other two do not: but all confesse, that those two do belong to Anti­christ, therefore this doth not.

Herevnto Bellarmine would seeme to answere, that the former beast signifieth either the Romane Empire, or the multi­tude of the wicked, and that one (that is to say the chiefe head thereof) which seemed to dye and rise againe, is Antichrist. For saith hee, Antichrist shall be the chiefe and the last head of the wicked, as also of the Romanes. The second beast signifieth either Antichrist himselfe, according to Rupertus, or the Mini­sters and Preachers of Antichrist, according to Richardus and Anselmus. And therefore these three miracles belong either to Antichrist alone, or to him and his Ministers. In which answere of Bellarmine, we see that prouerbiall speech verified, that Great it the truth, and it shall preuale. Seeing the force and eui­dence Esdr. 341. of truth hath expressed from him in this place a confes­sion that ouerthroweth the popish concerning Anti­christ, and manifestly proueth the Pope to be Antichrist. Namely, when hee confesseth according to the true interpre­tation of the auncient Interpreters and Fathers of the Church, that the beast with seuen heads is the Romane Empire, & that Antichrist is one of those seuē heads: as also else-where he hath confessed that the whore of Babylon is the citie of Rome. From hence therefore it followeth, that Antichrist shall be the head, Cap. 13. not of the Iewes, but of the Romanes, that his chiefe seate or See shall be, not Ierusalem, but Rome, that the name of the beast is Romane or Latine, that Antichrist is not one parti­cular man, no more then the other sixe heads of the Romane Empire, but a state of gouernment, as the Kings were one head, and the Consuls an other, and the Emperours but one head, and the Popes and Papacie but one head, and lastly, that the head of the beast or Romane Empire, which is Antichrist, can be no other but the Pope of Rome. For of these seuē heads S. Iohn saith, that in his time fiue of thē were fallen, one was, & an other was not yet come. These fiue which were fallen, were the fiue first, viz. kings, consuls, Decēuiri, tribunes, & dictators. [Page 164] The head that then was, out of question was the Emperours, who were the sixt head, the seuenth (which is of the Popes) was not yet come: Which then of these seuen heads doth signi­fie Antichrist? surely none of the fiue first, for they were past before S. Iohns time: nor the sixt, which is the state of Empe­rours, for that then was, and Antichrist was not yet come; and as the Papists confesse, that was it which hindered the reuela­tion In 2. Thess. 2. of Antichrist, and therefore was to be done out of the way before Antichrist could bee reuealed. It remaineth therefore that the seuenth head (which is of the Popes) is Antichrist. For as touching the Imperiall state renewed in the West, the holy Ghost plainely saith, that the beast which was, and is not, though it be, as being but the Image of the olde Empire, is the eight, and is one of the seuen: that is, in name and title it is the same with the sixt, as Images beare the names of those things which they doo represent. If therefore Antichrist bee one of the seuen heads of the Romane state (as vndoubtedly hee is, and as our aduersary here confesseth) then can it not be denied, but that the Pope, who is the seuenth head, is Anti­christ.

5 The other interpretation, that the beast with seuen heads doth signifie the whole multitude of the wicked, is senselesse and absurd. For if the beast be the vniuersall company of the wicked, what is the world, which verse. 3. is said to wonder af­ter the beast? what are all the kinreds, tongues, nations which are made subiect to the beast, verse. 7.? who are all those inha­bitants of the earth that do worship him? doth not the holy Ghost plainely say, verse. 8. that they are those whose names are not written in the booke of the Lambe; that is to say, the company of the wicked and reprobates? When as Bellarmine therefore saith, that this beast signifieth either the Romane Empire, or the whole company of the wicked, wee may adde, but it signifieth not the whole company of the wicked. It re­maineth therefore that it signifieth the Romane state, where­of Antichrist is a head. But although Antichrist bee one head of the seuen, yet it followeth not, that the head which was as it were wounded to death, is Antichrist, but rather the estate [Page 165] of Emperours which then was. For albeit the b [...]ast with seuen heads doth signifie the Romane state in generall, yet in that place it seemeth to bee described as it was subiect to the sixt head. In the 17. chapter as it is renewed and subiected to the Antichristian state. For the beast (which he there speaketh of) which was, and is not though it be, was after to arise [...], and being the eight in order, was in name one of the seuen: on which beast as also vpon those waters, that is, nations wherof the old Empire did arise, the whore of Babylon (where­by is meant the Antichristian state) sitteth, that is, ruleth and raigneth as a Queene.

6 And that it may appeare that there is no necessitie that we should vnderstand this wound of Antichrist, let vs consi­der what wounds the Romane state had receiued, and was cu­red thereof. First therefore by the death of Iulius Caesar, and the ciuill warres therevpon ensuing, the Romane Empire recei­ued as it were a deadly wound, & yet recouered it so againe, as that in Augustus and some of his successors, it flourished more then euer before. And this some thinke to be the wound of the beast which was cured, whereof the holy Ghost here spea­keth, describing the beast by that which was knowne to haue bene done in the Romane state. The second wound which the Romane Empire receiued, was at the death of Nero, in whom the stocke of the Caesars ended: which being cut off, the succession of the Imperiall Crowne was vncertaine, and by the vncertaintie of succession the like desolation threat­ned to that Empire, which happened to the Graecian Mo­narchy after the death of Alexander the great; the Empire be­ing left as a prey for the mightiest. Neither was this wound cured vntill Uespasian obtained the Empire. For after Nero, Sergius Galba seized vpon the Empire, and enioyed the same but seuen monethes and seuen dayes. And albeit to establish the succession, hee had adopted Piso, yet was hee murdered by Syluius Otho, who succeeded him, and Otho after three mo­neths and fiue dayes was slaine by Uitellius, who also after eight moneths was deposed and put to an ignominious death by Uespasian: In whom the Empire which since the death of [Page 166] Nero had bene incertum & vagum, as Suetonius saith, was esta­blished, and as it were cured of the former wound, which di­uers learned men thinke to be vnderstood in this place. Others rather expound this deadly wound of the dissolution of the Empire in the West, Augustulu; being ouercome by the Gothes, and the Empire in the West lying voyd vntill Charles the great, in whom this wound was after a sort cured. There­fore although Antichrist be one of the heads of this beast, yet seeing he is but one of the seuen, and the holy Ghost speaketh of this Empire especially, as it was ruled by the sixt head, that is to say, the Emperours; there is no necessitie, nay, no proba­bilitie that by the head which was wounded wee should vn­derstand Antichrist, especially seeing Antichrist is afterwards described at large, and that by these notes among others, that he causeth men to worship the former beast, whose mortall wound was healed, verse. 13. and caused an Image to be made to the beast which had the deadly wound, verse. 14. which as appeareth also by the Image, was the Romane state vnder the Emperors; for thereof the Empire renewed is an Image.

