M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. FIRST M. Downam telleth vs of two great aduātages that Bellarmine hath against him and all Protestants in this point. 1. In respect of his great learning & much reading. 2. In that he is to proue the negatiue part, so that it is inough for him, if he Bellar­mins ad­uantages in this cō ­trouersy. can but shew plainelie and euidently, that any one seueral & essential mark ascribed vnto Antichrist in the Scriptures, doth not agree to the Pope. All which wee willinglie acknowledg, and from hence doe inferre M. Downams ignorance and impudency, that whereas it had bene inough for Bellarmine to haue disproued him in one point, it is not inough for him that he is dispro­ued in all, as the Reader will easilie perceaue in perusing the particuler arguments. Likewise we acknowledg the con­trouersie to be of that importance and consequence, that it manifestlie conuinceth them to be the limmes of Antichrist The im­portance of this cō ­trouersy. who are in errour cōcerning this point: for this consequēce doth not onlie touch vs, if we were in the wrong, as M. Downam seemeth to insinuate by only naming vs, but it cō ­cerneth them also as fullie, since that it is euident that none [Page 6] but heretikes can charge any, and much lesse the chiefe Pa­stour of Christs Church, with so foule an imputation. Now how true it is, that all heretikes are lymmes of Antichrist, I need not shew, since that it is graunted on both sides. And therfore it behooueth M. Downam and his fellows to haue as great a will to cleere themselues in this behalfe, as it doth vs, and so much the more also, because we are but the de­fendants, and they are the slanderous calumniators; & like­wise, for that some of their owne brethren do much con­demne their insolencie and rash bouldnes in this assertion.

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

3. In which to make a good beginning, he corrupteth [Page 7] Bellarmines argument, by altering both words and sense: for thus he setteth it down: Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi, Downam corrup­teth Bel­larmines argumēt. 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 emulatiō of like honour, therfore the Pope is not Antichrist. Wheras Bellarmine endeauoureth to prooue nothing els in this Chapter, but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ, but only some that is con­trary to Christ, and contrary not howsoeuer, but in such sort, that he striueth with him for the seate and dignity of Christ, so that he would be accompted Christ, hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ: which is not to be opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour, but of the same and equall honour, which are far different matters. For who seeth not, that many things are like, which are not the same? or rather speaking in rigour, that nothing is like, that is the same? And so likewise of equalitie, there be manie things like, which are not equall. As for example, the vnitie of Christs seruants among themselues, is like to the vnion of Christ with his Father, but not the same, nor Ioan. 17. equall vnto it. And in this our question, who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ, as of any other, is like vnto him in honour, but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equall honour to that which Christ hath; as not to explicate other differences, it is euident, that whosoeuer is Vicar to ano­ther, acknowledgeth dependancie of another, which the principall doth not. Now then the whole controuersy being about this sense of the word [...], whether it may sig­nify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ, but also his Vicar or Vicegerent, no meruaile though Bellarmin wholy insisteth vpon the proofe thereof: and in this he sheweth not himselfe to be a sophister, but M. Downam proueth him­selfe to be a calumniatour and a falsifier, as is manifest. But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledg and amend this fault by affirming that [...] in composition, commonlie signifieth three things, opposition, equalitie, substitution, by which as after­ward he explicates himselfe, he vnderstandeth subordina­tion, which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth, and M. Downam proueth onlie by repeating the example of Musculus, & adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner, and saith in general, that Greeke writers and Lexicogra­phers [Page 8] doe teach see, as [...] proconsul, [...] proprator, or legatus praetoris, or, qui est vice praetoris, [...] the putting of one case for another. And in this sense (saith he) the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordayned insteed of the old, are called the Downam repeateth his fello­wes argu­ment, o­mitting Bellarmi­nes ans­were. [...] of them. But it is meruaile he saw not that, which Bellarmine had writtē against Musculus, who aleadged [...], as M. Downam doth, and Bellarmine answered to them both, that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captaine, but ordinarilie a contrarie captaine, as [...] is to make warre against, and sometymes him that is in the Captaines place, not as subiect to him, but as equall, as among the Latins Propraetor, or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor or Consul, but him who is in some Prouince, that which the Pretor or the Consul is in the Citty. And in this was Musculus deceyued, for reading in Budaeus that [...] signifieth Propraetor, he thought that it did signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor, which is false. Thus far Bellarmine. By which M. Downam might haue vn­derstood the cause of Musculus his error, whose authoritie, as it should seeme by that he citeth no other, he only fol­loweth: and in the other examples, which he bringeth, there is the same reason, because one case is equiualent with the other, and the Sacraments of the new law are not onlie equall, but also of greater value, and withall op­posite to those of the old law, with which they could not stand or be in vse, at the same tyme.

4. To Bellarmins second proofe out of Scripture M. Dow­nam X granteth the Conclusion, though he would faine wrā ­gle How An­tichrist is taken in the Scrip­ture. about 2. Thess. 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there, though he and all other graunt, that they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, and consequentlie he shalbe such as is there described. Likewise he would cauill about the place in S. Iohns Epistle, in which he saith the name 1. Iohn 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies, notwithstanding pro­fessed the name of Christ, as the heretikes of those tymes. Where he se­meth to haue forgotten, what he and Bellarmine haue agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. vpon, that the name of Antichrist is taken either properlie or commonly, as also the name of Christ, and consequently as the members of Antichrist doe oppose themselues to the members of Christ, contending which of them are to haue that appellation; so Antichrist properlie taken, shall striue [Page 9] with Christ whether of them is to be accounted trulie and properly Christ. And when S. Iohn speaketh of such enemies as professe the name of the true Christ, he meaneth only of Antichrists forerunners and members, which are only the members of Antichrist, and not properly Antichrist himself, who notwithstanding at the first, till he hath gotten credit & authority, will perhaps deale deceitfully, but afterwards will plainely oppose himself to Christ, as S. Matth. S. Paul & S. Iohn also doe teach in the place, which Bellarmine allead­geth, in which S. Iohn speaketh of an open & professed ene­my as is manifest. And M. Downam should haue answered to that place directly, and not haue run to others, and so bouldly affirmed, that S. Iohn speaketh only of hidden ene­mies, against the expresse place which he was to answere. To the third proofe, he only answereth, that if all Authours meane that Antichrist, shalbe such a false Christ, as shall plainely and XI directly affirme himselfe to be Christ the only Messias, then their affirma­tion Downam reiecteth all authors agreeth not with that Antichrist, whome the Scriptures describe; which is in effect to admit, that all those authors are against him, but that he vnderstandeth the Scripture better then they all: only he vouchsafeth to answere in particuler to his good friend Henricus Stephanus, saying, that neither he, nor any XII approued author denieth, but that Antichrist may signify him, who being an enemy of Christ, professeth himself to be his Vicar. Now you must suppose, that no Authors are approued whome M. Downam mislikes: and besides consider how any Author can take oc­casiō to deny that which they neuer heard brought in questi­on, and withall we are to note that (may) of M. Downams, which only importeth that the name of Antichrist may be applied to his mēbers; but now our question is, what is the proper signification of that word, as it is vnderstood of the chiefe Antichrist himselfe, and not of his members.

5. To the assumption, he answereth, graunting it in all, that the Pope confesseth of himselfe in word, but in deedes he saith, that the Pope in many things matcheth himself with Christ, and in some thinges aduanceth himselfe aboue him: which he saith, that he hath proued els where, which we are to examine in that place. Now it is sufficient for vs, that the Pope is See cap. 14. noe open enemy of Christ, as Antichrist shalbe. For of this [Page 10] it followeth euidently, that the Pope is not the chiefe An­tichrist, properly so called, which is all that Bellarmine in­tendeth to proue in this place.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. MAISTER Downam denieth, that Antichrist shall be one particuler person, and to Bellarmins first place of Scripture he answereth, that in that place of S. Iohn, Christ speaketh indefinitely of any false teacher, which should come to the Iewes Ioan. 5. in his owne name, that is not sent of God. Secondly he speaketh also VI conditionally, If another come. Thirdly he speaketh of those Iewes, to whom he speaketh, and not of those Iewes, which shalbe in the end of the world. In which exposition of his, and especially in the first and third point, he is contrary to Bellarmine. Let vs see ther­fore, how he answereth to Bellarmines reasons. First to the Fathers he saith, that none of them hath that word vno, as though it were not sufficient, that they haue others equiua­lent, and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar. legis cap. 12. expresly distinguisheth the chiefe Antichrist frō others, in that he is vn [...] maior ceteris, and they multi. And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him, vnum de hominibus. Secondly he sayth, that the Fathers vnderstand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall nūber of Antichrist: as though the chiefe & proper Antichrist may not be one man, because there will be others like vnto him, though farre inferiour in malice. Wherfore when our Sauiour speaketh generally of all false Prophets, no doubt, he excludeth not the chiefest of them, but includeth him in the first place, so that what­soeuer is common to all, doth most fitlie agree to him: and therfore it is noe meruaile though the Fathers take it, as spoken principally of him. But on the other side when our Sauiour maketh mention only of one, he is not to be vnder­stood of all. And this is the difference betweene the Fathers exposition, and M. Downams, that they obserue the first and he the second, and therefore it is no meruaile though they do not agree. Neither is it against the Fathers, that the Iewes haue receaued more then one; but it is against M. Downam, that they haue not receaued all that came: besides, that it is hard to shew, that so many of the Iewes receaued any one false Pro­phet, as those were that receaued the true Christ; whereas our Sauiour plainly affirmeth, that they shall generally re­ceaue [Page 19] him, of whō he speaketh. Wherfore thirdly, he telleth the Fathers roundly, that they had no reason to restraine those words Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. vnto Antichrist alone, & against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet, in his paraphrase, who expoundeth it thus: [...] &c. but if any other come: As though this Poets authority were e­quall to all the Fathers, or ( [...]) might not signify aliquu, or quidā, aswell as [...]ll [...], or quis, some, or acertayne, aswell as any, espe­cially in a Poet, who is sometime constrained to straine the sense, to make vp his verse. Lastly he addeth, if these answeres of his will not suffice, thē yet he will not yield, except he see first proued, that whatsoeuer those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist, is true. But I hope he will be better aduised, and thinke it suf­ficient, that whatsoeuer our Sauiour saith of Antichrist is true, and that in vnderstanding his meaning, we must ra­ther belieue such learned men as haue the authority of the Fathers on their side, thē those that trust only to their owne wits, hauing neither more learning nor iudgment, then the other. For I perswade my selfe, that M. Downam wil not pre­ferre himselfe before Bellarmine in either.

2. To the first confirmation he answereth, that when VII alius is taken definitely, as Io. 18. 16. & 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true; but where it is vsed indefinitely, as Iob 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place, then it is not. And by his citing of the Greeke word in the first sense, with an article, and in the second without, it Downam mistaketh Bellar­mine. should seeme, he would haue that to be the signe, in whether sense it is to be taken. But all this discourse proceedeth from want of vnderstanding Bellarmines confirmation; for he go­eth not about to proue, that our Saniour speaketh of the cheife and proper Antichrist, but this supposed, gathereth that he shallbe one particuler man, for that he opposeth him as one person, to himselfe, who was one particuler per­son also. To which M. Downam answereth not, but onlie denieth the supposition, as though Bellarmine had gone about to proue that with this confirmation: neither doth that rule of the greeke article hould alway, especially in M. Dow­nams sense and opinion, as we shall see a little after. To the second confirmation, he denieth, that Christ foretel VIII leth, that Antichrist shalbe receaued of the Iewes for their Messias. First because his speach is conditionall, and onlie sheweth them, what in respect [Page 20] of their present disposition, they were ready to doe. As though this were not inough for Bellarmines confirmation: for it is cer­tayne they would not haue receaued him as their Messias, if he were not a particuler man, which is all that Bellarmine in­tendeth to proue Now, besides in the Scripture, the word (if) somtime signifieth (when) which the Fathers iudge al­so (If) for (when) Esay. 4. 4. Ioan 14. 3. to be in this place. Secondly M. Downam saith, that the word alius, is indefinite. But that is onlie his owne interpre­tation against the Fathers. Thirdly he saith, that our Sauiour did not say, that they would receaue him for their Messias, but so he is to be vnderstood. For that they were to receaue him, as they were bound, and refused to receaue our Sauiour, for of this he speaketh. Fourthly he saith, that the Iewes, to whome, & of whome our Sauiour speaketh, shall not be aline at the comming of the great Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Papists themselues. But M. Downam should haue remembred, that not a whole leafe before, he himselfe said, that Bellarmine, and the rest of the Papists vnderstand Christ to speake of those Iewes, which shalbe in the end of the world. To the third Confir­mation, first M. Downam saith, that it would proue Antichrist VIII to be us false Prophet: which is true, if he speake of the infe­our sort of false Prophets. After he giueth another exposition that he shall come vnsent of God, or as Lyra sayth, that he shall not haue testimonies from God, as Christ had: neither of which are contra­ry to Bellarmines exposition, but rather both included in it. But besides the negatiue, he shall also haue the affirmatine, as both our Sauiour & S. Paul saith, against whome M. Dow­nams argument concludeth not, which is thus: The Iewes ex­pect their Messias from God, and consequently, he shall professe him­selfe to be sent from God; for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say, that he is their God himselfe, not sent by any other person, for that he will deny the Trinity: or though at the first he should deale otherwise, it is certaine, that at length, he will extoll himself aboue all Gods, as S. Paul saith, and consequently then he will professe himselfe to come in his owne name, for that he acknowledgeth no Superiour or equall in whose name he should come. To the fourth Cōfir­mation he answereth, that because our Sauiour speaketh conditio­nally VIII and indefinitelie, there is not so much as any shew of reason in it. [Page 21] But Bellarmine proued, that our Sauiour spake definitely of the chiefe and proper Antichrist, and though he speaketh conditionally, his confirmation is in force, for that hinde­reth not the particularity of him, whom he speaketh of.

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

4. But when he commeth to that part of S. Epiphanius his obseruation which maketh to the purpose, he hath little Whē the Greek ar­ticle signi­fieth a particuler thing. to say against either of them both. For S. Epiphanius his rule, as M. Downā interpreteth it, is this: VVhere the article is added vnto some definite and notable thing, there is alway confirmation by the article. which confirmation he will haue to be, that the word is not to be vnderstood indefinitly or indifferently of any. Which interpretation cannot stand with S. Epiphanius his wordes, which doe suppose, that there is no doubt, but that the word doth signify of it selfe, some definite, & notable thing, and yet the article is added to adde some other confirmation, which can be only the particularity, as Bellarmine concludeth. So that Epiphanius and Bellarmine agree very well, and Doctor Downam cannot otherwise answere Bellarmines argument, but by impugning S. Epiphanius his rule, which he doth by de­niyng two of his examples, for the other was too euident; and those two he first refuteth by our English phrases, in which we will easilie grant that M. Downam hath more skill then S. Epiphanius or Bellarmine, so that he will graunt vs. that they haue more skill then he in Greeke, out of which Bellarmines argument is drawen. Secondly he alleadgeth 2. Tim. 2. 17. [...], the man of God, and Luke 11. 24. [...], the vncleane spirit, but these are frō the purpose since that neither place speaketh of the most eminent man of God, nor of the most eminent vncleane spirit, which is ne­cessary for S. Epiphanius his rule, who only speaketh of [...], which M. Downam translateth not well in the posi­tiue degree, and cannot deny the rule it selfe, which is con­firmed by all the examples which he bringeth of Apostle, Poet, Orator, and VViseman, and the same is euident of King, Man &c. when we only speake of the most eminent King, Man &c. as S. [Page 22] Paul doth here of the most eminent Antichrist. Now as for the second part of S. Epiphanius his rule, which M. Downam translateth thus; but without the article, it is to be taken of any one in­definitly, that is indeterminately, we graunt it him, when it is the name of some definite and most notable thing, of which S. Epiphanius speaketh, but when it is only an Adiectiue, or a Pronowne, as [...] is, thē it is out of S. Epiphanius his rule, e­specially when by some other circumstances, it is sufficient­ly declared, that some particuler person or thing is meant, as it happeneth in our case.