7 But now suppose that Antichrist were this head which was wounded and cured as he is not, yet how doth it follow that therefore Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise a­gaine, seeing he speaketh not of a particular mans death and resurrection, as the Papists imagine, but of the wounding and curing of a state signified by the head. Neither speaketh he of death and resurrection, but of wounding and curing: neither is the wound and the cure counterfeit and faigned, but the wound is truly inflicted and truly cured; such, as was both the wound of the Romane Empire, either at the murther of Iulius Caesar, or death of Nero, or vanquishing of Augustulus; and also the cure in Augustus, in Vespasian, and as Bellarminee else-where De trans­lat. impe­ri [...] lib. 1. cap. 4. saith, in Carolus Magnus. If therfore neither Antichrist be spo­ken of in this place, nor yet he who is spoken of, doth faigne himselfe to die and rise againe; how is it proued from these words, that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise a­gaine?

Chap. 16. Of the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist.

COncerning the kingdome and battailes of Anti­christ, we reade foure thinges in the scriptures 1 saith Bellarmine. 1. that Antichrist arising from a most base estate, shall by fraude and de­ceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. 2. that he shall fight with three kings, to wit, of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and hauing ouercome them, shall possesse their kingdomes. 3. that he shall subdue seuen other kings, and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole world. 4. that with an innumerable army he shall persecute the Christians in the whole world: and that this is the battaile of Gog and Magog. Of all which seeing none agreeth to the Pope, it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist.

To these foure points I will answere, first ioyntly to them all, and then seuerally to euery one. For whereas Bellarmine saith, that these foure thinges are read in the scriptures concer­ning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist, I answere, that not any one of these foure is to be found in the scriptures, and therefore that this argument as it is the last, so of least force, and that his disputation standing now as it were on the tilt, he seemeth to drawe of the lees. Notwithstanding the three first hee would faine father vpon Daniel, as though hee in the 7. and 11. Chapters had prophesied such things concer­ning Antichrist. But I answere, that these prophesies had, and according to Daniel were to haue their complement be­fore the comming of the Messias, and therfore that the Papists may as wel with the Iewes expect the comming of their Mes­sias, as still to expect the fulfilling of these thinges in their imaginary Antichrist, the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes. Seeing as I said, these prophesies were to be fulfilled before the comming of Christ: and seeing the Iewes do stil waite for their Messias, because with the Papists they will not acknowledge [Page 168] these prophesies (which were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias) to haue bene fulfilled before the incarnation of Christ. The occasion of which errour of the Papists (whereat the Iewes also do stumble) hath bene an erro­nious interpretation of some of the Fathers, who vnderstand whatsoeuer is spoken of the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae, that is, the kingdome of Syria and Egypt (so farre forth as it tyrannized ouer the people of God the Iewes) figured by the two legges of the Image, chap. 2. and the fourth beast with tenne hornes, chap. 7. they vnderstand (I say) as spoken of the Romane Monarchy. And consequently whatsoeuer is spoken of the little horne, chap. 7. 8. 11. whereby Antiochus Epiphanes is most plainely described, they expound it of Anti­christ.

2 But the learned of our times haue made it cleare, although the Papists shut their eyes against the truth, that by the two legges of the Image, and by the fourth beast, is not to be vn­derstood the Romane Empire, and by the little horne not An­tichrist properly, but Antiochus Epiphanes. For these thinges which are recorded of the two legges, chap. 2. and of the fourth beast, chap. 7. do not onely sitly, but also properly and onely a­gree to the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae. And those things which are written of the little horne, do wholy & pro­perly belong to Antiochus Epiphanes, as the Papists themselues cannot deny. Porphyry that learned, though malicious enemie of Christianitie, perceiued Daniels prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. & 12. chapters, which the Papists vnderstand of Antichrist, so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, that he ca­uelled against the prophesies of Daniel; affirming that they were written not before hand of Daniel, but after the fulfilling of them by some one that liued in the times of Antiochus Epi­phanes. For so Ierome writeth of him: Contre prophetam Danie­lem doudetimum librum scribit Porphyrius, notans eum ab ipso cuius Praefatio­ne in Da­niel. inscriptus est nomine esse compositum, sed à quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Iudaea, & non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. And af­ter, tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, vt propheta incredulis hominibus [Page 169] non videatur futura dixisse, sed narrasse praterita. So fully and plainly is Antiochus deciphred in the prophecie of Daniel, that the authour of that booke seemed to Porphyrie, to haue written a story of Antiochus Epiphanes, rather then a prophe­cie.

3 As for Antichrist, he is not once mentioned or meant in all the prophecie of Daniel the which I deliuer, not as though I thought, that those things which the papists expound con­cerning Antichrist, could not for the most part be fitly appli­ed to the Pope: for not onely diuers protestants arguing from the papists owne groundes, haue out of Daniel prooued the Pope to be Antichrist: but also the Iewes, and namely R. Leui Gerson, whom Bellarmine citeth, chap. 12. expoundeth all those things in Daniel, chap. 7. and 11. which the papists vnderstand of Antichrist, as spoken of the Pope of Rome, whom he calleth another Pharao. And most true it is, that ex­cepting Antiochus Epiphanes, these prophecies doe best fit the Pope of Rome. And therefore I willingly graunt that, which both olde and new writers haue a [...]med, that Antiochus Epi­phanes may be saide to haue bene a type of Antichrist. A type I say, not in all and euery particular▪ (as though whatsoeuer can be said of Antiochus, the like may be said of Antichrist) but in some principall matters, in respect whereof he is a type. Sa­lomon the King of peace, Dauid the kingly Prophet, the high priests, which by offering sacrifices made attonement for their bretheren, Iosuae the deliuerer of the people, were types of Christ. And yet it were a ridiculous, if not a blasphemous course, to apply to Christ whatsoeuer is recorded of Salomon, Dauid, the high Priests, or Iosuah. Neither is this without cause set downe by the Schoolemen as a rule of Diuinitie, that theo­logia symbolica non est argumentutina. For those things which properly are spoken of Antiochus, cannot properly be vnder­stood of Antichrist, (if at all) but onely allegorically, and alle­gories proue not: and that force which they seeme to haue in prouing, is not to proue the same particular, but the like: for allegories are similitudes without notes of likenes. If therefore it were scarce a good argument in diuinitie, from a type or al­legory [Page 170] to proue the like, because similia claudicant: then must it needs be a sencelesse argumentation from a similitude, to conclude not the like, but the same particular, seeing nullum fi­mile, est idem, no like is the selfe-same. The principall matters which are recorded of Antiochus are these: that he was [...] an enemy to God, and a persecuter of his church, an aduancer of himselfe aboue or against euery God; or as the Apostle speaketh, [...], one that was [...] ruled by no lawe, but his owne wil, hauing a mouth speaking Dan. 7. 8. presumptuous things, and such like: which as they are recor­ded of Antiochus, so are they by the Apostles applied to Anti­christ, 2. Thess. 2. and do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope. But if we shall apply to Antichrist those things▪ which were pro­per to the person of Antiochus, and in respect whereof he was not a type of Antichrist, and from thence shall inferre not the like, which were too much, for like things are not like in all things, but the same particular which was proper to his persō, we shall be ridiculously absurd. As for example, if we shall say that Antichrist shall by craft attaine, not to his kingdome, but to the same kingdome of Syria, because Antiochus did so: that Antichrist shal fight with the kings of Egypt, Libya & Aethio­pia, because in Bellarmines conceit Antiochus did so, and such like particulars; then may we by as good right affirme, that Antichrist shall immediatly succeed in the kingdome of Syria his brother Seleucus Philopater, for that is expresly noted Dan: 11. 21. and in his place, &c. and consequently, that he shall be the sonne of Antiochus Magnus, that he shall be an hostage at Rome before he be king, as Epiphanes was: that he shall make three expeditions into Egypt, and in his returne homeward e­uery time shall hee afflict the land of Iury; especially in the se­cond expedition, when being hindred by the shippes of Chit­tim, Ioseph. an­tiq lib. 12. cap. 6. that is the Romans, he wreaked his malice vpō the Iewes, chap. 11. 30. and all the rest of the particulars, which proper­ly belong to the person of Antiochus, all which Daniel doth so fully and particularly describe, that hee hath seemed to some which knew not with what spirit he did write, to haue written a story rather then a prophecie of him. Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12.

4 But now let vs examine seuerally the particular instances [Page 171] from whence Bellarmine wold proue that the Pope is not An­tichrist. From the first he argueth thus: Antichrist arising from most base estate (ex humilimo loco) shall by fraud & deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. The Pope of Rome ariseth not from base estate, neither obtaineth the kingdome by fraude and deceit, therfore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is after his manner proued out of Dan. 11. 21. And in his place shall stand a vile per­son, and they shall not giue vnto him the honor of a king, but he shall come secretly, and obtaine the kingdome by fraude. I answere first, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist: and secondly, that this, proposition is not true of him of whom Daniel speaketh, and therfore that this allegatiō is both impertinent & vntrue. That Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, it shall appeare out of Da­niel himselfe. For Daniel speaketh of him that immediately in the kingdome of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater. For so he saith, in his place, who was described, vers. 20 shall stand vp a vile person, meaning thereby Antiochus, who, [...] is called [...], but properly as Polybius calleth him [...], vnto whom that which is cited out of the 21. verse, and all the rest of the chapter vnto the end, doth wholy and properly agree.

5 For the better vnderstanding of this place & the rest of Daniel, we are to know, that excepting one propheticall com­fort of the resurrection, cha. 12. his whole prophecie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares, that is to say, from the taking of Ierusalem by the Chaldeans, vnto the finall destructiō thereof by the Romanes: and his prophecie concerneth those kingdomes which should in the meane time be in the worlde. And those are either such terrestriall king­domes vnto whose tyrannie the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias: or else the spirituall kingdome of Christ, (the Messias & king of the Iewes) before which all the former kingdoms were to haue an end. Da. 2. 4. [...]. & 7. 11. &. 26 27. The time wherof, as also of the desolatiō of Ierusalē, is fore­told, cap. 9. 25. 26. 27. according to which time this Messias and king, is by the wise men acknowledged to be born Mat. 2▪ and his kingdom by Iohn Baptist the forerunner of Christ, was said to be at hand. Mat. 3. 2. and in like sort preached our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 1. 15. & his apostles, Ma. 10. 7. Christ also a litle be­fore [Page 172] his death confessed that he was a king, and in his death his title was the king of the Iewes. After his death & resurrection he professeth that all power was giuen him in heauen and in earth, and therevpon ascendeth into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God: which is noted in Daniel, chap. 7. 13. that after Christ the son of man was come into the worlde, he went vnto the auncient of dayes, and to him was giuen power, glo­ry, and kingdome, that all people, nations and tongues should serue him. Of both these sorts of kingdomes Daniel intreateth, chap. 2. and 7. And as touching the terrestriall kingdomes which tyrannized ouer the Iewes before the comming of Christ in the flesh, they are noted to be foure: the first of the Babylonians, the second of the Medes and Persians, the third of the Macedonians, the fourth of the Seleucidae and Lagidae. And of these foure Daniel prophecieth, either ioyntly of all to­gether, or seuerally of some of them. In the second & seuenth chapters, of them all together, resembling them in the second chapter by an Image, the golden head whereof figureth the Babylonians, the breast and armes of siluer the Medes and Persians, the belly and sides of brasse, represent the Macedo­nians, his legges of yron, and his feete, part of yron, and part of clay, resemble the Seleucidae & Lagidae: and in the seuenth chapter, the same foure kingdomes are figured by 4. beastes, the Babylonians by a Lyon, the Medes and Persians by a Beare, the Macedonians by a Leoparde, the Seleucidae and Lagidae, by the beast with tenne hornes.

6 Seuerally he prophecieth, either of the Babylonian Mo­narchy, or of the rest. His prophecies concerning the Babylo­nian Monarchy, which also were fulfilled in his time, are set downe chap. 4. and 5. Of the three other, and especially of the last (because that especially was to afflict the people of the Iewes) he prophecieth againe in the 8. and 11. chapters. In the 11. chapter, to omit the rest, the Angell promiseth, vers. 2. Dan. 11. 2. to declare the truth; that is, the true and proper sense & mea­ning of the aforesaid visions concerning the three kingdomes which yet remained, recorded chap. 2. 7. 8. And first as tou­ching the kingdome of the Medes & Persians, he mentioneth [Page 173] but foure Kings, because the rest did nothing memorable a­gainst Iuda, verse. 2. In the third verse he prophecieth of Alex­ander Verse. 3. the great, the mightie Monarch of the Graecians, and of the diuision of that Empire into soure principall parts, vers. 4. Verse. 4. which before was foretold, chap. 8. 22. Of which diuision Ie­rome writeth thus; Quo (sc. Alexandro) tricesimo secundo aeta­tis In Dan. 8. suae anno mortuo in Babylone, surrexerunt pro eo quatuor duces eius, qui sibi imperium diuiserunt. Aegyptum enim Ptolemeus La­gi filius tenuit, &c. Alexander being dead in Babylon, in the 32. yeare of his age, there arose in his stead foure of his captaines, who diuided the Empire among them. For Ptolemy Lagides held E­gypt. Philip who also is called Arideus, the brother of Alexan­der held Macedonia. Seleucus Nicanor, held Syria and Baby­lon, and all the kingdomes of the East. Antigonus ruled ouer Asia minor. These foure kingdomes were by mutuall conflicts re­duced to two vnder Seleucus Nicanor, & Ptolemy Lagides, from whom did spring the kingdom of the Lagidae & kings of Egypt on the South: and of the Seleucidae or kings of Syria & Babylon in the North. These two vsed to contend for Iudaea, which ly­ing in the midst betwixt them, became a prey to the conque­rers, and was greeuously afflicted by them. These two are the two legges and feete of the Image, chap. 2. and also the fourth beast with tenne hornes, chap. 7. for of these two kingdomes there are tenne kings reckened, which tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes, especially the tenth horne; that is, Antio­chus Epiphanes, who arose in the ende of the kingdome of this beast, namely, ouer the Iewes, chap. 8. 23. For in his time the people of God were freed from the tyrannie of the Seleucidae, by Iudas Macchabaeus.