5. Concerning the third place, it pleaseth M. Downam to X be a little merry with Bellarmine, saying, that he thought the ar­gument drawne from the article to good to goe for one, and so deuided it 1. Iohn 2. into two. And yet he knew well inough that Bellarmine did not draw his argument from the article, but from places of Scripture, or rather bringeth many places of Scripture, to make one argument. But in good earnest I meruaile, why M. Downam troubleth himselfe so much with an argument already answered in the former: for first he bringeth forth 2. Thess. 2. 7. [...], he that hindereth, which signifieth the state and succession of the Roman Emperours. As though this did signify the most notable Emperour, which is necessary for to verify S. Ephiphanius his rule. After this, he alleadgeth Matth. 1. 16. 18. [...] vpon this rock, by which he saith, the Papists vn­derstand the whole succession of Popes, and yet there is not only the article, but also the pronowne demonstratiue. But M. Downam should haue considered, that the Papists do not otherwise vnderstand the place of the whole succession of Popes, then by a necessa­ry consequence, that whatsoeuer is giuen to one Pope, is giuen to all, and so this speach being vsed to S. Peter, as Pope, is by consequence to be vnderstood and verifyed of all the rest. After this, he commeth back againe to 2. Thess. 2. 3. which he had handled so largely before, and saith, that some Downam mistaketh Bellarmi­ne and S. Augu­stine. doe vnderstand the Man of Syn, of the whole multitude of those who toyne with Antichrist, and addeth, that Augustine reciteth this opinion, and is so far from misliking it, that Bellarmine alleadgeth it as Augustines. At which ouersight of his I much meruaile. For neither doe those Authors speake of the Mā of sinne, but of the Apostasie or reuolt: nor doth Bellarmine attribute the opinion to S. Augu­stine, [Page 23] as M. Downam or any other may easily see, if it please them to looke vpon the place in this Chapter, §. XXIII. yet M. Downam goeth on with his examples of the VVoman, and the Harlot out of the Apoc. 12. 6. and 17. 1. 18. by which are sig­nified the Church of Christ, and the Cittie or Church of Antichrist. And yet he cannot choose but know, that first they signify those women, which were shewed to S. Iohn in the forme of parti­culer VVomen: and besides that which is signified by the women, is also as particuler, as the nature of those thinges doe permit, the Church of Christ in that tyme, of which S. Iohn speaketh, and the materiall Cittie of Rome, which is a particuler Cittie.

6. At length he commeth to the place which Bellarmine citeth, and he maketh the Apostle to reason thus: VVhen the 1. Ioan. [...]. Downam corrupteth the text of Scripture. Antichrist is come, it is the last houre, now Antichrists are come: therfore now is the last houre. Where I meruaile how he durst be so bould with the holy Scripture, as to change (commeth) into (is come) If he saith that S. Iohn might not haue 4. termini. termes in his ar­gument, he should rather haue said, that S. Iohn did not ar­gue at least in forme, but rather that he did vse a more briefe and compendious manner of reasoning, by putting downe two arguments, almost in two lines, as indeed he doth. For if M. Downam will needes bring it into forme, it is thus: VVhen the great Antichrist commeth, it is the last houre. But now he com­meth. Ergo &c. the minor which might seeme obscure he pro­ueth thus: The great Antichrist is then said to come, when many are be­come Antichrists. But we see many such now. Ergo &c. And then he repeateth his former conclusion: Therefore it is the last houre. After this, M. Downam goeth to the 22. v. where S. Iohn saith: This is the Antichrist, [...], which denyeth the Father and the Sōne. Out of which there can no more be gathered, then that Antichrist shall deny both the Father and the Sonne: for S. Iohn speaketh not generallie of euery one, that denieth Iesus to 1. Iohn 4. 5. be Christ, as M. Downam affirmeth. Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. Iohn only affirmeth, that it is the spirit of Antichrist to denie Christ, and that he was to come in himselfe, and was then in the world in his members: and the like he repeateth Epist. 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come, were 2. Iohn 7. members of the chiefe Seducer and Antichrist, which was [Page 24] to come after, and teach that doctrine more then any of the former. The rest which M. Downam hath in this place, be the obiections which Bellarmine maketh, & solueth, as we shall see not long after.

7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth, that Da­niel XI speaketh not of Antichrist at all, which he proueth by the autho­ritie of the learned of our times, but nameth not any: perhaps be­cause Dan. 7. 11. & 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those, which Car­dinall Bellarmine cited, especially to his good Maisters Calwin. the Magdclurgenses, and Beza. Afterward he proueth the same Downam peruerteth Daniel egregiou­sly. with reason, for that Daniel describeth him, whome M. Downam will haue to be Antiochus only as the tenth, and Cardinall Bellar­mine maketh him the cleauenth, as if it were a beast of cleauen hornes: which trulie is a strāge bouldnes in M. Downam, the words of Daniel being so cleere: for hauing said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten hornes, he forth with added [...]. 8. Consideraham cornua, & ce [...] cor [...]u aliud par [...]ulum orium est de medio eorum &c. I did consider the hornes (no doubt the ten, which he had said that the beast had) and behould another little horne rose vp in the mydst of thē, so that he distinguisheth it frō the other ten by three notes. 1. calling it another. 2. a little one, no doubt in respect of the other ten: and 3. that it rose vp in the midst of them, signifying that they appeared before this: and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered, by that it arose in the midst, and not in the same place, as it should haue done, if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egipt, as M. Downam would haue it. Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Prouinces, and at one time, for otherwise this last horne could not haue risen in the midst of them. And a­gaine v. 20. he that expounded the visiō to Daniel saith thus; Et de cornibus decem, quae habebat in capite, & de alio quod ortū fuerat &c. And of the ten hornes, which he had on his head, and of the other which arose &c. cā any thing be more plaine, thē that the other which arose was none of the ten? But v. 24. more plainly, porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges erūt. & alius consurget post eos, & ipse potentior erit priorib [...], &c. Moreouer the ten hornes of his kingdome, shalbe ten Kings, and another shall arise after them, & he shalbe more potent thē the former &c. Now what a strange man [Page 25] is M. Downam to say, that he is the tenth. And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest, as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffiuelie euer the Iewes, and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne, of which we shall haue Chap. 16. occasion to speake hereafter. Now it is sufficient to note, that Bellarmine addeth that of the subuing seauen, out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps, togeather with the 7. of Daniel, for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. hornes, but with this difference, that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be togeather with the 10. hornes, 7. heads, with 7. diadems, & in the 13. there be also 7. heades, & vpon the hor­nes 10. diadems; of which difference in the diadems, that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten, the reasō is, for that Antichrist shall kill three Kinges, and so there shall only 7. remayne. But of this wee shall likewise haue occasion to speake more heereafter. Now therefore, let vs goe forward with M. Downam who saith, that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of, and Antichrist be by him figured, it followeth not, that Antichrist shalbe a particuler man, as Antiochus was, for that the likenes doth not hould in all thinges, but only in those in res­pect whereof the type is a figure, as the high Priest of the Iewes was a fi­gure of Christ, and yet they were many. Melchrsedeth was (as Papistes say) a figure of theyr Priestes, and yet was but one. Iosuah, Dauid & Sa­lomon types of Christ, and yet not like him in all. As though Bellarmine said, that Antichrist shalbe like Antiochus in all thinges, or in any other thing, then that which is set downe in the Scripture, and confirmed againe in the new Testament, & so vnderstood by the Fathers, as in his victories, and such other circumstances, that cannot agree to many, but only to one particuler man as Antiochus was, and Antichrist shal­be.

8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth, that S. Iohn & XII Daniel speake of diuers matters. For confirmation wherof he denieth againe the 11. horne in Daniel, adding this proofe, Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast, were abeast of 11. hornes. To which it is easie to answere, that before that little horne arose, that beast is described with 10. hornes, and after he had but 7. left, for three of them were pulled vp by this little horne, and by See cap. 1 [...] this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kinges in [Page 26] Daniel and S. Iohn is ouerthrowne. After he commeth to the tyme of the persecution of Antiochus & Antichrist, & for the former he graunteth, that it endured only from the 15. day of the moneth Casleu, in the 145. yeare of the Kingdome of the Seleu­cidae 1. Macah. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the moneth Casleu, in the yeare 148. 1. Macab. 4. 52. which make 3. yeares and ten daies, which is all that Daniel assigned by a time, and times, and parcell of a tyme. Where he maketh bould with Daniel, changing halfe a tyme vnto a parcell of a tyme: for the Prophet saith plain­ly Downam corrup­teth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. vsque ad tempus, & tempora, & di [...]diunt temporis, and againe cap. 12. v. 7. he saith, that the Angell swore by him that lyueth for euer, quia in tempus & tempora, & dimidium tem­poris, and after he counteth it also by dayes, dies mille duceuts [...]naginta, and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from ta­king away so much as he thinketh necessary, for to make his interpretation good. But when he commeth to the Apoca­lyps, See cap. 8. there he will not haue the number to be litterallie vnder­stood, because it made too much against him, who will haue Antichrists raigne to endure many hundred yeares, & not only 42. monethes, as S. Io. affirmeth cap. 13. v. 5. which cap. 12. v. 6. he counteth also by daies 12 [...]0. and v. 14. with the verie same wordes of Daniel, a tyme, and tymes, and halfe a tyme: and v 12. a little tyme, which is the short tyme he also speaketh of cap. 17. v. 10. Lastly he commeth to the Fathers, XIII and it is strāge to see how light he setteth by their authority, Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. saying, that no sound argument can be drawen from it: and yet he would make a shift to seeme to say something, repeating that which he had said before, that the Fathers doe not expre­sly say, that he shalbe but one, and then, that some of them doe expound Matth. 24. (where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number) of Antichrist. To both which I haue already an­swered, that the Fathers vse other wordes equiualent, and the place of S. Matth. is chiefly to be vnderstood of the chiefe and proper Antichrist. Finally he would faine shift of those two proprieties of Antichrist, which Cardinall Bellarmine a­leadgeth out of the Fathers, in his proofe: and to the first, though faintly he affirmeth, that it might all be said of the whole successiō of Popes; but he saw himselfe how false that was & therfore he would haue willingly denyed the assertiō [Page 27] of the Fathers, and yet he durst not aduenture vpon that neither, saying, that he will not thereof dispute. Where it is pit­tifull to see how poore M. Downam was met withall on euery side, and remained so perplexed, that he could not tell which way to turne himself. But when he commeth to the second proprietie, he saith, that he will take heed, how he commeth any more into such perplexity, and so he thinketh better to craue pardon for this tyme, and referre it till another mee­ting, See cap. [...]. at which you shall heare what he will be able to say for himselfe. In the meane tyme, he will trie his cunning, whether it will serue him to reach Cardinall Bellarmine one little veny at the least, since he hath byn soundly thwaked & cudgelled by him, and at last made to run out of the battaile with a broken head; and so he layeth downe his defensiue weapons, and betaketh himselfe to the offensiue, bringing the arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth out of other He­retikes, as though they were his owne.

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

10. After this, he beginneth to reply to Cardinall Bellar­mines XIV answere, saying, that he cannot deny either the propositiō or the assumption, & that he only distinguisheth of the former part of the assump­tion: which I cannot thinke that M. Downam said for any disgrace to the solution; for if there be any fault in that kind of answering, it will redound to the disputer, who commit­teth a vice in arguing which is called Equiuocation, & the answerer that findeth it out, is worthie of cōmendation. But [Page 28] M. Downam goeth about to ouerthrow the distinction, with impugning first the explication, which Bellarmine vseth by the similitude of Christs comming, which it pleaseth M. Downam to call his first proofe, and to note out of Plato, that it is a most slippery argument. But neither Plato nor he will deny, but that it is a good kind of explication, which is all that Bellarmine vsed it for, as M. Downam might haue easily consi­dered, seeing Bellarmine begin to proue in two sortes straight Downam taketh Bellarmi­nes expli­cation, & answere for his argumēt. after. But you must giue one, that hath an ill cause in hand leaue to seeke to help himselfe by all the trickes, and fetches he can inuent, for it was not without a further purpose, that M. Downam would needes haue Bellarmine proue, and not answere in this similitude, if you consider his wordes. In which similitude (saith he) there is no proportion, vnlesse that which is in question be taken for graunted, namely that Antichrist is but one par­ticuler person, as Christ is. So that there is proportion in it, if Antichrist may be said to be a particuler person, which wil­be alwaies lawful for Bellarmine, or any other defendant to af­firme, till his Aduersary driue him from that assertion by some forcible argument, and likewise to explicate in what sense he saith so, by some example, which his Aduersaries themselues cannot deny. Wherfore M. Downam commeth to the protasis, or proposition of the similitude, and saith plainly, that it is vntrue: which he proueth first, for that the Holy Ghost maketh a kind of opposition betwixt Gods sending of the Prophets, and the comming of Christ. As though all kind of opposition did make that pro­position vntrue, or rather some kind of opposition were not necessary to make it true, as of the figure, and that which is prefigured, the forerunner and he that is forerunner, the member & the head. Secondly for that the Prophets or Patriar­ches are not any where called the forerunners of Christ, but onely S. Iohn Baptist, for that he went a little before. So that M. Downam graunteth, that he who goeth a litle before, may well be Downams absurd folly. said to goe before, but he that goeth farre before, may not: which is a strang affirmation, except he meaneth to make it good by affirming, that S. Iohn Baptist did prepare Cgrists way, because he only liued in Christs tyme, and pointed him out with his finger, which I am sure M. Downam will not say, and consequentlie vpon better deliberation he [Page 29] will graunt, that Christ came in the Patriarches and Pro­phets aswell as in S. Iohn Baptist, since that they went before aswell as he, and prepared also the way for Christs comming: and there is asmuch opposition made betwixt S. Iohn Baptist and our Sauiour, as betwixt him and the Patriarches or Pro­phets. After this, he maketh an idle obiectiō of his owne, & answereth it as sleightly, both which I leaue also to himselfe to consider. Lastlie he commeth to the reddition or application, which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith, that Antichrist with the article prefixed, and whome they heard was to come, was already come: which you heard Bellarmine graunt with a distinction, not in his owne person, but in his fore­runners, and now M. Downam proueth it very substantially, by repeating the former argument for want of another, and so he standeth at a non plus, only he confirmeth it by the argu­ment, which S. Iohn maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I haue put Nu. 6. downe & cōfuted in the answere to the third place of Scrip­ture, whither I remit the Reader, not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing, as M. Downam ma­keth, which also I meane (God willing) to obserue hereaf­ter.