7 These tenne hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer Iewry, are mentioned in order in this 11. chapter. First Ptole­my Lagides (the first horne) who is called verse. 5. the king of Verse. 5. Ioseph. an­tiq. lib. 12. cap. 1. the South, that is of Egypt, who shortly after he had gotten E­gypt, inuaded Iudea, and surprized the citie of Ierusalem on a Sabboth. Secondly, Seleucus Nicanor (the second horne) the mightiest of the Princes of Alexander, as he is described in the same fift verse. For although Ptolemy for a time helde Iudaea, [Page 174] yet after it was agreed vpon that Seleucus should haue Syria and therein Iudaea. Him succeeded Antiochus Soter (the third horne) so called, because he expelled the French-men out of Asia: whose sonne Antiochus Theos (the fourth horne) to con­firme a league betwixt him and Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt, tooke in marriage Bernice, the daughter of Ptolemy Vers 6. Philadelphus, according to that prophecie of the two legges, consisting of yron and claie mingled together, that they should mingle themselues together in the seede of man, but they should not cleaue together, euen as yron cannot be mixed with claie, chap. 2. 43. for euen so it followeth vers. 6. For howsoeuer they had combined themselues toge­ther by mariage, yet this coniunction helde not, and they which had any hande in it shortly after died. For Antio­chus Theos had a former wife yet liuing named Laodice, by whom he had Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus Hierax. This Laodice to reuenge this despite, poisoned her husband An­tiochus Theos: her sonne Seleucus Callinicus (the fift horne) slewe Bernice, her childe, and her traine: and Ptolemy Phila­delphus shortly after this mariage ended his life. But in his place, verse. 7. did arise his sonne Ptolemy Euergetes (the sixt Vers. 7. horne) proceeding from the same rootes with Bernice (that is, her brother) who to auenge the death of his sister, made warre with Seleucus Callinicus, and ouercame him, and ha­uing caused himselfe to be crowned king of Syria, retur­ned with much spoile, and many captiues into Egypt; and Ver. 8. & 9 Polyb. li. 5. Appian. in Syria. Ioseph. l. contr. Appian. Vers. 10. being stronger then Seleucus Callinicus, hee held the domi­nion of Syria for many yeares. But the sonnes of Seleucus Callinicus, to wit Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus, raised warre, verse. 5. 10. First Seleucus Ceraunus against Ptolemy Euergetes, and they both beeing dead about the same time, Antiochus Magnus against Ptolemy Philopater, the sonne of Euergetes. Of him (I meane Antiochus Mag­nus) the Angell prophecieth vnto the 20. verse: to wit, of his battailes first with Ptolemy Philopator, and those some­times prosperous, whereby hee recouered Syria, verse. 10. sometime aduerse, wherby he lost the same again, vers. 11. 12. [Page 175] Wherevpon Ptolemy being list vp becommeth the 7. horne, and killeth many of the Iewes, for which hee shall not pros­per, verse 12. After, of his battailes and victories against Pto­lemy Epiphanes sonne of Philopater, verse. 13. 14. 15. Of Vers. 13. 14. 15. Vers. 16. his afflicting the lande thereby that is Iewry, verse. 16. as being the eight houre: of his giuing his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes to mingle the yron and the clay (according to the prophecie, chapter 2.) therein pretending peace and friendship, but intending by her his destruction, although in vaine, she ioyning with her husband against her father, verse Vers. 17. 17. Of his expeditions into the Ilandes of Greece, and con­quering them. Of his warres with the Romaines, which brought shame vpon him, they making him to sit downe with dishonourable conditions, verse. 18. Of his ignomi­nious Vers. 18. Vers. 19. ende, namely in a Barbarian tumult for sacriledge, verse 19. In his place succeedeth his sonne Seleucus Philopater (the ninth horne) one who did pill and poll his subiects by great tributes and exactions, and sent to emptie and exhaust the treasury and temple of Ierusalem: and hauing set free his brother Antiochus Epiphanes, who was an hostage at Rome, and in stead of him sent his owne sonne Demetrius, is short­ly after poysoned by Heliodorus, suborned by Antiochus Epi­phanes, vers. 20. Vers. 20. Ver. 21.

8 Now in his place (saith the Angel, vers. 21.) shall stand a vile person, &c. that is, in the kingdome of Syria, a vile person shall succeed Seleucus Philopator as the tenth horn, which cannot be vnderstood properly of any other but of Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the rest of the chapt. to the end, is most fully & plainly described. For first he intreateth of his cōming vnto the king­dome: secōdly of his affaires afterwards: and lastly of his end. Of his comming vnto the kingdome he saith, that hauing no right of succession (for Demetrius was the heire) nor lawfull e­lection, by flattery & fraude attained to the kingdome, preten­ding himselfe (as Richard the third did) to be the tutor & pro­tector of the young Prince Demetrius, and Administrator of the kingdome during the minoritie and absence of Demetrius, who had bene sent in his stead as an hostage to Rome. [Page 176] Wherefore Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, vn­lesse we may say, that Antichrist was to be the immediate suc­cessor of Seleucus Philopater, which is ridiculous; yea, and Bel­larmine himselfe confesseth else-where, that in this latter part of the chapter, Daniel speaketh of Antiochus literally, who was a figure of Antichrist. This place therefore doth not proue Lib. 3. cap. 21. Bellarmines proposition, namely, that Antichrist arising from most base estate▪ should by fraud obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. Neither doth this proposition sit Antiochus, who is here described; neither is it agreeable to the description itselfe. For neither did Antiochus arise from most base estate, for hee was sonne to Antiochus the great, and brother to Seleucus Philopa­ter: Neither doth Daniel say so, but onely that [...] a vile or de­spised person should succeede Seleucus Philopator; which is to be vnderstood not in respect of his base estate and condition, but of his base maners and vile conditions, in regard whereof the holy Ghost calleth him, although a great Kings sonne, vile and contemptible. And so is euery wicked man, though migh­tie in the world, a vile and despised person in the eyes of the godly, Psal. 15. 4. The wicked man is vile in his eyes. And as Sa­lomon saith: The wicked man is an abhomination vnto the righte­ous. Such an one was Haman in the eyes of Mardoche, and Ie­horam Pro. 21. 27. Hest. 3. 2. King. 3. 13. 14. the wicked king of Israel, in the eyes of Elizeus. So that it was not the base condition, but the vices and base conditions of Antiochus that made him vile, in respect where of Polybius calleth him [...]. So is Seleucus Philopater, verse. 20. in the vulgar translation called Uilissimus, because of his base polling of his people, and not because hee did arise from base estate. Wherefore it is euident, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in this place, and that he of whom he speaketh, did not arise from moste base estate, as Bellarmine woulde beare vs in hand; vnlesse it be a most base estate to bee the sonne of a mightie King, who for his greatnesse was called Antiochus the great.