11. To the first proofe of Bellarmines answere, he reie­cteth XV the former interpretation of those 3. Fathers S. Ambrose, Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. S. Chrysostome, and S. Hierome, by his owne absolute authority. For when he began to thinke how he might deceaue some of the simple sort, by making a shew that the Pope is Anti­christ, he did put this downe for a chiefe Principle, that Antichrist should be no open, but a disguised enemy, and a pretended Christian: and this he wil defend against all the Fathers, yea against the Apostles, & Christ himselfe, though with this difference, that against the Fathers, who with­out all doubt, were the members of Christ, he opposeth him­selfe manifestlie: but against Christ and his Apostles onlie couertlie, by false expositions of his owne head, with which he conuinceth, that he is only a member of that great Anti­christ, and not the great Antichrist himselfe. But I hope well, that both M. Downam himselfe and all that follow him, or ioyne with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ, will at length ioyne with them against [Page 30] those disguised enemies and pretended Christians, of which number, they themselues are for the present. And in the meane tyme, till they amend themselues, they must giue vs leaue to thinke with the holy Fathers, that both Antichrists members, as also himselfe haue bene, and shalbe not only disguised, but also open enemies of Christ, as you see those holy Fathers affirme of Nero and the other of the Heretikes, who deceaue secretly, which both M. Downam, and we also Antichrists members sometimes open ene­myes to Christ. admit. And yet we may note, that this secrecy of the Here­tikes is not so great, but that many times it contayneth ma­nifest opposition against Christ, as we see in Simon Magus, who named himselfe Christ, and in Montanus who would needes be the Holy Ghost. And if M. Downam had rather haue new examples he may remember George Dauid, and M. Hacke [...] with his two Prophets. But now I would aske M. Downam, what it maketh against Bellarmine, whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies, so that it be graunted, that then there were some such, and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come, as M Downam himselfe confesseth, that the Antichrist [...] was not reueled vntill 606. yeares after; so that till then Antichrist was come only after a sort, that is (as after he explicateth) in some of his members, which is all that Belarmine pretended. But perhappes M Downam will say, that he knew well inough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist [...] was not then reuealed, though be were come. But then I would aske him how he was otherwise come, then in the Here­tikes his members, which is that which Bellarmine answereth. And if he cā shew vs no other manner, then we may see how easie a matter it is to vnderstand, that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme, and yet that the chiefe & proper Antichrist, or [...] is not yet come in person, but shalbe one man in the end of the world.

12. To the second proofe. First M. Downam answereth, XVI that it cannot be proued out of Scripture, or by any sound argument, that Downam reiecteth all ancient writers. Pete [...] and Paul were Bishops of Rome. For you must vnerstād that the authority of S. Irenam, or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam: and besid [...]s, he knoweth well inough, that S. Paul is said to haue byn in Rome in the [Page 31] Scripture, and S. Peter also, if he will stand to his owne ex­position of the wold Babylon; and supposing they were there, I hope he will as soone graunt them the Bishoprick, as any other. But to let this passe, M. Downam will be twyce aduised before he graunt, that the Bishop of Rome at that tyme (who­soeuer he was) was Antichrist, which is as much as Bellar­mine would haue denied at this present, and M. Downam doth him that courtesy; yea and to agre with him in the exposi­tion of S. Paul and S. Iohn. For thus he writeth. VVhen we say, that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme, we speake of the bodie of Antichrist with S. Iohn: when we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome, we speake of the head of this body: soe that now you see heer be distinct persons, part of which were come, and part not come in S. Iohns tyme. But M. Downam goeth about to de­ceaue the Reader by telling him a lōg tale of the Pope, with­out Downam speaketh from the purpose. any proofe, and from the purpose. But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè, whether Antichrist, that S. Paul and S. Ihon saith was come in their tyme, were the same, that was to haue his seat in Rome or noe? If he saith yes, then he must also graunt, that S. Peter and S. Paul, or whosoeuer had the seate at that tyme was Antichrist. If he will stick to his noe; then it is playne, that there is no consequence in Beza [...] argument: Some manner of Antichrist was come in the A­postles tyme: Ergo no other, that shalbe only one man can come after, vnlesse he were aliue at that tyme. Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can, saying, that in Bellarmines argument there is no consequence, vulesthis be taken for grā ­ted, that Antichrist is but one man, which is the question; & af­ter he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him. But M. Dow­nam should haue considered, that Bellarmine supposed not, that Antichrist was but one man, neither was it much materiall in this place, if we speake only of the chiefe and proper An­tichrist, whome Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one: but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Maister Beza put in their probation, if they will conclude any thing, that Antichrist of whom S. Iohn speaketh is the same, that is to haue his seat at Rome, for then it followeth very well, that he in person had his seate in Rome: in the Apostles tyme, & not only in the heretikes his members. For if this second were [Page 32] inough, it were not necessary, that he himselfe should bea­liue at that tyme, and consequently he might well inough be shine at the end of the world, & yet be no very old mā neither; for that it is vncertaine, when he was to be borne. For certaine it is, that he needed not to be in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme, if they speake not of him in person, but on­lie of some of his members, which for ought S. Paul and S. Iohn say, or M. Downam can proue, might be in the world be­fore he himselfe came in person, not only manie an hundreth yeare, which M. Downam graunteth of 600. but also many thousands.

13. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere XVII to the confirmation, where first he censureth that tradition, which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture, that Elias shall come in person, before the second comming Downam censureth the Fa­thers. of Christ, for a Iewish fable: and yet doth he not so much as goe about to proue with any argument, that it shall not be soe, but only confirmeth, that S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias, and giueth the reason why he was so called, in which there is no controuersy. And at least wise he might haue vouchsa­fed, to haue tould vs out of his high learning, what our Sa­uiour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth, by saying, that Elias indeed shall come, for this cannot be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptist, who as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place, See Chap. 6. was alreadie come: wherfore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofes, I take it, any wise man will not only suppose as he giueth him leaue to do, but also hold for certaine, that Elias shall come in person, though he be said to haue come Elias shall come in person. in S. Iohn Baptist: for that he had a spirit like vnto his, & con­sequently that it is not necessary, that there shall come no o­ther Antichrist in person, at the end of the world, because S. Iohn saith, that he was come in his tyme in some of his mem­bers, whose spirit was like his: for Bellarmine disputeth not now, but answereth by producing another place of Scrip­ture like vnto that which is obiected, which cannot be de­nied to be a good manner of answering. But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture, where Dauid is promi­sed to come after he was dead, and yet it is not vnderstood Ezech. 34. of King Dauid, but of Christ: and therfore neither is Elias to [Page 33] come againe. But M. Downam will easily see, if it pleaseth him to put this argument in forme (in which he seemeth to take particuler delight) that one may well answere him, nego consequentiam, and withall he may note, how that name Da­uid is somtime taken properly, and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former, which is somewhat harder, then that the type should take the name of the chiefe and principall in that kind, which it figureth: and as it were noe good argument to say, Dauid shall come, therfore he is not come, for there be two to whome the name of Dauid a­greeth; so likewise the argument which we haue bene dis­cussing all this while, concludeth not, since it is only thus: Antichrist is already come, therefore he shall not come in the end of the world, for that there be more then one An­tichrist, and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members.

14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth IIII to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places vnder the name & figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person, but a whole state or succession, and in the assumption insteed of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith, Antichrist is described vnder the name & XVIII figure of a beast: then he proueth the proposition by induction out of the 7. & 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza. new argument of his owne, for that belike he could not saue his M. Beza from absurdities, if he should haue followed his Argument against Bellarmines answere, and yet he putteth downe Bellarmines answere, as though it had bene giuen to this new Argument, which he hath coyned himselfe. In Downam applieth Bellarmi­nes ans­were to a wrong ar­gument. Dan. 8. which he sheweth lesse vpright dealing then Bellarmine doth, with the Scriptures, by saying, that in the 8. Chap. of Da­niel the Ram and the Goat signify but two seuerall Kinges, which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture, for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded, there is in Hebrew, the word Kinges, in the plurall number, and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat, that the great horne which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander, and con­sequently the Goat, whose horne this was, could not be the same Alexander. For the first part of which obiection M. Dow­nam [Page 34] must be content, that we attribute asmuch to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue, and in Scripture, as to himselfe, and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number, Rex Medorum est, atque Persarum: so that either he thought that the plurall number was put for the singular, as it is vsuall in Scripture, or els in the Hebrew text in his tyme, it was also in the singular number: and the first reason hath the more probability in this place, for that Darius was in effect two Kings, since he had two Kingdoms, which is also signified by the two hornes, which the Ramme had. And this is so much the more plaine for that it is manifest, that he who was ouerthrowne by Alexander was no other then Darius one King, as we read in 1. Ma­chab. 1. and Iustine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. doe also testi­fy. Now for the second part, M. Downam might easily see, that both the Goat, and the horne being called a King in the same 21. v. either doe both signify Alexander, or else if the one doe signify the King, and the other the Kingdome, he must giue vs some reason, why rather the former should be taken for the kingdome, then the latter, especially since we see in the same Chapter, that by the two hornes of the Ram, are signified his two Kingdomes; and besides, it is well knowne that he who did conquer and ouercome the King of the Medes and Persians, was no other then Alexander, who is also called Hircus caprarum, after the Hebrew phrase, which signifieth a yong Goat (as I might proue by many examples, but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew, that he will not contradict it for that he was not past 20. yeares ould when he began his Monarchie by his admirable victories, for which in the 5 verse he is said, to haue gone so swiftly, as though he had slowen in the ayre, and not touched the earth. By which meanes, the litle horne which he had betwixt his eyes, that is the Kingdome which he gouerned, came to be very great & strong in a short space & at his death was deuided into foure little ones, in respect of his great Monarchie, which contayned all those 4. After this M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines second answere, to XIX which he graunteth, that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beastes, spoken of by Daniel, which in effect is to graunt, that [Page 35] Bezas consequence was nothing worth: and poore M. Dow­nam had no other shift, but to say, that noe man said so, because he meant not to say so himselfe. And yet to set the better face on it, he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horne, as Bellarmine affirmeth. But he should haue considered that the other was that which was necessary, that the argumēt might stand in force, and that now Bellarmine is the defendant, and therfore it is not inough for M. Downam to deny what he saith, but he must also proue the contrary. Thus much for Bezas argumēt which as you see Bellarmine hath solued euen by M. Downams owne confession, and therfore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture, to hould it vp from falling, or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall, for that it was past recouery, and hath patched vp another of his owne. To which I āswere that in all the places which he citeth, only in the 7. of Daniel, by the beastes be signified Kingdomes; for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named, and Apoc. 13. there be two Beastes, but the former signifyeth only one man Antichrist, & the latter his chiefe false Prophet, and Apoc. 17. the Beast sig­nifieth the Diuel. All which M. Downam must not put me to proue now, till it be my turne, and then he shall see I shal­be better stored both with arugments & authority thē he is who bringeth neither. And as for the assumption, that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the secōd Beast, I haue already denied it; for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture, & so he was inforced to vse one place, both in his propositiō & assūptiō, and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose.

15. About the third obiection M. Downam had little to V adde, only he explaneth what a substantiall ground they haue for the exposition of that word (Apostasy) which is no other, but because it pleaseth them to vnderstand it so. And to Bellarmines first answere, he saith: that it doth rather make XXI against himselfe, then otherwise, for that he cannot inferr thence, that Antichrist is but one Man. As though he that answe­reth were to inferre any thing, and not only to shew, how his aduersary inferreth nothing. VVherfore M. Downam ad­deth, that rather the contrary is to be inferred: for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymie of the adiunct, for the subiect, or rather of the effect for the cause, that is for the parties which doe reuolt, then it followeth, that An­tichrist [Page 36] signifieth the whole body and Kingdome of Antichrist. In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmi­ne. reply of his, I can see no other reason but want of conside­ration of that which Bellarmine hath said: for the interpreta­tion, which is giuen by him in his first answere of the word Apostasie is onely this, that Antichrist is called the Apostasie, for that he shalbe the cause that many forsake God: so that not those which forsake God, but he that is the cause therof, is called the A­postasie. And so though those that forsake God be many, yet he that is the cause may be only one. If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this, eyther he must shew, that the cause of the Apostasie, may not be called the Apostasie, or else, that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God, and not speake so confusedly and darkly as he doth, least he make Downam speaketh from the purpose. men thinke that he vseth that art, to seeme to say somthing, when he hath nothing to say indeed, which may be also suspected, by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not, and which Bellarmine al­leadgeth in his third answere, as also of Antichrists sitting in the Church; all which he knoweth well inough to make nothing to the force of this argument, nor to be against this first answere of Bellarmine, and therfore is but an idle additi­on for want of matter to the purpose. About the second reason, that Bellarmine giueth, why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy, M. Downam hath nothing to say against it, but Antichrist shalbe an Apostata. only noteth, that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not bene a Christian, Antichrist shal not be a Iew, but a back sliding and reuolted Christian: which if we take the name properly, as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ, is a probable argument, that Antichrist shalbe baptized: but yet he may be a Iew, both by birth, as also by profession, as Iu­lian was a Gentile in profession, and yet a notable Apostata. But this name may also be vnderstood of those which fall from God, though they were no Christians. And in this sēse it is more ample, and therfore more fit for Antichrist, who shall not only oppose himselfe to Christ, but also extoll him­selfe aboue all that is called God. And this is all, that M. Downam replyeth to Bellarmines first answere, for he hath not soe much as gone about to proue, that Antichrist may not be vnderstood by the Apostasy, because he shalbe the cause that [Page 37] many forsake God, or because he shalbe a most notable Apo­stata; nor that one man may not be called soe for these two reasons, which be only the points that could make against Bellarmines answere.

16. To the second answere M. Downam replieth first, that XXII the dissention of the Fathers, proueth that their exposition can be noe good rule of interpreting the Scriptures. Which note I would he would applie to himselfe, and his fellow-Ministers: for no doubt The Pro­testants expositiō of Scri­pture not much worth. he would find, that their expositions are not much worth, since they agree so little; and if when the Fathers doe diuer­sly expound the same place, it is a signe, that it is not certai­ne which interpretation is to be followed, but that either may be admitted, so far as they swarue not from any point of Faith; how much lesse certainty can we haue of M. Downam and his fellowes, who many tymes doe not only differ from all others, but also among themselues, and that in matters which belong to Faith, in which one houldeth against the other, and both against all the world besides? After this M. Downam goeth about to prooue that the Apostasie cannot signi­fie the reuolt from the Roman Empire, because in other places of Scripture, it signifieth a falling away from God: and for that, after­ward it is called the mystery of iniquitie, which was working in, and by the heretikes of those tymes, and because S. Augustine expoundeth it so. All which, as you see, doe only confirme the former ex­position, but nothing impugne this latter, specially since M. Downam confesseth himselfe, that the defection from the Roman Empire was to goe before Antichrists comming, and so this exposition contayneth nothing against Faith, and cō ­sequentlie may be probablie defended, which is inough for to solue the argument, especially since it cannot be denied, but that the word may haue this signification; and S. Pauls drift and context doth fauour this explication, for that he giueth reasons, why the comming of Christ was not to be thought so neere at hand, as some gaue out: which he doth more fullie, if we vnderstand it after this manner, especi­ally since, as concerning Antichrist, he speaketh plainely inough after. As for the mysterie of iniquitie which M. Downam will needes haue to be all one with the Apostasie, or depar­ture, it is manifest that they be two distinct thinges, for that [Page 38] S. Paul supposeth euidentlie v. 3. that the reuolt was not yet The apo­stasie and the My­stery of I­niquitie not all one. See cap. 14. 11. 3. come, and v. 7. he affirmeth plainely, that the mysterie of Iniquitie did worke then. For now (saith he) the mystery of Ini­quity worketh, only that he which now houldeth, doe hould vntill he be taken out of the way, and then that wicked one shallbe reuealed. In which words he seemeth to repeat that, which he had said before in other wordes, assigning plainlie the tyme of Antichrists comming, by the taking away of him, which houldeth, that is, the Roman Emperour; and consequentlie it is verie probable, that he meant the reuolt from him before, by the Apostasie, which the latin Interpreter considering, did not retaine the Greeke worde Apostasia, which seemeth to be How far diuers ex­positions are to be admitted. more appropriated to the falling from God, but translated it Discessio, which may very well be applied to this other. Now it is no meruaile, that S. Augustin fauoureth the other ex­positiō, which he taketh for the best, but yet he refuteth not this: & it is his rule, that when diuers expositions be cōfor­mable to Faith, they are all to be admitted, as Bellarmine ad­mitteth Aug. lib. 12. Confess. cap. 31. them. But M. Downam will disprooue and disallow of what misliketh him, or hindereth his heresies, and this with his owne priuate, but yet most absolute authoritie, which he presumeth the holie Ghost hath giuen him in all such affaires. But the best is, that all men are as free from o­bligation to belieue him, as he and his fellowes are readie to take so much vpon them.