9 But will you see with one view the absurditie of this Po­pish argument. Hee proueth from this place, that Antichrist shall arise from most base estate, and shall by deceit obtaine [Page 177] the kingdome of the Iewes. But (say I) Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, but of Antiochus Epiphanes. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist. Be it that hee was a type not onely in some other things, but also in this particular: yet from hence we must inferre not the selfe same particular which is pro­per to the person of Antiochus, but the like, and that by way of allegory onely, which were but a sleight argument to proue so weightie a controuersie in diuinitie. Whereas therefore he in­ferreth from hence not the like (viz. as Antiochus obtained his kingdome by fraude: so shall Antichrist obtaine his) but the verie same particular, (viz. as Antiochus obtained the king­dome of the Iewes, so shall Antichrist obtaine the same king­dome of the Iewes) his argument is ridiculous: and yet this is not all the absurditie of this argument: for when as from the likenesse of Antichrist to his type, he would proue that An­tichrist shall arise from base estate, this assertion is not true, of the type it selfe. Yea but Ierome saith, that this place may better be vnderstood of Antichrist, Qui consurgere habet de mo­ [...]ica gente id est de populo Iudaeorum, &c. Who is to arise of a small nation, that is, the people of the Iewes, &c. and Daniel compa­reth Antichrist because of his base beginning to the little horne, chap. 7. I doe not denie but that Antichristes beginning might be base; but yet neither can the testimony of Ierome, neither doth that allegation out of Daniel, proue it. For Ie­romes testimony in this case, if it ought to be of weight with vs, it must be taken either as a prophecie, or else as a sit ex­position of Daniels prophecie, as I haue said heretofore. But Ierome was no Prophet: neither doth hee sitly expound Da­niel, who speaketh plainly, not of Antichrist, but of the suc­cessour of Seleucus Philopator. And it is a wonder that Ie­rome one of the most learned of the Fathers, should in so easie a matter be ouerseene. For seeing hee confesseth that the former part of the chapter is to be expounded of the Seleucidae, and that in the 20. verse is described Seleucus Phi­lopator, for so hee saith on those wordes (Et stabit in loco eius vilissimus) Seleucum dicit cognomento Philopatorem, filium magni Antiochi, he speaketh of Seleucus, surnamed Philopator, the sonne of Antiochus the great.

[Page 178] It is therefore most plaine, that when Daniel saith, and in his place shall stand a vile person; he speaketh of the next successour of Seleucus Philopator, meaning Antiochus; euen as in the 20. verse after he had spoken of Antiochus Magnus, he saith, and in his place shall stand vp a sender forth of an extortioner, mea­ning Seleucus. Neither doth Daniel say any where, that An­christ, or he of whom he speaketh, shall arise of a small nati­on, meaning thereby the Iewes: that which he speaketh de modico populo, vers. 23. is to be vnderstood properly as Ierome himselfe expoundeth it, according to the literal, that is, the pro­per sense, of the small company wherwith Antiochus surprised Egypt: neither can there be any such allegorical sense, as he see­meth to frame. Neither doth Daniel by the litle horne meane any other but Antiochus Epiphanes, who may not vnfitly in di­uers things be said to haue bene a type of Antichrist. For the terrible beast with ten hornes, doth not signifie the Romane state as the Papists would haue it, but the kingdome of the Se­leucidae and Lagidae: and by the ten hornes, not the ten Kings whereof Iohn speaketh, Apoc. 17. among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided; but ten of these Kings, viz. three Lagidae, and seuen Seleucidae, which tyrannized or ruled ouer the people of God. The tenth, that is to say, the last of them that had dominion ouer Iudaea was, not Antichrist, but Antio­chus Epiphanes, who in crueltie towards the people of God surpassed all that went before him.

10 Which I speake not as though this expositiō did much hinder our assertiō; for others which haue held the same, haue applied those things which are spoken of the litle horne, vnto the Pope. And surely if this fourth beast were the Romane state, and the hornes the rulers thereof, and the tenth or last horne Antichrist: then is it hereby very likely that the Pope is Antichrist, seeing hitherto hee is the last that hath ruled in Rome, and shall according to the Papists owne conceit conti­nue to the end. But the truth is, that the descriptiō of the fourth beast doth not agree to the Romanes, but to the kingdome of the Seleucidae. For this fourth beast was a kingdome which was to haue an end before the cōming of the Messias & his king­dome, [Page 179] chap. 7. vers. 11. 26. 27. So had the kingdome of the Se­leucidae, so had not the Romanes. 2. This fourth beast warred with the Iewes, tyrannized ouer them, and hindred their reli­giō & worship of God at Ierusalem, not only before the com­ming of Christ, but also before the purging of the temple, and restitution of religiō by Iudas Macchabaeus, cha. 7. ver. 25. 26. 27. So did the Seleucidae, so did not the Romanes. 3 Of the fourth beast there were but ten hornes, that is Princes that ruled ouer Iudaea, which is most true of the Seleucidae & Lagidae; but of the Romanes, after they had once obtained the dominion of Iury, there were many more then ten that ruled ouer the holy land. If any say the Romane Empire is figured Apoc. 17. by a beast with ten horns, I answer, that the ten hornes wherof Iohn spea­keth, Apo. 17. 12. are ten kings, amōg whom the Romane Em­pire was to be diuided, who succeeded not one another in the same kingdome, but were rulers of so many seueral prouinces or kingdoms at the same time: but these ten horns tyrannized ouer the same kingdome of the Iewes successiuely, as they are particularly described, chap. 11. And further, he that in Daniel is supposed by the Papists to be Antichrist, is one of the tenne hornes, but in Iohn not. 4. that which is spoken in Daniel of the tenth horne, doth fitly & wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth and last king of that kingdome, that ruled ouer Iudaea, but the same things cannot in like sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romanes. 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horne, chap. 7. with those thinges which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus, chap. 8. 23. &c. and chap. 11. 21. &c. to the end of the chapter, it appeareth e­uidently, that he & no other is that litle horne. For wheras Da­niel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdomes besides the Ba­bylonian, which should tyrannize ouer the Iewes by three beasts: in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdomes by 2. beasts. For the kingdome of the Medes & Persians which be­fore was resembled by a Beare, is here signified by the Ramme with 2. hornes: the kingdome of the Macedonians & Seleuci­dae, which before were represented by two seuerall beasts, are heere figured by the Goate Bucke, containing them both; [Page 180] for both the Macedonians and Seleucid [...] were Iauan, that is, the Greekes, Daniel. 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter, the king­dome of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had foure heads: so here it is saide, that after the great horne signifying Alexander the great was broken off, there grewe foure hornes in stead thereof, meaning the foure Princes a­mong whom the Macedonian Monarchy was diuided. The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. hornes, is here signified to be that kingdome which was chiefly erec­ted by one of those foure hornes, namely Seleucus, that is, the kingdome of the Seleucidae: and from him, namely in the end of their kingdome ouer the Iewes, came forth a little horne, that is, the king with the impudent face, chap. 8. verse. 9. 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth horne of the fourth beast. And in the eleuenth chapter without figures of beastes the same three kingdomes are described, the same tenne hornes reckned vp, the same tenth horne more particu­larly deciphred. 6. The people pusht at and oppressed by these hornes, is Daniels people, the people of the Iewes yet re­maining and inhabiting in Tzeby, that is in Iury and Ierusalem, not onely before the desolation of Ierusalem, but also before the reformation vnder Iudas Macchabaeus. But Antichrist, if we will beleeue the Papists, shall be the counterfeit Messi­as of the Iewes, neither shall hee afflict the Iewes, but by them the Christians, and that in the ende of the worlde, &c. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horne, doe precisely agree to the persecution vnder Antiochus. But these times are diuersly to be reckened in respect either of the beginning, or the end of the account. For as touching the beginning, we recken either from the defection and reuolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest, in the yeare 142. the sixt moneth, and sixt day, vnto the restitution of Religion, in the yeare 148. and 25. day of the ninth moneth, and this space is 2300. dayes, (that is 6. moneths, 3. yeares, 18. dayes) foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we recken from the pollutiō of the temple, and erection of the new altar, & abolishing of the daily sacrifice, to wit, in the 145. [Page 181] yeare of the Seleucidae, on the 15. of Casleu, diuersly in respect of the ende, viz. either to the restitution begunne by Iudas Ma­chabaeus, Ioseph. an­tiq lib. 12. cap 6. in the 25. of the same moneth Casleu, in the year 148. which space is called a time and times, and parcell of time, that is, three yeares and tenne daies: or if we reade a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57. and halfe a time, we may recken vnto the time of that victo­rie which Macchabaeus and the Iewes had against the Ar­mies 1. Mac. 14: 52. of Antiochus, whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed, and Antiochus his Armies were ex­pelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello Iud. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of Iury, which as Iosephus noteth, was done af­ter three yeares and sixe moneths: or if we recken to the time that Antiochus hauing heard of these and some other o­uerthrowes of his Armies after his owne discomsiture and slight from Persepolis, was striken by the hand of God, and promised all good things to the Iewes, it is 1290. dayes; if Dan. 12. 11. 12. to his death, 1335. By all which considerations, it appea­reth that Daniel by the fourth beast vnderstandeth not the Romane Monarchy, but the kingdome of the Seleucidae, and Lagidae: nor by the tenth horne Antichrist properly, but An­tiochus Epiphanes.

11 Thus much therefore may suffice to haue spoken of his proposition: now let vs briefly consider of the assump­tion. The Pope (saith he) ariseth not from base estate, neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdome. As touching the former I an­swere, that although it were false of Antiochus, yet is it true of the Pope, whether you consider the meane estate of the first Bishops of Rome, or the base birth and obscure paren­tage of diuers Popes. For that which Bellarmine alledgeth in commendation of the Primitiue religion, and auncient church of Rome, is but a vaine flourish, nothing appertaining to this purpose. 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdome by fraude and deceit, Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for graunted, then once called in question: and therefore cun­ningly passeth it ouer with silence. But if this were set downe in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist, to attain to his great­nes by fraude & deceit, I would make it manifest, that neuer in any estate more deep policy, and diuellish deceit hath bene [Page 182] vsed then in the See of Rome, wherby they haue obtained their supremacy, and maintained their soueraigntie ouer the Chri­stian world. Yea their whole religion of Popery and myste­ry of iniquitie, seemeth to be nought else but a packe of policy deuised by worldly men to deisie the Pope, and to enrich the popish cleargy. For wherevnto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons, their Iubelies, their doctrines of merits & supererogation, their purgatory, their trentalls of Masses, and praier for the dead, their pilgrimages and adorati­on of Saints, Images, and reliques, their licences and dispensa­tions, their thunderboults of excommunication, their oathe of allegeance and fealtie imposed on Princes and potentates, sub­iection to the Pope enforced vpon all sorts, as absolutely ne­cessary to saluation, their wilfull deprauations of scriptures, forgeries of Canons, counterfeit donations of Constantine and others, to proue the double supremacy of the Pope? Whervn­to tended his often maintaining of quarelles among Christian Princes, his warres inioyned them for the recouery of the holy lande, but that they being by these meanes weakened, might be the more easily subdued vnto himselfe: his Croisades and promises of heauen, to all those that sight such battailes as like him? Haue not their cleargy come to their riches, and the Pope to his greatnes by these and such like meanes? But be­cause the comming to his greatnes by fraude and deceit, is not set downe in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist, vnlesse it be by way of type and allegory in Antiochus, I will there­fore let it passe: onely let me put you in minde that the pro­phecie of Peter in the former respects is performed in the Pope and cleargy of Rome, who by fained words make mer­chandise of mens soules through couetousnesse. And this was Bel­larmine his first instance.

12 His seconde argument is thus to be framed. An­tichrist shall warre with three Kings, to wit of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; and hauing ouercome them, shall possesse their kingdomes. But the Pope of Rome hath not warred at any time (he should say, shall not warre, and that is more then hee is able to [Page 181] proue) with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, neither hauing vanquished them, hath possessed their kingdomes, therefore the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist. And in this argument Bel­armine doth so greatly please himselfe, that after an insulting manner hee breaketh foorth into these bragges: Hoc autem maximè refellit insaniam haereticorum, &c. This especially refu­teth the madnesse of heretikes, who make the Pope Antichrist. For let them say if they can, when the Pope hath killed the Kings of E­gypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, &c. What would this Thraso do thinke you, if hee had any good argument against vs, that thus insulteth vpon a meere dotage? For where doth the scrip­ture say, that Antichrist shall sight with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and that hauing vanquished them, he shall possesse their kingdomes? Forsooth in the 7. and 11. of Daniel. In the 7. chapter Daniel speaking of the tenne hornes of the fourth beast, he saith, verse. 8. I considered the hornes, and loe the last horne came vp, a little one among them, and three of the former hornes were pluckt vp before it. And after, verse. 24. ex­pounding the same words, hee saith: And the tenne hornes are tenne Kings of that kingdome, after whom shall arise the last (name­ly of the tenne) diuerse from the rest, and he shall abase three Kings.