17. To the third Answere M. Downam replieth, that the XXIII euent hath shewed, that this generall reuolt hath byn made by little & little. Downams petitio principij To which (to answere him in forme) I denie his Antecedēt for that it is the chiefe matter in controuersie, and therfore should not haue bene taken for the Antecedent, but for the Consequent. Next he saith, that as this reuolt did grow by degrees; so it cannot be abolished at once, but by degrees, and therefore was notlike to be an Apostasy of three yeares, and a halfe only. To which I answere that if it did not grow by degrees, then it maie be abolished at once, and therfore is like inough to be an Apostasie of three yeares and a half only. Besides that, it is not necessarie, that it should be so long in abolishing, as it was in growing, es­peciallie when God himselfe taketh the matter in hand, and vseth his absolute power, as he will doe in this case, as S. Paul [Page 39] testifieth 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly he draweth an argument from the conuersion of the Iewes, whom he saith, neither our Saui­our as he was a man, and the Minister of Circumcision, nor the Apostles and other Disciples could for many yeares conuert, notwithstanding their do­ctrine and miracles were more effectuall and admirable, then those of An­tichrist. Where first M. Downam is verie bould with our Sa­uiour, Christes knowledg & power, is not to be limit­ted by that which he did. though he speake of him only as man, limitting his knowledge and power to that only which he did: wher­as the rule therof is farre different, except M. Downam doth also thinke, that he had not all perfect knowledge, and po­wer from the beginning, which I will not charge him with all, vntill I heare him say so, for that I haue a better opiniō of him, then that he will fall into so great folly or blasphe­my. Wherfore I doubt not, but that he will easily see, that our Sauiour taught and wrought according to that which was set downe by the heauenly wisdome of his Eternall Father, who gaue to the Iewes such outward meanes, as were very sufficient in that kind to haue drawne them to ac­knowledg and receaue their true Messias; but yet no doubt, could haue taught them more plainly, and not in Parables, as our Blessed Sauiour said, and did also to his Apostles, and likewise could haue wrought greater miracles, as well as the Apostles, and their successors, but he wrought those which were determyned to be wrought in that tyme, and which were foretould in the Scriptures, & denied flatly to work some other, as to giue them signes from Heauen, and to come downe from the Crosse. But besides these outward meanes, he vsed other inward, which are far more effectu­all, and therfore I meruaile much, that M. Downam forgot them, for I will not suspect, that he was either so ignorant as not to know them, or so addicted to Pelagius as to deny them: and yet in these also he vsed such moderation as on the one side, the Iewes had no want of them, if they would not haue bene wanting themselues, and yet our Sauiour could haue giuen them far greater inward helpes then he did. Nei­ther must M. Downam vrge his distinction too far of Christ as Man; for either it will prooue too much, or nothing at all. For if he speake of the humanitie of Christ, considered in it selfe, and not as the instrument of his Diuinitie, then he [Page 40] could not doe any miracle at all of those which he actuallie did; and therefore I alway suppose, that M. Downam speaketh not in this base and vnworthy sense, by which Christ is considered, not only as man, but also as if he were no more, nor no better then a pure man; but if it be considered, as the instrument of his Diuinity, then his power extendeth it selfe so farre, as the power of God himselfe, though actu­ally he putteth not all in execution, but only that which Gods eternall wisdome hath appointed. But now to M. Dow­nams reply, I graunt the Antecedent, but deny the Conse­quent, cheifly, for that we haue sufficiēt ground to think so, though we could not vnderstand the reason of it: and besides, that very obstinacy of the Iewes doth giue a suffici­ent cause of this euent. For if, being assailed by such effectu­all and wonderfull meanes: as the doctrine and miracles of Christ, his Apostles and Disciples were, notwithstanding it was forcible inough to keep them in their former synnes, and to draw them into farre greater; what meruaile is it, that being destitute of such extraordinary helpes, and set v­pon by Antichrist and his followers, who shall abound with all power and deceitfull meanes, and such especially as they expect; that they yield vnto his doctrine, & take him with one accord to be the Messias, whom they haue so long expe­cted. And as for the rest of the world that shall ioyne with him, it shall not come, especially at the first, so much for the liking of his doctrine, as for desire of liberty, coldenes of charity, and abounding in synne, which be the chaines by How An­tichrist shall draw men to follow him. which men are drawen into errours, heresies, and infidelity, as both our Sauiour and S. Paul teach, and the experience of all ages, and particulerly of this of ours, doth manifestlie shew, which I could wish M. Downam and others of his mind to consider attentiuely, & they may perhaps come to know more plainely, the ground of their new ghospell, by this consideration duly weighed, then by all the bookes that they can read written, eyther for it, or against it. And be­sides M. Downam may consider what great ouerthrowes in Faith, temporall commodities and persecution will cause, of which he may also find store of examples in this our misera­ble Countrey, where no small multitudes ioyne with Prote­stants, [Page 41] only for these respects, as would easily appeare, if it would please his Maiesty to giue all men liberty to vse their conscience, and professe the Religion which they belieue in hart to be true. Lastly M. Downam taketh vp Bellarmine very short, for abusing the authority of S. Augustine: and yet with reading the place in Bellarmine he should haue seene, that Bel­lar. saith only, that S. Augustine writeth, that the place of S. Paul Downam mistaketh and abu­seth Bel­lar. and other Au­thors. was so vnderstood by many ancient writers: so that in this M. Downam delt very hardlie with Bellarmine; but after abu­seth not only Bellarmine, but also those Ancient writers, and S. Augustine himselfe, by affirming, that they only speake of the my­stery of Iniquity, teaching that it should still worke, that is, that vnsound men in the church shall more & more reuolt, vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist, but that there is neuer a word of this defection cau­sed eyther by one man, or in so short a time, but rather the contrary. The cause of which rash assertion is his mistaking, for Bellar­mine citeth those, which S. Augustine alleadgeth for the expo­sition of the word Discessio, or as he readeth it, Transsuga, by which he saith some vnderstand not ipsum Principem, the chiefe Antichrist himselfe, but his whole body, that is, the multi­tude of men which belong to him, togeather with the chiefe himselfe. By which it plainly appeareth that he speaketh of the defection caused by this Prince; the tyme of whose raigne, is manifest in the Scripture it selfe.

18. To the 4. answere, M. Downā replieth (hauing first made XXIV aparēthesis in Bell. name, as though he thought that the aposta­sy wherof the Apostle spake, were to endure many ages, tho­ugh he could not chose but see, that he thought nothing lesse) that this 4. answere is ouerthrown by the first. In which he is either very simple, or deceiptful: for it is plaine, that whē one giueth diuers answeres to one argumēt, he is not bound to make thē all agree togeather, but euery one by it selfe. After he saith that he hath shewed, that the whole body of Apostataes, and Heretikes professing the name of Christ, is Antichrist, about which I remit the Reader to that, which hath bene answered to what he hath said hitherto. Thirdly he answereth insteed of replying, that all degrees going before the reuelation of Antichrist, were a disposition not to the being, but to the reuealing of Antichrist: for (as S. Iohn saith) An­tichrist was in the Apostasy neither could he be reuealed, vnles he first were. [Page 42] But to this Bellarmine answered long since, that Antichrist was not in the Apostles tyme in person, but only in his fore­runners; and the distinction of being, and reuealing is im­pertinent, euen in M. Downams owne opinion, if he speake Antichrists comming & reuela­tion all one. of the chiefe Antichrist in person, whome he will haue to haue bene reuealed so soone as he came, & so likewise were his forerunners also; which is no meruaile, if we consider, that their comming is, when they begin to teach false do­ctrines, by which they are also necessarily knowne to be come, to all such as know those doctrines to be false: so that it is plaine, that their comming and their reuelation is all one, as the comming of the sunne & the light, by which it is reuealed. And the like is of any thing, that is necessarylie cō ­ioyned to some manifest token, by which it may be knowne, as heretikes and Apostataes are if they declare themselues for such by doctrine and workes, of which M. Downam may haue examples in his Maisters, Luther, Caluin, and the rest; who were forthwith reuealed to be Heretikes, so soone as they began to teach new doctrines: only it may be, that they may for some space dissemble, and seeme to be Catholikes though in hart they be Heretikes. But this maketh nothing to the purpose, for all that tyme they are not come in the sight of men, but only in the sight of God; and no man will deny, but that Antichrist may come in this sort before he begin to teach. But this is not the comming, which M. Downam talketh of, since he saith, that Antichrist was come in Symon Magus, and others who taught Heresies, and yet he will not haue him reucaled, till the chiefe Antichrist come also. After this, he citeth Theodoretus, who by Apostasy vn­derstandeth Antichristes presence. As though Bellarmine had not admitted and answered that interpretation before. Last­lie he noteth for a thing verie vnlikelie, that the preparati­on for Antichrist should be 1500. yeares in making, & that he should continue ōly 3. yeares and a half. As though the preparation for our Blessed Sauiour had not bene as long, & the tyme of his preaching and working miracles as short. Be­sides that Antichrist was not to come till the Ghospell of Christ had bene preached ouer all the world; & many partes fallen away from the Faith, which they had receaued, and [Page 43] the rest in great disposition, by reason of their corrupt cu­stomes to doe the same. All which could not be done in few yeares, as neither was Antichrist to be suffred to raigne any long tyme, least he should ouercome, euen the very chosen, if it were possible, and therfore our Sauiour was to destroy him in so short a space. XXV

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

20. And so at last M. Downam is content to proue it, which he doth very worshipfully, by an argument that is called petitio principij, alleadging certaine points in controuer­sy, Downams petitio principij and supposing that we teach false in them all, as about Marriages & Fastings, though he know well inough that we allow the Sacr [...]ment of matrimony, & forbid none to mar­ry, but such as of their owne accord haue bound themselues to the essate of continency: nor commaund any Fastinges, for that we thinke any creature of God vncleane or defiled, [Page 44] nor adore Images as Idols, or Gods; nor refuse any part of Scripture, or admit any thing against Scripture, as he falsely affirmeth, but onlie deny Hereticall interpretations, and admit certaine and vndoubted Traditions, and Definitions, which a­gree with Scripture, and are both commended, and many tymes insinuated in Scripture, though not so plainely expli­cated, as other pointes of doctrine, which are held, as­well by Tradition, as by manyfest Scripture, expounded by the vniforme consent of holy Fathers. But it is strange how M. Downam slippeth ouer that which, Bellarmine vrgeth Downam dissem­bleth the difficultie. against him, which is, that they haue plainely apostated from our Church, euen by their owne confession, and that they cannot shew, that euer weapostated from any Church at al; and consequently that there is farre more likelyhood, that they belong to the generall Apostasie, of which Anti­christ is head, since it is plaine that in some sort they are Apostataes, then we, who in no sort can be proued to haue apostated at all.

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

To which I answere, that all or the most part of this ex­position is false, and especiallie that which appertayneth to the present purpose. For first he bringeth neither author nor reason to proue, that those 7. heades did signifie 7. states of gouernement in Rome; and others as good authors as M. Downā doe expound it farre otherwise. Secondly, though we admit this exposition as probable, and that the head is Antichrist yet it followeth not, that he shalbe any more then one man, for he may haue a different gouernement, which is to endure [Page 45] but only in his owne tyme, especially since in the same place he is said to staie a short tyme, and els where it is plainly expli­cated, that it shalbe only three yeares and a halfe; and so it appeareth not soe euidentlie, as M. Downam weeneth, that An­tichrist or the 7. head shall not be one man, euen in his owne exposition, and much less that the Pope is Antichrist. For neither is he the 7. head, since the 6. still remayneth; neither hath he endured a short tyme, as the 7, head shall. And as for the 8. which M. Downam would make an head also (for Downam addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast. which he must be faine to lend him his owne head, for o­therwise there wilbe only 7. found in the Scripture) it is manifest, that M. Downams interpretation is most foolish, for that he maketh the beast with 7. heades to haue 8. and him­selfe to be one of them, and so to be also only one head, he being indeed no head at all, but a beast which hath 7. heads, and is said to be the 8. in number, not of heads, but of distinct rulers or gouernours; for that he is distinct from all the other 7. which are called his heads, and yet is of them, as he whose instruments they haue bene, and whome he hath moued & incited to all manner of euill: which plainely discouereth M. Downams follie, in applying it to the Emperours, which now are. And so all his obiection is shewed to be friuolous, of which I shall haue occasion to speake heerafter, whither I remit the Reader for further proofes.

M. Dovvnams addition, and reply confuted.

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

But he might haue done well to haue disproued Bellarmins distinction betwixt Catholikes and heretikes, which he affirmeth to consist in this, that Catholikes know, that An­tichrist shall not come but in the end of the world: but He­retikes thinke that antichrist shall come long before the end of the world: and soe we see, that all the Fathers, which thought that Antichrist was at hand, thought the same like­wise of the end of the world. So that, if they had liued so long that they might haue seene their coniectures about the end of the world confuted by experience, they would haue bene farre from M. Downams opinion, who thinketh that their arguments, concerning the comming of Antichrist, are confirmed by experience. And the reason would haue bene, for that they would still haue remayned Catholikes, who ioyne both togeather; and not haue bene of M. Downams crew, whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes, which seuereth them farre asunder. And the poore man had nothing to help himselfe withall, but only to recite S. Hieromes and S. Gregories wordes, which Bellarmine had alleaged, and tooke them to be so plaine and easy (as they are indeed) that they needed no exposition. And it should seeme that M. Downam Downam trāslateth not well. thought so too, and therfore he thought it necessary to falsi­fie them in his translation, for, de medio fit, translating, is takē out of the way, wheras it being the presēt tense, signifieth only [Page 56] that it was not yet done, but was in doing, as it hath bene euer since; and so he should haue translated, is in taking out of the way, and then we shall easily answere to the argument, See cap. 5. nu. 4. that a thing in doing is not done, and consequently that Antichrist is but comming, and not come. For the remouing of the Imperiall seate from Rome, the taking of Rome by the Goths, the decay of the Empire, are not sufficient for M. Downam to make it good, that the Empire was taken away, but only that it was in taking away; that is, in decay, not subuerted or peri­shed. And besides, if M. Downam bethink himselfe well, it wil be a litle with the soonest for him and his friends (whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes) to affirme, that Antichrist was come in S. Hieromes tyme. As for the Scriptures, which M. Downam noteth, it is not necessary to explicate them now, since we haue had, and shall haue often occasion to handle thē at large: only I will aske M. Downam, what he meant to say, that Bellarmine thought to discredit the arguments of the Fathers, by reckoning them among erroneous conceiptes, since Bellarmine expresly saith, that the opinions of these Fathers, were suspitions, and not errors, because they durst not set downe any certaine tyme?

2. Now then let vs come (as M. Downam likewise in­uiteth VIII vs) to Bellarmines heretikes, where he taketh vpon him to defend all those opinions, but the first of the Samosatenes, whome he is content with Bellarmine to call heretikes, but ta­keth it very ill at his handes, that he would number them a­mong Protestants, which notwithstanding he hath no rea­son to do, since Bellarmine telleth but the truth, and giueth his reason why he doth so, because they all agree in this, that Antichrist is come, and that he is the Pope; which will How much the prote­stants a­gree with the Samo­satenes & all other heretikes. be thought a greater agreement, then Christ hath with the wicked: which comparison it pleaseth M. Downam to vse, though if others had done farre lesse, he would haue bene ready to haue called it blasphemy, if he be not more temperate then many of his fellow Ministers; and besides he might haue considered, that all the arguments, which Bellarmine vseth against the Samosatenes, make as much against the Pro­testants; VII so that his boasting of his men which haue soundly con­futed their heresies, will seeme ridiculous; except they had cō ­futed this opinion likewise, which they could not doe, ex­cept [Page 57] they would confute themselues. And the nippe which he giueth the Papists for houlding their peace, will make some thinke, that either he hath not read so much, as the titles of Bellarmines whole bookes, or els that he is very forgetfull, if not malicious, since it is euident, that he hath not omitted those heretikes, no more then the rest; neither in other he­resies, nor in this; in which he is as exact, as M. Downam can desire, since he telleth vs in what they differ from him & his crew, which is but in a nice point, God knoweth (to wit in the circumstances of tyme) if we consider the other two mayne points, in which they agree; & besids here M. Downā sayth, that euen in the Apostles tymes, Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church, which is something before that, which the Samosatenes affirme, who only thinke, that he appeared a little after the Apostles tyme, so that all the fault will light vpon M. Downam, and his fellowes, who will needes make themselues so like to those, and all other heretikes, that none but themselues can see any other difference among them, but materiall; to wit, that euery one choseth this, or that mat­ter, in which they differ from the Catholike Church: but all agree in this, that they chose their Religion out of their owne priuate iudgments and spirits, by which they take vpon them to explycate the Scripture, euery one after his owne fashion; but none of them will subiect their spirits to the spirit of truth, which is according to Christs promise only in the Catholike Church, and consequētly they wilbe still accompted formall Heretikes till they amend this gene­rall fault of theirs.

3. Concerning the other 5. opinions which Bellarmine From X. to XVII. rehearseth M. Downam would faine make an agreement, by affirming, that the constant opinion of the learned is that of the reuea­ling or manifest appearing of Antichrist [...] (for the rest is im­pertinent) there were two principal degrees, the first about the yeare 607. the second after the yeare 1000. Where first we may note, how Downam nothing Scrupu­lous in his ac­compt. cunningly he bringeth it in, with an (about) and an (after) both which may comprehend one or more yeares. And it must be no little, nor nice difference, which will breake any square in this mans conceipt: but you must beare with him, for he was inforced to inlarge his conscience, and to [Page 58] be nothing scrupulous, because otherwise he could hardly haue made any one to agree with himselfe or any other; for they which come neerest, differ in a yeare, since Illyricus, Chy­traeus, and Luther put that title, which was giuen by Phocas The Pro­testants disagree­ment a­bout An­tichrists comming. to Pope Boniface the third, in the yeare 606. and not 607. as M. Downā doth, who leauing his Rabbines, is contēt to ioine with Bellarm. in this accompt. But there is a greater diffe­rence betwixt Luther & Bibliander on the one syde, & the Cen­turiators, and Chytraeus on the other syde about S. Gregory, whe­ther he did belong to Christ, or to Antichrist; which M. Dow­nam wisely passed ouer in silence, with being content to go about. And yet he must fetch a fargreater compasse to com­prehend Bullenger, who putteth Antichrists comming more then a 100. yeeares later then any of these, so that by that word (about) we must vnderstand a 100. yeares sooner or la­ter. And yet the word (after) hath a larger scope since Mus­culus will haue Antichrists comming to haue byn about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam stoutly denieth, that Bullenger put­teth Antichrists comming the yeare 763. yet mentioneth not the place which Bellarmine citeth, which is as plaine, as plaine may be; but thinketh it sufficient to alledge another place out of Bullenger, where yet he nameth not once Anti­christ, but explicateth, how in his opinion the Popes domi­nion increased & was confirmed; which only sheweth, that Bullenger either did not thinke, that Antichrists appearing, & the Popes dominion was all one, or els, that he is contrary to himselfe; of which two I will giue M. Downam good leaue to choose which he listeth. He would also faine excuse Mus­culus, but that the matter is too plaine; since he would found his opinion vpon S. Bernard, who plainly affirmeth, that he expected Antichrists appearing or reuealing, and consequēt­ly thought, that he was not reuealed at that tyme: so that Musculus following S. Bernard, must needes thinke so too, howsoeuer of his owne head he addeth, that Antichrist was come, which as it is foolish in it selfe, since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe, vnles he had appeared in some sort: soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand, since our question is about his appearing: and they [Page 59] which put it latest (which are Luther and Bibliander) make him to come euen with the temporall sword, which cannot choose but appeare, after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent, which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt, concer­ning the time of the comming of Antichrist.

4. After hauing laboured to make an agreemēt betwixt his Doctours, with the euent which you haue seene, he maketh a shew, as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them, beginning thus: Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth: but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his secōd proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming, to wit, with the spirituall sword, which as you see is no argument at all, but a peece of an answere to an argument; so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere. But let Downam answereth when hee should re­ply. vs not vrge the poore man too farre, for it is pure want, that driueth him to these miserable shiftes. Wherefore let vs see, how he can auoid Bellarmines answere. Chytraeus proofe was this. In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third, did obteyne of Phocas XXX the title of vniuersall Bishop: ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words: Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope, but called him the head of the Churches. But long before Iustiniā ep. ad Ioā. 2. had done the same, & before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep. ad Leonem. VVithout cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas. To which first, as I haue noted, M. Downam saith, that Bel­larmine obiected this, whereas it is most manifest that he an­swereth an obiection. Secondlie he addeth, that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope, & that which hee gaue, the Pope had before. affirme, that he receyued from Phocas, both the title of the Head of the Church, and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop: but they are too good to be named, or els M. Downam was ashamed of thē and therefore he must pardon vs, if we belieue neither him, nor them, till we know what they are. Thirdlie he auou­cheth that, there is no doubt, but that Bonifacius sought for, and by suite obteyned that, which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed. But if he had remembred, what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke, of S. Gregorie the great, his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople, he would haue seene, [Page 60] that there had bene great doubt, whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes, though otherwise neuer soe due to him, rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring, or vsing it at that tyme, when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense, it was not only scandalous, See part. 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also. Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe, they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse, what they had, and no way signifie that which they had not themselues, and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople, who most arrogantlie vsurped that false, and also foolish title, being taken in the sense, in which he vsurped it. Fourthly M. Dow­nam would shift of the matter, with saying, that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles, as they are now giuen to the Pope, saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church, is the more Anti­christian stile. But this will not serue his turne neither, for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance, yet since Chytra­us and others will giue vs a reason, why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas; to wit, because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop, it is not inough, when this is denied, to tell vs, that at least, if he gaue him not that, he gaue him another as great: for all the force of the argument consisteth in this, that this title of Phocas is a new one, which the Pope neuer had giuen him before; for otherwise there is no reason, why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme, then be­fore. And this was that which Bellarmine answered, and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose a­gainst him.

Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue, that though he cannot deny, but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before: yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning. For he affirmeth, that before this graunt of Phocas, the Church of Rome had the prehe­minence and superioritie, ouer all other Churches, excepting that of Con­stantinople, not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction; but in respect of order and dignitie, and for this cause especiallie, because Rome wher­of he was Bishop, was the chiefe Cittie: for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon & Constantinople. And for the same cause (saith [Page 61] he) was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him: for which he citeth Concil. Chalcedon: sometime preferred aboue him; for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity; because Constantinople (which they called new Rome) was become the Imperiall seate: yea he addeth, that the Bishops of Rauenna, because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna, wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellar­mine in o­ther pla­ces. tyme subiect, stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies, for superiority. But all this discourse of his, is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope: and if M. Dow­nam will loose so much labour about the answering of that, as he hath done about this other, which is the third, he shal­be confuted, & I hope fully satisfied in this point also. But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes. Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections, though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place, but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to com­playne. And first that the reason, why Rome had the prehe­minence The rea­son of Romes prehemi­nence is not be­cause it is the chiefe Citty. ouer all other Churches, was not because it was the chiefe Cittie, as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople, Bellarmine proueth by the autho­ritie of S. Leo. ep. 54. ad Martianū, where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople, which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth, he hath these wordes. Let the Cittie of Constantinople haue, as wee wish her, glorie and Gods right hand prote­cting her; let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie: Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium, alia diuinarum &c. Yet worldly, and diuine thinges haue different reasons: neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foun­dation. He looseth his owne, who desireth those thinges which are not his due. Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie, and by the con­sent of my sauour, he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie: non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem, quam Apostolicā non potest facere Sedem, let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie, which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea. So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue, that Rome had the prehemi­nēce of an Apostolicall Sea, because it was the chiefe Citty, [Page 62] which as you see S. Leo saith, by no meanes can be. Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius, Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae, who likewise reasoneth thus. Millan, Rauenna, Syrmiū, Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes, and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops, as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect.

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

[Page 63] 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword, which is the second degree, M. Downam goeth about to iug­gle with vs after a strange manner. For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther, confuteth three groundes, which Luther built his opinion vpon. I. the deposition of the Em­perour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion. III: XXII the making of warre; by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised, by the Pope before this tyme, putting Downams seely iug­ling. particuler examples of euery one; M. Downam very cunning­ly, as he thought, but indeed very seelily, as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner, answereth, that true it is, that the Popes had a temporall dominion before, but not generall; and so with granting one part, he thinkes he may safely deny the other, without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bel­larmines instance any further. But we must put him in mind, that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour, of the Kingdome of Italy, he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter, which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour; but The pope hath po­wer to de­pose Prin­ces for the spirituall good of Christs Church. likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases, and for some causes, which he could not do but by a generall power, though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power; for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall, & therfore cānot be exercised by the Pope, but for the spiri­tuall good of Christs Church; as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke; where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose; to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus; Of Auen­tine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word, so soone as any other of his mind, except they bring better profs then he doth. And this is all, which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine; wherfore he concludeth in these wordes: And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter. pertinent to the matter in hand, omitting (as my manner is) his other wranglings, as being altogeather either impertinēt, or merely personal. Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader, to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse, and if he findeth nothing in it, but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons, which [Page 64] he alleageth, and withall that he doth it so inuincibly, that there can be no euasion, as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams māner to omit that which he cannot answere. indifferēt man will easily see: then let him know, that what­soeuer M. Downam hath omitted, was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it, as he hath gone about to doe in this, which we haue examined: and withall let him know also, that this is M. Downams man­ner as he himselfe affirmeth, and make accompt of the Man accordingly.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

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

3. And first to the Fathers which Bellarmine alleadgeth IV. V. as his chiefest proofe, I find only these wordes of his: Or to [Page 70] what end (saith he) should I spend my tyme in answering the Testimonies of the Fathers, who supposed that the Ghospell should be preached in all the world, before the comming of Antichrist, seing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, it was to be preached in all the world, before the destruction of Ierusalem? And is not this a wise answere, thinke Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. you, to accuse the Fathers to be against Christ, because their doctrine is contrary to M. Downams? But I take it, few will belieue him vpon his bare word against Bellarmine alone, & much lesse hauing so manie ancient Fathers ioyned with him.

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

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

6. Another tricke of M. Downās is, to answere an argumēt which Bellarmine thought better for breuities sake to leaue vnproued: that is, that in Antichrists tyme, the cruelty of the last persecution shall hinder all publike exercise of true Religion. To which M. Downam answereth: That it is not ne­cessary, IIII that the Ghospell should be preached generally throughout the world at one tyme: for it might suffice, that in one age it were preached to one Nation, and in another age to another people and so in Antichrists tyme it might be preached to some Nations, where it had not bene for­merly [Page 71] preached; & therfore might be preached to all Nations before the de­struction of Antichrist, though it were not before his comming. But Bel­larmine neuer affirmed, that the Ghospell should be generallie preached throughout the world at one tyme: but M. Downam dreameth it. And if he would haue said any thing to the purpose, he should haue tould vs, how the Ghospell can be preached to any Nation, when the persecution is so great and generall, that all publike exercise of true Religion doth cease in all places, throughout the whole world. And this is all, that he bringeth in answere to the arguments. Wherfore only there remayneth, that we see, whether he proueth his owne exposition in those two pointes, in which he is con­trary to Bellarmine and the Fathers, any better.

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

8. But this is not only doubtfull, since o [...] I M. Downams Downam expoun­deth Scri­pture chil­dishly. authority is not sufficient to make it certaine but also alto­geather childish and foolish. For how could the Apostles feare, least togeather with Ierusalem Christs Church should be ouerthrowne? since as he himselfe saith, the Temple and [Page 72] Cittie of Hierusalem were Types and figures of the Church of Christ, which were to be abolished when the Church of Christ should be established, and consequently the Apostles should neuer haue greater hope, that Christes Church should be established, then when they should see the Temple and Citty of Hierusalem, and in them the Iewes Synagogue abo­lished. And were not he a wise man, thinke you, that would go about to comfort Catholikes, by telling them, that they must not be afrayd, though they see heretikes abolished, who are their chiefest aduersaries? since that the preuailing of Ca­tholikes consisteth chiefly in the abolishing of heretikes? But by this we may see to what absurdities, such men as M. Downam are brought, when leauing the exposition of the Fa­thers, they will follow their owne priuate new-fangled in­uentions.