But this allegation is impertinent. For I haue shewed that this fourth beast is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae; that the tenne hornes are those tenne Kings of that kingdome which tyrannized or ruled ouer Iewry; that the tenth or last of them that tyrannized ouer the Iewes, was Antiochus Epiphanes, who is therefore called little before his comming to the crowne, because of his vnlikenesse to be King. First because hee was the third and youngest sonne of Antiochus Magnus, his elder brother Seleucus hauing also a sonne called Deme­trius. Secondly, because he was to be a perpetuall hostage at Rome. For when as other hostages, which Antiochus the great gaue to the Romanes, were to be changed euery third yeare, he was to be a perpetuall hostage. And thirdly, because of his vile and base conditions. Now whereas it is saide that three [Page 184] hornes were to be plucked vp before him, wee are by those three hornes to vnderstand three kings, not of others, & those also diuers kingdomes, as of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; but three kings that successiuely had ruled before him in the same kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes, as being expresly called three former hornes, viz. of the tenne, verse 8. Yea but Antio­chus was a type of Antichrist. It cannot be proued that he was a type in this point, or if he were a type in this, we may not in­ferre the same particular as Bellarmine doth, for then those three kings mentioned in Daniel, must be reuiued againe, that Antichrist may make them away: but the like might be inferred, viz. that as Antiochus Epiphanes to make himselfe a way to the kingdome, did make away his brother and two o­thers that went before him: so it is not vnlike, but that this should be an Antichristian practise. It is well knowne that Gregory the seuenth, who resembled Antiochus in many things, to make himselfe a way to the Papacy, made away sixe of his predecessors by poyson. And it is an ordinary practise a­mong the Cardinalles of Rome that aspire to the Papacy, now and then to minister an Italian Figge to their Popes: that you may not maruell that there haue bene nine Popes in the time of Queene Elizabeths raigne, of whom the three next predecessors of the present Pope Clement 8. were so sud­dainly pluckt vp before him, namely Urbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocent 9. that I suppose their names haue bene heard of fewe among vs.

13 But the 11. of Daniel, perhaps will proue Bellarmines assertion. That allegation will proue nothing but Bellarmines wilfull blindnesse. Hee saith that in the 11. chapter vers. 43. Daniel explaneth who those three Kings are. Hee shall stretch out his hand ouer countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape, and he shall passe through Libya and Aethiopia, as Bellarmine readeth, but according to the Hebrew, the Lubim and Cu­shim, that is, the Libyans and Aethiopians shall be in his passages or voyages. Whence Bellarmine inferreth, that An­tichrist shall kill three kings, viz. of Egypt, Libya, and Aethio­pia.

[Page 185] Answere. 1. Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of An­tiochus, as I haue manifestly prooued. 2. although Antiochus were graunted to haue bene a type of Antichrist herein, yet the same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus, may not be applied to Antichrist. For then we must dreame that the world and the kingdomes thereof, must be brought againe iust to the same passe wherein they were when Antio­chus raigned, and the same kings to be reuiued; but some­thing like might be applied, that as Antiochus, in Bellarmines conceit, suppressed three kings, so Antichrist should be a sup­pressor of kings, which is true of the Pope: who besides di­uers kings deposed by his meanes, hath also depressed foure Emperours at the least, as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. 3. Daniel in this place is so farre from mentioning three kings slaine by Antichrist according to Bellarmines conceit, that he neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor of three kings, nor of the killing of any one king, but onely of Antiochus his spoy­ling of Egypt, hauing in his company the Libyans and Ae­thiopians. Whether therefore this argument of Bellarmine doth reproue our madnesse, or rather proue his folly, let any indifferent arbiter be Iudge. Now if Ierome or any other of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing, we are to esteeme it as an excrement of theirs, which we are to passe by, ra­ther then with the Cacouorae the Papists, to gather it vp as Cacouora, auis quae­dam est a­pud Indos, quae alteri­us auis asse [...] cla est: cu­ius vesca­tur excre­mētis. Sca­lig. de sub­til. fit foode for their soules.

14 And the like answere we frame vnto his third ar­gument, which is not grounded vpon the scriptures; but vpon the bare coniectures of some of the Fathers. For where is there in all the scriptures any word of this which Bellarmine saith he readeth in the scriptures, that Antichrist shall subdue se­uen other kings, and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole worlde? Forsooth Lactantius and Ireneus say so. But I neuer tooke their writings before to be the scriptures. Why then Ierome saith so vpon Daniel 11. 24. where Da­niel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt, that he did that which his forefathers neuer did; Nullus Iudaeorum abs­que Antichristo in tot [...] vnquam or be regnauit. These be Bellar­mines [Page 186] scriptures. But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings? Nay, the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures. The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh, were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea, as hath bene shewed. And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors, yet hee could not hurt the other sixe (for there were but nine besides himselfe) which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares. Yea, but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade, and the tenne hornes which thou sawest, are tenne Kings; these haue one minde, and they shall giue their power and au­thoritie to the beast.

No maruell though some of the Papists call the scrip­ture a nose of waxe, seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure, and giue vnto it what sense they list. Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three, or subduing seuen? Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wher­of Daniel doth? Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias: Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome. verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other. Iohn, of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided, who also were to haue their kingdome together with the beast. Daniel telleth vs what the little horne which was one of the tenne, should doo to three of the other nine, without mention of the rest, Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist, which is none of the tenne hornes, but one of the heades of the beast. If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel, and that Antichrist shall kill three of them, & subdue the other seuen, he may hope to proue any thing,

But what other scriptures hath hee? forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill. For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith, that Anti­christ shall bee a Monarch, and shall succeede the Romanes in [Page 187] the Monarchy, as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes; the Greekes succeeded the Persians, and they the Assyrians. And Cyrill saith, that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romanes. I answere, that for substance these Fathers held the truth. For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares, besides the Pope, who calleth himselfe King of Kings, and Lorde of Lords, to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth, who hath as they say, the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power; who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth, in so much that he taketh vpon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world. And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. gouernment of Rome, as it becommeth Antichrist, who is the second beast, Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast, Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt, I shall not neede to proue.

15 There remaineth the fourth argument. Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world, and this is the battell of God and Magog: but this agreeth not to the Pope, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. I answere to the proposition, that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture. Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. & 39. & Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist, nor of the per­secution of the Christian Church by him. But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie, and also prophesied of the comming of Christ; in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time, to wit, after their returne out of captiuitie, before the comming of the Messias, and withall, denounceth the iudge­mēts of God against the Seleucidae, who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor, and their adherents, who should be the chiefe enemies of the church, and people of the Iewes after their re­turne. For Gog signifieth Asia minor, hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof. Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria, built by the Scythians, and frō them hath that [Page 188] name. So that by the land of Magog, wee are to vnderstand Syria, and by Gog, Asia minor. And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel, were such as assisted the Seleucidae (who were the kings of Syria, and Asia minor) in their warres, either as their subiects, or as their friends, or as their mercenary soul­diers. And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor, were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes, by Ad Tre­mell. & Iun. in E­zech. 38. & 39. whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ: therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language, the mortall and deadly enemies of the church, are called Gog and Magog. And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names, Gog and Magog, to signifie the ene­mies of the church, meaning not the same enemies whereof E­zechiel speaketh, but the like enemies of the Church, which should afflict the true Christians, as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes. Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the perse­cution of Antichrist properly, but of Sathan (after he was loo­sed) his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell, and of Gods iudgements against them, signified by fire. And so much shall suffice to haue answered to this argument. For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog, neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Pro­testants, which he thought were more easie to answere: seeing in the former booke I haue sufficiently cleared those argu­ments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be An­tichrist: neither is the controuersie betwixt vs, whether euery argument that hath bene produced by euery one, doth neces­sarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist. That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall, I let it passe.

Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise.