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

10. Thirdly, M. Downam goeth about to confirme his opinion by those wordes of our Sauiour: Verilie I say vnto you, this generation shall not passe, vntill all those thinges (pointing as it see­meth (saith M. Downam) towards Ierusalem, as he sate on the Mount Oliuet) be fulfilled. But by this exposition of his, he inter­mingleth these Prophesies more then any Catholike doth, for he maketh the last wordes to appertayne to the former [Page 73] part only: & to haue no coherence with that, which goeth immediatly before, which is as great a cōfusiō as may be. And because he saw it himselfe, he imagineth our B. Sauiour vpon the suddaine only, while he pronounceth these wordes, to Downams fond imagination. point towards Ierusalem. But we are not bound to belieue all his imaginations, nor reports neither, since he is no Euan­gelist, and therefore we also thinke that he tooke somewhat to much vpon him, when he presumed to change one only letter in this narration, because it fauoured his imagination more then that which he should haue left, if he had bene a faithfull translator, which indeed belonged vnto him. For our Sauiour saith not (all those thinges) as though they were thinges a farre of, but (these thinges) of which he had spoken. S. Matthew, Omnia haec, S. Marke, Omnia ista, & S. Luke, only Om­nia. So that mee thinkes since all three Euangelists, were so diligent to repeate the word (All) he should not haue bene so Downam corrup­teth the thxt of Scripture. bould as to change it into (some) by applying it to part only of our Sauiours speach, and to the further part also. But we thinke our selues more bound to belieue the Euangelists, & the holy Fathers expounding them, then these farre fetched deuises of M. Downam; and so we doubt not, that before this generation, that is, this corruptible world passeth, and both heauen and earth be renewed, all those thinges shall come to passe. And this our Sauiour signifyeth, when hee immedi­ately addeth, that Heauen and earth shall passe, and not continue alway, as now we see them: but his wordes shall not passe vnful­filled.

11. Neither can M. Downam help himselfe, by telling vs Luc. 21. that Luc. 21. The question concerning Ierusalem is propounded alone: for well we may graunt him, that S. Luke onlie mentioneth that question, but wee shall still thinke our selues bound to belieue S. Matthew, telling the same story, and rehearsing the other questions also, which S. Luke answereth aswell as he, though he omitteth the questions for breuities sake. And this very circumstance of preaching the Ghospell in the whole world, was not omitted by S. Luke, but rather very particu­lerly signified in those wordes, donec impleantur tempora Nationū, while the tymes of Nations be fulfilled, that is, till all Na­tions haue had the ghospell preached vnto them, as S. Marke, [Page 74] and S. Matthew do explicate, & S. Paul repeateth the very same Rom. 11. Caecitas ex parte contigit in Israel, blindenes hath hap­ned in part in Israel, which S. Luke said, Ierusalem calcabitur à gentibus. But how long? S. Paul, donec plenitudo Gentium intraret, vntill the fulnes of Nations should enter, which is the very same, that S. Luke saith in the words following already re­hearsed.

12. Finally M. Downam is content to cite S. Chrysostome Downam maketh much ac­compt of one Fa­ther if he fauour his fancies. for his opinion, for it is the propertie of such men to e [...]e me more the authority of one Father, which fauoureth their conceipts, then of neuer so many, if they bee against their fan­cies: & so now we see this man, who would not vouchsafe the Fathers, which Bellarmine alleaged, so much as a word, is yet content to bring out S. Chrysostome for himselfe, and he seemeth to meane the place which a little after he citeth a­gaine Homil. in Matth. 24. And though we might oppose many against one, and so thinke our selues before M. Downam: yet we would haue him know, that our doctrine standeth not so much vpon denials, as his doth; but rather vpon the affirma­tive; Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpō denialls, as that of Protestāts. and so though we affirme and proue, that the Ghos­pell is to be preached in the whole world, before the end of the world; yet we deny not, but that it was in some sort so preached before the destruction of Ierusalem, & thinke that our Sauiour with his diuine wisdome comprehended both in the same wordes: for the one being a figure of the other, the same wordes may very well be vnderstood of both, as we see they were by the Fathers, though chiefly & for the most Whē the proper expositiō is to bee preferred. part of the proper & distinct preaching in the whole world as the wordes properly taken doe import. And wee thinke S. Augustins rule very true that when the wordes may be so ta­ken, without manifest absurditie, that is the true sense, & most certaine: for otherwise we should haue no certainty lib. 3. de doct. chri­stia. cap 7. in vnderstanding Scripture at all; and in this case, admitting both senses, may fitly be vsed that vulgar saying of the Ma­thematicians: Quod fit in circulo, fit in caelo: that which agreeeth in a cir­cle, may (due proportion obserued) be applied to the Heauens, which are like to a circle in being round as likewise the end of the world is to the destruction of Hierusalem in many thinges. And thus much for the first difference about the [Page 75] word Consummation.

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

14. And to conclude this Chapter, let vs see, what M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmines answere to the ob­iection, XI. XII. XIII. where we must note, that he endeauoreth onlie to impugne the first answere, and to the other two hath not so much as a word to saie; for that indeed whatsoeuer he had said against them, had byn also against himselfe, as like­wise against all experience, and the proofes with which Bellarmine proued his Minor, to wit, that at none of those V. VI. VII. tymes, which the heretikes assigne for Antichrists cōming, and much lesse in the Apostles tymes, the Ghospell had bene preached properlie in the whole world, and therefore whē the Apostle saith, that it had bene preached in the whole world, he were either to be vnderstood figuratiuelie, or by fame, which are Bellarmines two latter solutions, not misliked by M. Downam; though if his distinction of preaching, but not receauing the Ghospell in the whole world, were to the pur­pose, he should graunt the preaching to haue bene proper­lie [Page 76] in the whole world, and so contradict himselfe and fall into the absurdities before mentioned, or els be inforced to yield to Bellarmines first solution also, which he so eagerlie impugneth, that S. Paul Rom. 10. tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come, which he calleth a cauillation, Rom. 10. thinking that he may be bould with Bellarmine: but yet he might haue borne a little more respect to S. Augustine, whose Downams immode­sty. solution it is, especiallie hauing so little to say against it. You shall heare his owne wordes. But say I, the Apostle proueth, that the Iewes had heard the Ghospell, because the sound of the preachers thereof, was gone through all the earth, and therefore they from whome the Ghospell proceeded to other Nations, ca [...]not be ignorant therof. And now let any man iudge, if it had not bene more wis­dome & modestie for M. Downam, to haue alleadged S. Chrysostome whose exposition this is, as Bellarmine did S. Augu­stine, then to come out with an (I say) only affirming but prouing nothing, neither by authoritie or reason, as like­wise to haue admitted both these expositions for probable, as Bellarmine doth, and not set one Father against another, who agree well inough, and are not so addicted to their owne priuate iudgment, that they condemne any other probable opinion, though they thinke their owne more pro­bable. Now whether of these two opinions is more pro­bable, I leaue to others to examine, since it were from my purpose to discusse that question. But if M. Downam will nee­des contend, I remit him to Cardinall Tolets exposition vpon this place, where he explicateth, and defendeth S. Augusti­nes opinion, against whome if he hath any thing to say in this point, he shall not goe vnanswered. But I would wish him rather to prooue, then to scoffe, especiallie at S. Augu­stine & other Fathers; otherwise to any discret Reader he will seeme too ridiculous, though he vseth all his Sophistrie, as he doth heere, by telling vs, that the Ghospell could not bring How the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apo­stles tyme. forth fruite, vnlesse it were actuallie; and to shew his great lear­ning noteth the same sense in the margent both in latin and greeke. But he must know, that as it is necessary, that the Ghospell should be actuallie in some place of the world, before it bringeth forth fruit; so is it sufficient, that it be vertuallie in the whole world: & the verie increasing & ex­tending [Page 77] it selfe, is one manner of [...]ringing forth fruite, of which the Apostle speaketh; which could not be, if already the Ghospell had bene actuallie in the whole world, and therefore it is to be vnderstood only vertuallie, in respect of the whole world, as is well declared by the example of a Citty set on fire in some places, which may trulie be said to be all on fire vertuallie, though actuallie onlie some parts of it be soe. And thus wee haue seene what M. Downam hath ben able to saie for himselfe, not hauing omitted anie shift of his, except he would haue vs repeate the same thing as often as he doth, as now at the verie end, citing afresh those wordes of S. Paul, that the Ghospell is preached among all creatures, that are vnder Heauen; which Bellarmine did put in obiection, and answered three wayes, as wee haue seene.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

2. First then he answereth to the two places of Daniel 2. and 7. togeather, seeking many sillie shiftes to escape the II force of them, as that vpon the desolation of the Empire in the VVest, it was deuyded among ten Kinges at the least; whereof none was called King of the Romans. Whereby he would inferre, that the diui­sion Ten Kings shall de­uide the whole Roman Empire among them, so that there shalbe no Roman Emperour in their tyme. of the Roman Empire into ten Kinges, argueth not the vtter desolation thereof, since at that tyme there were 10. Kinges at the least, and yet besides a Roman Emperour in the East. But I would aske M. Downam, whether those ten Kinges had all, or only part of the Roman Empire deuided amongst them? and if he must needes answere, only part, thē it is no meruaile, though there were a Roman Emperour togeather with them; but the miracle had bene, if M. Downā could haue shewed vs ten Kinges, that had all the whole Empire deuided among them; and yet haue found vs a Ro­mā Emperour that had some part of it; which because he neither hath, nor can doe, therefore when those ten Kinges [Page 84] shall come, that Daniel speaketh of, there shalbe no Roman Emperour as there was in the tyme of those Kinges which M. Downam mentioneth, by which we plainely see, that he spake from the purpose of a quite different matter from Daniel, who likewise speaketh of ten Kinges who should suc­ceed the Roman Emperours: euen as they had succeeded the Grecians, and these the Persians, and these againe the Assyrians; wheras M. Downam telleth vs of 10. Kinges, who liued to­geather with the Roman Emperours. And by this tyme I thinke M. Downam will wish, that he had not returned Bellar­mines argument vpon him, since he seeth, how little credit and how great shame will returne to himselfe by this returning. For not only Bellarmine, but any other, though neuer so meane a scholler will laugh to heare M. Downam inferre vp­on the comming of those his westerne Kinges, the cōming of Antichrist also, who they know is not to come, so long as there is any Roman Emperour remayning, how many Kinges soeuer besides come or go; and they will likewise smile at M. Downams cunning, which he vsed to bring in this returning Argument, in that he putteth Bellarmins argument into a new forme, and maketh him immediatly infer the not comming of Antichrist, by the not comming of the Downam changeth Bellar­mines ar­gument. 10. Kinges, wheras he only proueth the vtter desolation of the Roman Empire by their comming, and succeding in al the Dominions of that Empire; & finally som of his friends will wish, that he had kept that diuersity of reading the Scripture (some hauing after the Beast, others with the Beast) Apc. 17. 12. till it might haue stood him in better steed.

But yet you shall heare M. Downam dispute more deeply, for hauing cited part of Bellarmines words, he setteth downe his first answere in these wordes. Answere 1. This argu­mentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction for if there be in Dani­el described a succession of Kingdomes, which shall continue to the end of the world, wherof the Roman is the last; then the Roman Empire shall not viterly be destroyed before the comming of Antichrist, which goeth before the end of the world. But what will you say, M. Downam, if the Roman Empire be not the last Kingdome, which Daniel de­scribeth? Will you cōfesse that it shalbe destroyed, before the comming of Antichrist, as well as before the end of the [Page 85] world? Doth not Bellarmyne vrge out of Daniel, as the last succession, ten Kinges signified by the ten toes, and the ten Downam forgetteth what he impug­neth hornes? Is not all this disputation about them? Are you growne into that heate of passion, that you forget what you impugne? Surely thē it is time for you to dispute no longer, and if you will needes be doing, at leastwise, take heed of these returning arguments.

Thirdly M. Downā confessing, that he leaueth the cōmon opi­nion, and followeth another of the learned, especially of these later times, affirmeth, that the 4. Kingdome mentioned in those Chapters of Daniel, is that Kingdome of the Seleucidae, & Lagida which tyrannized ouer the people of Iury; the former being Kings of Syria, & the later of Egypt: but this he proueth not any other­wise, but by a bare repetitiō of the same assertion, though he beginneth with a (For) as though he would haue said some­thing, but we are cōtent to think, that he hath somwhat in store for hereafter: since he promiseth, that hereafter this shalbe shewed to be most true, only in the meane time he must giue vs leaue to hold the cōmon opiniō till we know who See. Chap. 16. these learned men be, that durst inuent a new particuler opi­nion except they can proue it most clearly, as M. Downā saith and we will belieue, whē we see it, for now it seemeth very pro­bable, that those iron leggs signify the Roman Empire, as well for their length, as Bellarmine well noted, & M. Downā negligently if not craftily omitted in the alleg [...]tion of his wordes, putting in an (&c.) when he came to that place, as also for their strength, in which the 4. Beast also excel­leth, The Ro­man Em­pire signi­fyed by the 2. iron leggs of Nabuco­donozors statua & the 4. beast. Dan. 7. as the Prophet himselfe expresseth: Quomodo ferrūcom­minuit & domat omnia, sic cōminuet, & conteret omnia haec. As iron breaketh and tameth all thinges, so shall (that kingdome) breake and teare in peeces all these former kingdomes: nei­ther would I haue the Reader deceaued with the oppositi­on of learned, to common, which he findeth made by M. Dow­nam, by thinking that he meant, that the ancient opinion was houlden only by the common sort of people: for no doubt he will acknowledg Bellarmine to be as learned as him selfe, no disprayse to him, who is the only learned man that yet he expresseth to hould this new opinion; and be­sides he will not easily condemne S. Irenaeus, whom Bellarmine [Page 86] cyteth for vnlearned; and yet his once not vouch safing to name him, may make some doubtfull, and therefore I will adde S. Hierome, whome no man but an ignorant will accompte vnlearned. He therfore vpon this verie place Daniel 2. saith: Regnū quartum perspicuè pertinet ad Romanos. The 4. Kingdome perspicuously belōgeth to the Romās: & cap. 7. Quartū quod nunc orbem tenet terrarum, Imperiū Romanorū est. The fourth which now possesseth the world, is the Empire of the Romans. Thus much for the fourth Beast, and Iron leggs.

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

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

3. To the second proofe out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam III hath very little to answere & therfore he is glad to take hould Apoc. 17. of euery word spoken obiter, and by the way; as that Rome is the Harlot, wherof S. Io. speaketh, and that the seauen heads signify all the Emperours of Rome: the first of which M. Downam liketh very well, but the second he affirmeth to be vntrue, because they are numbred, fiue are fallen, the sixt is, and the 7. is not yet come; in which point I will not now much cō ­tend; because M. Downam confesseth, that it is besides the purpose. And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition [Page 88] more probable, he shall find me very ready to allow of it, though he might haue vsed more moderation in his censure, Downam not mo­derate in his cen­sure. since he cannot choose but know, that many great authors haue taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely; as without all question in many other places it is to be taken; and his difficulty must be solued by himselfe, since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heades is meant the Roman State, and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially: and yet by the head which was wounded, which he maketh the 6. he likewise vnder­standeth the State of the Emperours, which besides the dif­ficulty common to Bellarmine, inuolueth a contradictiō pe­culier to M. Downam. Neither will I stand now to discusse with M. Downam, whether Rome be the Seate of Antichrist or no, or how, and in what state; only I must aduise him, that Bellarmine affirmeth not, that the VVhore of Babylon is the seate of Antichrist, as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the VVhore of Babylon: but these are M. Downams owne additions, See cap. 13. which if he will haue graunted, he must first proue them in their due places.

But now to come to that, which Bellarmin would proue; M. Downam first is inforced to yeild, that these ten hornes signify 10. Kinges, which shall raigne togeather, and only can help him­selfe with affirming, that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh, which raigned successiuelie. For which point I remit my selfe to that, which hath byn said in the former proofe; besides that it is no small confirmation that S. Iohn must needes be vnderstood of 10. Kinges, which raigne to­geather, since their wordes are so like, and S. Iohn may be thought to expound Daniel, whome heere M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault; since that chap­ter maketh not to his purpose, and therefore was neuer mē ­tioned in the whole precedent discourse. Well it is now at length agreed vpon, that there shall 10. Kinges raigne togea­ther. Wherfore it only remayneth to proue, that in the time of these 10. Kings, there shal be no Roman Emperour, & con­sequently that the Roman Empire shalbe vtterly destroyed; and so it is tyme for M. Downam to bestirre himselfe: and to vse al his iugling tricks. First then he bringeth in Bellarmines [Page 89] first proposition, in the beginning of the question for an ar­gument in this place, and not truly neither. But it will be best to heare M. Downams owne wordes. How then (saith he) doth Bellarmine proue, that before Antichrist commeth, the Roman Em­pire shallbe so vtterly destroyed, as not the name of a Roman Emperour or King of the Romans should remayne? because the Empire shallbe deuided among 10. Kinges which are not Roman Kinges &c. Wheras Bellar­mines wordes are these: VVe must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges, of which none shalbe, or be called King of the Romans: where you see not only the being, but al­so the name of Roman Kinges is excluded. But (saith M. Dow­nam) he that is none of those 10. Kinges, may haue the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans; as namely the beast which was, & is not, though it be, which is the 8. head, and is one of the 7. that is to say, the Emperour erected by the Pope.

This found and foolish conceipt, that the beast which was, and is not, is the Emperour erected by the Pope, shall in other places be largely confuted. Now I would only know, how this Emperour can be, when the whole Empire is deuided among those other 10. Kinges, as Bellarmine affir­meth, and proueth out of this very place, as we should haue seene ere this, had not M. Downam interrupted vs with his impertinent disgressions, which perhaps foreseeing and fea­ring, he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose. And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans? first forsooth, because they shall hate Rome, and make her desolate. But he might haue kept his (first) & (forsooth) in his purse insteed of money: for Bellarmine giueth but one reason, which is the foresaid wordes of Scripture, adding only the exposition of them, which because M. Downam could not impugne, he though best to deuide, that so hauing separated the expositi­on from the place of Scripture, the one might want autho­rity, and the other be easily shifted of, as he doth in these words: As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans, may not hate Rome, notwithstanding that title, as indeed some of the Empe­rours haue done: which euasion had byn too ridiculous, if he had added Bellarmines exposition, to wit, that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shal hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and shall eate her flesh, and shal burne her with fire, be­cause [Page 90] they shall so deuide the Roman Empire amongst them, that they shall vtterlie destroy it. Where by the way M. Downam may vnderstād, The Ro­man Em­pire de­stroied by the 10 Kings. that by Rome is not onlie vnderstood the particuler Citty, but also the whole Roman Empire, of which in S. Iohns tyme Rome was the head, and so denominated the whole, as that which the Logicians would call principale Analogatum. Now, how can the vtter destruction of this Romā Empire be more significantlie declared, then by being hated, made desolate, and naked, haue her flesh eaten, and finallie be burnt with fire? And how can anie man imagine, but that the 10. Kinges which shall bring all this to passe shalbe vtter ene­mies aswell of the Emperours so long as there are any, as li­kewise of the Empire? And by this tyme I imagine M. Dow­nam will be perswaded that Bellarmine vsed no circular dis­putation, but confirmed his doctrine by an expresse place of Scripture. But least there should want a circular disputa­tion, M. Downam bringeth in an experience approoued onlie Downams petitio principij. by his owne opinion, but altogeather denied by Bellarmine & all Catholikes, of the Roman Empire alreadie dissolued, & deui­ded betwixt Antichrist & ten Kinges, the title & name of Emperour still remayning; by which to anie iudicious Reader hee maketh himself so ridiculous, that his bragging of his former proofs out of this place, that Antichrist is come, and that the Pope is Antichrist, will hardlie be belieued, and at leastwise I doubt not, but men will staie their censure, till they see those proofes examined.

4. M. Downam comming to the third proofe, verie courteously admitteth it, because it is so manifest that he IV could not deny it, that 2. Thess. 2. is to bee vnderstood of 2. Thess. 2. the Roman Empire: but then he manfully denieth that either V. VI. the Apostle or anie of the Fathers, excepting Lactantius, whose pro­phecie (saith M. Downā) in this point the Papists themselues do think to be erroneou [...], do say that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished, as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans shall remaine. Where first wee haue the authoritie of Lactantius so plaine, as no euasion can be found to shift it of; and therefore M. Downam is inforced to call his prophesie erro­neous, and is not ashamed to affirme, that it is held so by Catholikes, euen in this point. For cofirmation of which [Page 91] he is alleadged by Bellarmine, which no doubt is a point of egregious impudency. But wee see noe cause, why wee Downās impuden­cie. should not more esteeme the authority of Lactantius, so an­cient and learned a writer, then of a thousand M. Downams, especiallie since both the Scripture, and Fathers fauour his opinion so greatly. For what is de medio fieri, but to be quite taken away? and I belieue M. Downam would bee loath to stand to the hazard, if there were order giuen by some in authoritie, vt ipse de medio fieret. And this the Fathers tooke to be so plaine, that they thought it needed no exposition, though sometime they vse other words, which signifie the same vtter desolation, as S. Cyril, when the tymes of the Roman Empire are expired; Tertull. when the Empire is ouerthrowne; S. Ambrose, after the defectiō & abolitiō; S. Hierom, except all Na­tions which are subiect to the Roman Empire, reuolt from them: and vnles How many waves the Fathers affirme the vtter destructiō of the Ro­mā Empi­re & why they spake sparingly of this point. the Roman Empire be first desolate, passe, and bee takē away. And S. Augustine opposeth to be takē out of the way, to raigning. So that when the Emperour is taken out of the way, hee shall raigne no longer, which is all one as to saie, he shalbe no longer Emperour. Surelie it is hard to expresse the vtter desolatiō of any Kingdome, with more significant wordes. And yet Bellarmine tould M. Downam a verie good reason, why both the Apostle, and the Fathers would speake some­what sparinglie in this point, to wit least it might be offen­siue to the Roman Emperours, in whose tymes they liued, and therefore wee see how fearefullie Lactantius speaketh, & how Tertullian bringeth it in without offence, saying, that Christians praie for the continuance of the Roman Empire. And M. Dow­nam IV might haue done well to haue found vs out some one Father, that had fauoured his exposition; which he negle­cted, not for want of good will, as wee see plainelie by his citing of S. Hierome, Qui tenebat, de medio sit &c. which hee translateth, He which held, is taken away &c. putting the preter-perfect, Downam transla­teth not well. for the present tense, and so he should haue said, He which held, is in taking away, or haue added some other signe, which might haue signified that it was in doing, but not done, which is most true, both in S Hieroms tyme, and euer since, & before too; and the neerer we see the Roman Em­pire to draw to an end, the neerer we may likewise thinke, [Page 92] that Antichrist draweth, as S. Hierome affirmeth: but till that (fit) be made (factus est) that is, till the Roman Empire be vtterlie ouerthrowne indeed, Antichrist shall not come, how neere soeuer he be, which S. Hierome, and all the Fa­thers plainely affirme, as we haue seene. Neither can M. Downam himselfe think, that the Empire was taken away in such sort in S. Hieromes time, as was necessary before Anti­christs comming and reuealing, since that he himself dareth not affirme, that he came then in such sort, as S. Paul descri­beth 2. Thess. 2. Wherfore he must either reiect S. Hierom in this also, or els expound him, as I haue done. And it is a prettie matter, that the Apostle, and the Fathers telling vs, that the Roman Empire hindereth Antichrists comming, M. Downam should still beare vs downe, that the Empire as it is now, hindereth not Antichrist, but rather furthereth. But I hope men will rather haue the Apostle, and the Fa­thers to stand by them in the day of iudgment, when they shall giue accompt of their fayth, in this point, then M. Downam, who will haue more then he can doe, to answere for himselfe. The Holy Ghost wel foresaw, that the Roman Empire should be in these tymes, as we now see it, and no doubt would not haue affirmed so absolutely, that it hinde­reth Antichrists comming, if at any tyme it could haue bene togeather with him, or haue furthered him; otherwise VII. VIII. we might haue a iust excuse for our mistaking. Neither is the Empire now so greatly diminished, as M. Downam There now a Roman Emperour indeed, & not in name or title only. would giue vs to vnderstand: for there is now an Emperour of the Romans indeed, and not only in title without the thing it selfe, as we see the whole world acknowledgeth, euen the Prote­stants themselues; and who but M. Downam would affirme that the Emperour that now is, hath no Prouinces? For as for Rome he graunteth, that it is not necessary, that he should IX. X. XI. haue it. Is a great part of Germany nothing with M. Dow­nam? It should seeme, that he is become a great despiser of the world, since that which all Christian, & Infidell Prin­ces and people esteeme so much, he accoumpteth no­thing.

5. To conclude this Chapter, M. Downam goeth about to reply vpon Bellarmines answere to the obiection of Luther & [Page 93] the rest; and telleth vs, that it is euident, that the former Beast A­poc. 13. figureth not Antichrist, but the Roman state, and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially; but it had bene wel, that he would XIII. XIIII. XV. XVI. haue shewed vs this euidence: for neither we, nor the Fa­thers which Bellarmine citeth, to whom we may adde S. Ire­naeus l. 5. cap. 28. Arethas, S. Methodius, and S. Hippolytus in orat. de The for­mer beast, Apoc. 13. signifyeth Anti­christ. Apoc. 13. See cap. 15. §. 3. & 4. & part. 2. c. 3. n. 8. consummatione mundi, can see any such euidence, but rather the contrary, to wit, that the former beast signifyeth Antichrist at least in one of his heads, which might be playnly gathe­red out of the Text, if it were our turne to proue, as it is M. Downams. But since we must answere, only his authority auouching a new exposition without reason, moueth vs ve­ry little. Secondly M. Downam telleth vs, that it is not said, that one of the heads did saigne it selfe dead, and by the help of the Diuell did rise againe (which needeth not (saith he) if the death were counterfait) but that one of the heads had receaued a deadly wound, and was cured againe. But wee knew thus much before he tould vs so; nei­ther doth Bellarmine affirme, that the Scripture hath that ex­position in it selfe, for then what need we seeke for any o­ther. The words of the Scripture are, Vidi vnum de capitibus suis, quasi occisum in mortem. I saw one of his heades, as it were slaine to death. Where we se a (quasi) which M. Downam omitted, but the Fathers made so great accoumpt of it, that they chiefely grounded their exposition vpon it, especially be­cause they knew very wel, that if it had byn no faigned, but a true and reall death, it had passed the diuels cunning to haue recouered him; except M. Downam will thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles, as he seemeth to insinuate, by saying, that the Diuels help neded not, if the death were countersait; but yet wee will thinke better of him, then that he will fall to open blasphemy, and will only tell him, that the Diuels cunning was very needfull to make this wound seeme so des­perate and mortall, and to faygne death so cunningly, that al should remayne so fullie satisfied, and verily perswaded, that the head had byn dead indeed, and was risen againe by the power which the beast had by the Diuell.

But here wee must not passe ouer in silence M. Dow­nams iuggling trickes: for in his opinion the second Beast with two hornes is Antichrist; for so he obiecteth to Bel­larmine, [Page 94] that he might haue read, that the second beast which is Anti­christ, causeth the Image of the beast, that is, the new Empire to be made, and putteth life into it. Now, this second beast had not yet ap­peared to S. Iohn, when the head of the former beast was healed by the power, which the Dragon had giuen to the former beast: yet is M. Downam content to apply this to the Pope also, not caring (as it seemeth) what he saith, so that he may seeme to say somthing against the Pope. But by the former beast, as wee haue seene, & Luther, Illyricus & Chytraeus in their obiections suppose Antichrist is signified, by the latter his chiefe Precursor, and false Prophet, who shall cause his followers to errect Statua's, & Images of Antichrist, out of By the la­ter beast which by his procuring the Diuells shall speake, & giue ās­wers, & other signes of life, as sometimes happened amōg the Apoc. 11. is signified Anticrists false Pro­phet. Pagās & Idolators. And this is the exposition of the anciēt Fathers: by which all M. Downams deuise of the new Empire erected by the Pope, becommeth too too foolish and ridi­culous. And if I were to dispute, and not to answere, I would aske how the Roman Empire came to haue 7. heads togeather? Perhappes he might haue found two hornes, as the second beast had, by reason of the East and West Em­pire. But now I will not vrge him any further, since his folly is more then notorious already.

6. Finallie M. Downam would make vs belieue, that Bel­larmine fighteth with his owne shaddow, when he inuincibly pro­ueth, that the head which was healed, is not Charles the Great, for (saith he) by the head is not meant any one Man, but the state and succession of Emperours. And hath he not amended the matter well, thinke you, that wheras Bellarmine proueth, that it could not be Charles, because he raigned longer then 42. monethes, M. Downam answereth it is true, it could not be Charles, but yet it might be the State and succession of Emperours, as though this endured lesse tyme then Charles, conteyning both him and all the other Emperours? Can there be anie Downams ridiculous absurditie. thing more ridiculous then this? And is M. Downam anie better then a shaddow for Bellarmine to fight withall? But yet he will haue one saying more, and so he telleth vs, that which is added concerning the Vniuersality either of worship or rule is not spokē of the head which was reuiued, but of the beast which was to haue one of [Page 95] his seauen heads wounded to death, and cured againe. Well then, let M. Downam shew vs, where, or by whom the Roman Empire had either worship or rule after the head was healed, that is (in his opinion) after the Empire was restored by the Pope, but onlie in Charles the Great, and his Successors? If he cannot shew vs any such matter anie where els, let him confesse, that this Vniuersalitie of rule and worship cannot befound in the Roman Empire, but onlie in Antichrist; as neither he can shew vs, that anie of the Roman Emperours after Charles the Great blasphemed God and his Saintes, so as this head or beast is said to doe. But yet to doe him a courtesie, wee will not stick much to graunt him as probable, that Whether the woū ­ded head. Apoc. 13. be Anti­christ or noe. the head is not Antichrist himselfe, but one of the 7. Kinges, which shall continue with Antichrist, and follow & assist him in all his wickednesse, as he may see learnedly ex­pounded in Ribera one of Bellarmines religion and order. And thus wee will cōclude, leauing the iudicious Reader to iud­ge, whether the Protestantes are deceaued, thinking that the decli­nation of the Empire was sufficient for Antichrists comming, as Bellar­mine modestelie affirmeth, after euident proofes: or the Catholikes be in an errour, who thinke that Antichrist commeth not be­fore the vtter desolation of the Roman Empire, as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth, only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes, since he cannot come neere him in proofes.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. MAISTER Downams first answere is, that though all this were true, to wit, that Enoch & Helias were to come in their owne persons, before the second comming of Christ, and to oppose themselues against Antichrist (all which he meaneth in his se­cond answere to deny:) Yet it followeth not, that therfore Antichrist should not be come before their comming. It is sufficient (saith he) that they come before his ouerthrow, and the second comming of Christ: and therefore, if they were indeed to come, their comming might be yet expe­cted, notwithstanding the truth of our assertion, that Antichrist is alrea­dy come. But M. Downam did wisely not to stand much vpon Helias & Henoch are to preach in a man­ner as long as Antichrist is to rai­gne. this solution, for he could not choose, but know, that He­noch and Helias were to preach very neere as long as Anti­tichrist was to persecute and raigne, since that Apoc. 11. the tyme of their preaching is appointed to be 1260. daies which wanteth not much of three yeares and a halfe, or 42. moneths; which both S. Iohn, and Daniel appoint for Anti­christs Kingdome, and therfore Bellarmine had reason to affirme, that they were to come togeather, and to accō ­pany one another, which likewise must needes be graunted by them, which admitt that the cause of their com­ming shallbe to oppose themselues to Antichrist, for it [Page 102] would be verie late to come a thousand yeares after, especi­ally for them, which are dead so many yeares before; wher­fore M. Downam was somthing to free in this first answere, but he will make a mends in his second, where he mea­neth to deny all, that either the Scriptures or Fathers haue affirmed, concerning the comming of the setwo diuine wit­nesses.