HAuing therefore both by sufficient argu­ments manifestly proued that the Pope is 1. Antichrist, and by euidence of truth main­tained the same assertion against the argu­ments of the Papists: let vs now consider in the last place, what conclusions may vp­on this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further vse. For first, if this be true, that the Pope is Antichrist, as I haue proued; and the church of Rome that now is, Babylon the Synagogue of Antichrist: then all other controuersies betwixt vs and them, may be easily de­cided: their chiefe ground being the authoritie of their church, and of the See Apostolike. For then it is to be presumed, that those doctrines which are peculiar to the Pope and Church of Rome, are the errours of Antichrist; yea, and as the Apostle cal­leth 1. Tim. 4. 2. them, doctrines of diuels.

2 If the Romish church be Antichristian, then our sepera­tion frō it is warranted, yea, commanded by the word of God, and all returning to it forbidden. Apoc. 18. 4. Come out of her my people, least pertaking with her in her sinnes, you partake also in her punishment.

3 If the Pope be Antichrist, then those that embrace that religion, and ioyne themselues to that church, acknowledging the Pope to be their head, receiue the marke of the beast. And those that do receiue the beasts marke (especially after he is re­uealed) shall drinke of the wine of Gods wrath, and shall bee punished with fire and brimstone before the holy Angels, and before the Lambe. Apoc 14. 9. This therefore must serue as a serious admonition, and necessary caueat both to reclaime all tractable Papists, and to confirme all wauering and vnstayed Protestants. The former, as they tender their saluation, so to come out of Babylon: The latter, as they will auoid their endles confusion, to keepe out of Babylon. For not onely to retaine the [Page 190] marke of the beast wilfully after he is discouered, but to reuolt from the profession of the truth vnto Antichristian religion: it also is a fearefull signe of reprobation. For it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by Antichrist. Math. 24. 24. And the Apostle Paul obserueth, that Antichrist shall effectually deceiue them that perish with all deceitfulnes of iniquitie, because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth, that they might be saued. And therefore God shall send them strong delusions, that they should beleeue lies, that al they might be damned which beleeued not the truth, but delighted in vnrighteousnesse. 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. Whervpon Chrysostome also writing, hath these words, [...], Antichrist preuaileth with Castawayes or such as perish. And Ierome likewise, Ad Alga­siā quest. 11. They shall be seduced (saith hee) by the lies of Antichrist, who are prepared vnto perdition. But on the other side, those which re­nounce the Pope and church of Rome, and rise srō the graue of Antichristianisme and Popery, and follow our Sauiour Christ in the sincere profession of the truth, Blessed and holy are they for they hauing part in the first resurrection, shalbe freed from the second Apoc. 20. 6 death: And howsoeuer they are esteemed of the followers of Antichrist, as heretickes & schismatickes, which are to be per­secuted with fire and faggot, yet are they happie in their life whiles they ioyne with Christ against Antichrist, for such are called, elect and faithfull, and redeemed out of the world; and they are also blessed in their death, dying in the quarrell of Christ Apoc. 17. 14. against Antichrist: for of those specially doth the holy Ghost speake, Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are those that dye in the Apoc. 14. 4. Lord, &c.

4 If the Pope be Antichrist, then those that are found to be resolute Antichristians, that is recusant Papists; but especial­ly Iesuites and Seminary Priests, which are sent to reconcile men vnto the Pope and Church of Rome, that is, (as hath bene proued) to set on them the marke of the beast, & consequently to brand them to destruction, and all such as seeke to peruert & seduce others, ought not to be fauoured or spared in a Chri­stian common wealth. First, because they are limmes of Anti­christ, and therfore by the commandement of God, we should [Page 191] do to them as they haue done to vs. Apoc. 18. 6. Secondly, be­cause they are enemies to God, and traitors to Christian Prin­ces. They are enemies to God, not onely because themselues are Idolaters, and consequently such as hate God, Exod. 20. 5. but also because they labour to withdrawe others from the true worship of God, vnto superstition and idolatrie, and ther­fore in no case ought to be spared, Deut. 13. 5. 8. They are trai­tors also to Christiā Princes, being sworne vassals to the Pope their capitall enemie. For hee esteemeth all Christian Princes that do not acknowledge him to be their head, as schismatikes or heretikes. And as he vseth (so oft as he dareth) to proceede Antonin. sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 11. against such foure wayes, viz. by excommunication, deposition, de­priuing them of their temporall goods & possessions, and raising warre against them, so all Papists acknowledging the Popes suprema­cie, do hold both that he hath authoritie so to proceede against Christian Princes, and also that in his definitiue sentence hee Antonin. sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 10 cannot erre. And therforé if they put not in execution the sen­tence of their holy Father, it is not for want of treasonable will, and rebellious affection towards their Prince, but for lacke of meanes and oportunitie. As for example, when Pius 5. had sent his Bull of excommunication against our late Soueraigne Cupers. pag. 182. num. 8. Queene of happie memorie, therein deposing her from her crowne, and absoluing her subiects from their alleageance to­wards her, it is most certaine, that whatsoeuer many hollow hearted Papists pretended, yet fewe of them did acknowledge her for their lawfull Queene; and many of them thought it a meritorious worke to take away her life. And surely if not their persons, then much lesse ought their Antichristian reli­gion, the mysterie of iniquitie, be tolerated in the Church of Christ. For what fellowship can there bee betwixt light and darkenesse? or what agreement can the Temple of God haue 2. Cor. 6. with Idols?

5 If the Pope be Antichrist, and his Church Antichristi­an, then can there be no reconciliatiō betwixt vs & the church of Rome, we being, as often hath bene proued, the true church of God. For what agreement can there be betwixt Christ and Antichrist? Such neuters therefore shewe themselues to [Page 192] be n [...]llifidians and politicke Atheists, who would perswade men that both wee and they are the true church of Christ, and that the difference betwixt vs being in words rather then in substance, may easily be composed: but they might as well say that there is but a verball difference betwixt the Gospell of Christ, and the doctrine of Antichrist.

6 Lastly, if the church of Rome, which because of her large­nesse, calleth her selfe the Catholike, that is to say, the vniuersall church, bee notwithstanding the Synagogue of Antichrist: What infinit thankes doo wee owe to our good and gracious God, who hath not suffred vs to be carried away with that Ca­tholike Apostasie, as it were an vniuersall deluge, but hath ga­thered vs into the arke of his true church, making vs with the rest of his true professors his peculiar people. It remaineth therefore, that seeing God hath bene so gracious to vs, wee should not be vnthankful to him, but rather should walke wor­thy our calling, as it becommeth the children of the light, ador­ning the profession of the glorious Gospel of Christ, by a god­ly conuersation; to the ende that by the plentifull fruites of righteousnesse and true holinesse, wee may glorifie God our heauenly Father, stoppe the mouthes of our aduersaries, and gather assurance vnto our owne soules, of our iustification and saluation by Iesus Christ our bessed Lord and Sauiour; To whom with the Father and the holy spirit, be all praise and thankes-giuing, both now and euermore.

Amen.