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

Wherefore leauing these his shiftes, let vs heare what he can answere to that place of Malachy. He denieth that II. III. by Elias, is meant Elias the Thesbite, but Iohn the Baptist: which he Malach. 4. will needes prooue also, because Luc. 1. the Angell saith, that S. Iohn should go before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Heli­as, Luc. 1. that he may turne the hartes of the Fathers vnto the Children &c. but who seeth not, that this is onlie to be Helias spirituallie and vertuallie, or as Bellarmine speaketh, allegorically? which no Catholike denieth; but withall wee affirme, that Helias litterallie is to come in the tyme of Antichrist, as Bellarm. pro­ueth out of the place of Malachy; which it seemeth M. Dow­nam is loath to heare of, and therefore he interrupteth him so disorderly with prouing, when it is his turne to answere. But we will beare with his rudenesse, so that he will be sa­tisfied [Page 103] with any reason. Wherfore secondly, be bringeth Matth. 11. where he saith, that our Saviour most plainaly affir­meth, I. IX. that Iohn Baptist is that Helias who was to come. But we must Matth. 11. tell him ere he passe any further, that he is somewhat too bould to change our Sauiours wordes, who not without great cause said not, who was to come, as M. Downā would make Downam corrup­teth the Scripture. him; but who is to come; signifying plainely, that S. Iohn Baptist comming had not fulfilled the prophesie of Malachie, since that Elias was still to come after him, and consequent­lie that S. Iohn Baptist was onlie Elias spirituallie &c. as hath bene said; because he endeauoured to conuert the Iewes, which lyued then, as Elias shall do those, which shall liue in the time of Antichrist, & both of thē haue for office to pre­pare for our Sauiours comming, S. Iohn for the first, and Elias for the second. I omit M. Downams exposition of the other words in that place as impertinent, because they are not to this purpose: and as for his railing, wee must be content to put vp that and more, at such good fellowes handes.

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

[Page 104] 3. Now, that M. Downam hath spent his owne proofes be is content to begin to answere Bellarmines, who proueth that Malachy speaketh of the second comming, because he calleth it a great and horrible day. Where M. Downam is not asha­med to say, that Bellarmine giueth the lie to the spirit of God, spea­king in the Angel, Luc. 1. and our Sauiour Matth. 11. & 17. But Dow­name im­pudenty. surely he deserueth to haue the lye giuen him, that is not a­fraid nor ashamed to behaue himselfe so impudently. VVell it is our hard happe to haue to doe with such men. Let vs see, what he answereth: for the application of the Angell, and our Sauiour, wee haue already seene, that it was only a spirituall, vertuall, or allegoricall application, which hindereth not the litterall sense of the second comming, as Bellarmine proo­ueth. Malach. 3. v. 1. But M. Downam answereth to his argument, that the first comming may also be called terrible, which he confir­meth out of Malac. 3. v. 1. where he speaketh most plainly of the first cō ­ming, and yet saith: who may abyde the day of his comming? and who shall endure, when he appeareth, for he is like a purging fier, and like fullers sope, and he shall sit downe to try, and fine the siluer. But we may well oppose the authority of S. Augustine to M. Downam, without doing him iniury. He therfore lib. 18. Ciu. cap. 35. and lib. 20. cap. 25. & 26. as likewise Euseb. lib. 5. demonst. Euang. cap. 28. and Theodoretus expound these wordes of the second comming, though immediately before the Prophet spake of the first. But yet we will do M. Downam the courtesy to graunt that they are to be vnderstood of the first with S. Cyril, Ru­pertus and others, so that he will admit their interpretation in other points: for the sense is; who can so much as think how great the glory of this day is, by reason of the benefites which the Messias shall bring with him to mankind? and who can sufficiently admire or rather looke vpon so great a light and goodnesse? For he shalbe like a purging fyre, by reason of the labours and afflictions, or rather of the holy Ghost, which shall come in fyery tongues, with which he shall purge the hartes of those which belieue in him, & like the sope or her be of Fullers, by reason of his grace, with which he shall make the soules of men most pure and white; and he shall do this most seriously, and with great diligence All which signifyeth not the torrible and horrible day, but [Page 105] an acceptable and healthsome tyme. And heere by the way wee may note, what little reason M. Downam, and his fellowes haue to leaue S. Hieromes vulgar translation, who Downam admitteth what in­pretation, and Translati­on he li­steth hath: Quis poterit cogitare, and translate with other interpre­ters, Quis sustinebit? Except they would admit the former ex­position of them, which read it so? But they will admit what they list, and reiect what they list, and one while they will haue vs belieue, that the Ghospell terrifieth not at all, and an otherwhile, that it terrifieth as much as the old law, yea much more, euen asmuch as the second comming of our Lord to iudgment. But since they take so much liberty to teach what they list, we may likewise take leaue to belieue them, so farre as we list.

VVel, let vs see how M. Downam goeth forward to proue that the first comming of our Lord may be called terrible: Of the same comming (saith he) the prophet speaketh in the beginning of the 4. Chap. Behould the day commeth that shal burne Malach. 4. as an ouen &c. shewing how terrible it shalbe to the wicked. But vnto yow that feare my name (saith the Lord v. 2.) shall the sunne of righteousnes arise, and health shalbe vnder his winges &c. But here we are constrayned to forsake M. Downam, since both Iewes and Christians consent, that these wordes are to be vnder­stood of the day of iudgment, and the wordes themselues are so playne, that they need no interpretation: and it was tyme for him to adde (&c.) in both periods, for otherwise euery man would haue seene, that the proud and wicked are not to be consumed as stubble cast into the fire till then, as neyther, that they shall be trodden vnder the seete of the iust like ashes, as the Pro­phet affirmeth that they shall be in this great and terrible Downam cutteth of the words which make most to the pur­pose. day. Wherfore this illation maketh plainely for vs, if M. Downam will shew vs as much courtesie now, as we did him in the former Chapter, that is, to graunt, that the Prophet continueth still to speake of the same comming; though in­deed we need no such fauour, since that in the very place in controuersy, this comming is called great and horrible, as Bellarmine vrgeth. But M. Downam goeth on still with his ci­tations Matth. 3. 10. Now is the axe laid to the roote of the tree &c. Matth. 3. and verse 11. & 12. He that commeth after me is mightier then I: he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fier, who hath his sa [...]e in [Page 106] his hand (vsing the like fimilitude that Malachy did) and will purge his floore, & gather his wheat into his Granary, but wil burne vp the chaffe with vnquenchable fier. All which maketh very little to the purpose: for the sense is, that heerafter the Iewes shall haue no priuiledge aboue other Nations, by being the children of Abraham, except they did imitate his workes: and that our Sauiours Baptisme was of more force, thē S. Iohn Baptists, because he would send the holy Ghost visible in tierie ton­gues, for which cause he is said to be mightier then S. Iohn, as likewise, because he will purge his floore in this life with tribulations, and with the holy Ghost (as the Prophet Ma­lachy said) and after at the day of Iudgement, gather his wheat into his Granary, & burne vp the chaff with vnquē ­chable fier; which who seeth not, that it shall be chiefly at his second comming, and in some sort in euery mans par­ticuler iudgement, but in no wise at his first comming? And the rest seemeth nothing terrible, except perhappes to the Iewes; but that were without reason also, since they are not made in any worse estate, then they were before, but only other Nations are in better; so that their priui­ledg is made common with others, or rather insteed of their particuler priuiledge, they receaue a common benefit greater without comparison.

Finally M. Downam bringeth the prophesy of ould Sy­meon Luc. 2. that our Sauiour was put to the ruyne, and rising of ma­ny: and Rom. 9. he is called a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence; Luc. 2. Rom. 9. vpon which stone whosoeuer falleth, shall be broken in peeces: but vpō whomsoeuer it shall fall, it shall all to grind him, Matth. 21. But these places are lesse to the purpose thē the rest, for true it is, many Matth. 21. by their owne fault & want of faith came to ruyne by occa­sion of Christs comming, but this maketh not his comming terrible, no more then any other benefite can be accompted so, because the abuse of it causeth harme to the ab [...]sers, & in this sense and no otherwise is he called a stumbling stone, or a rock of offence, for otherwise of it selfe, his first comming is only in resurrectionem, and lapis summus, angularis, electus, pretiosus, 1. Pet. 2. as S. Peter speaketh, and to fall vpon this stone, is to be scan­dalized, and not to belieue in Christ, which is a great mi­sery Apoc. 2. & 21. signified by S. Iohn Apoc. cap. 2. & 21. by the first death, [Page 107] but they vpō whō it falleth tast likewise of the secōd death, which is a farre greater misery, and is to befall them in the second comming of our Lord to iudgemēt as a proper effect of that comming: whereas the other is not the effect of our Sauiours first comming, but of mens owne wickednesse, by which they are said to fall and stumble vpon him, by whom they might haue risen, if they had taken that benefite by him, which he came to procure them. And thus we see that the first comming of our B. Sauiour was no way ter­rible Christs first com­ming was not terri­ble, as his second shalbe. of it selfe, but altogeather comfortable and pleasant; so that this great and horrible daie of which the Prophet speaketh, must needes be the day of his second comming, which shall of it selfe, and properlie be terrible, as con­tayning rather Iustice and Iudgement, then Mercy; which onlie was to be found in the first, euen towards the wicked themselues, whome he came not then to iudge, but to call to pennance.

All these places of Scripture being thus easilie answered, it was no meruaile, though M. Downā rested not content, & therfore answereth further, that the Hebrew word Norah signi­fieth also Reuerend, to be feared, or had in reuerence, as Gen. 28. 17. Deut. 7. 21. and so is translated by Tremelius and Iunius in this place of Malachie. And thus both that word, and others of the same roote are vsed in the signification of reuerence, or filiall feare. And he citeth in the margent psal. 13. 4. But M. Downam must know, that we esteeme more of S. Hierome, and other auncient inter­preters, then of his new Tremelius and Iunius, who we doubt not will fauour their new opinions so much as they may, by any colour they can deuise. Wherefore since the word may signifie both reuerence and terrour, and besides most vsuallie it signifieth terrour, & particulerlie in this place by the cōsent of all ancient interpreters & Fathers; we see no reason why we should imbrace this new particuler opini­on, but rather take the same sense in this place, which is manifest, that the same words haue Ioel 2. except M. Doumā can shew vs, that the Sun was turned into darkenes, and the Moone into bloud, before the first comming of our Sauiour. Finally there is no doubt, but that the second comming is as full of reuerence, and filiall feare as the first, and consequently euen [Page 108] in this sense also were to be called horible and terrible. Thus much for the 1. proofe, that Malac. spake of the secōd cōming.

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

Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead, though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists; for how learned soeuer he was, his priuate exposition plainely both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers, and the text it selfe (as Bellar­mine hath proued) can haue no great force: and indeed this was the fault of that man, that he trusted more to his owne iudgment, then to the authority of others, which must needes please M. Downam well, and we are content to let it passe, so long as he was content to submit all his priuate o­pinions to the Churches censure, which M. Downam will [Page 109] not doe; and therfore where the other was sometime rash, he is still headlong, that is an heretike: and so we admit that Arias in a rashnes fauoured to much some of M. Downās heresies. And this shall suffice for the first place of the Pro­phet Malachy.

4. Bellarmines second Scripture is the booke of Ecclesiasti­cus, I. VI. out of which he alleadgeth two places, the one for Helias, and the other for Henoch, to which M. Downam answereth: Ecclesia­sticus Ca­nonicall Scripture. First, that although this booke be very commendable, yet it is not of Ca­nonicall authority, being but an humane writing, as appeareth not only by the former place alleadged, but also by that erroneous conceipt concer­ning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this booke is canoni­call, he may see manifestly proued in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei, cap. 10. & 14. by the authority of Councells and Fathers. Neither could Caluin D. Downams good Maister find any ob­iection against this booke in particuler, though he censured it more hardely, then M. Downam doth. By which we ima­gine, that it will be an easy matter to answere to these two obiections, which M. Downam maketh in this place: and in­deed they are plaine fooleries, and therfore no meruaile, though Caluin had wit inough to omit them: for what can be more foolish, then to deny the authority of Scripture, on­ly Downās petitio principij. because it fauoureth his aduersary in some questiōs in cō ­trouersy? Did euer any Heretike deny any part of Scrip­ture, with lesse reason then this? And for the present que­stion, I hope the Reader will remayne satisfied with that, which shalbe said in this Chapter: and for the other of Sa­muel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that, which Bellarmine wri­teth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Dow­nam the authority of S. Augustine, who as Bellarmine well no­teth, hauing bene doubtfull lib. 2. ad Simplicianū q. 3. whe­ther Samuel himselfe appeared to Saul or no, affirmed with­out doubt that it was Samuel, lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. ci­ting the place of Ecclesiasticus, which before he had omitted. M. Downams second answere is, that in neither place it is said, that either of them should come to oppose himselfe against Antichrist. But what then? at least wise it is said, that they shall come to appease Gods wrath, and to reconcile the hart of the father to the sonne, and to restore the Tribes of Israel: and of Henoch, to giue pennance to Nations: [Page 110] all which we learne out of the other places of Scripture, & by the exposition of the Fathers, that it shalbe in the tyme of Antichrist not long before our Sauiours second com­ming, and consequently that they shall oppose themselues to Antichrist, since he shall striue to drawe both Iewes and Gentills from Christ, and they will labour to conuert them to Christ. And heere I would haue my Reader note one of M. Downams ordinary shiftes, to tell vs what the argument Downās ordinary shifte. doth not proue, omitting directly to answere to that, which it proueth, & for which it is brought. Thirdly he answereth seuerally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote, according to the receaued opinion of his tyme, which in M. Downams opinion was Eccles. 48. false. But surely we haue no reason, to belieue him better then Ecclesiasticus, and the Iewes of his tyme, who were no doubt the true people of God; which (whatsoeuer M. Dow­nam may perswade himselfe by his speciall Faith) others will greatly doubt of him; and as for our Sauiours, and the Prophet Malachies wordes, we haue and shall sufficiently proue, that they were not against Ecclesiasticus, nor the re­ceaued opinion of his tyme, as neither against vs, who all agree, that Elias in person, and litterally is to come, before Downam condem­neth Ec­clesiasti­cus & the Iewes of his tyme. the second comming of our Sauiour. And surely M. Downam is to bould with Ecclesiasticus, and those of his tyme, to attri­bute vnto them, the errours of those Iewes, which liued in our Sauiours tyme, and were so addicted to this world, that they would by no meanes vnderstand, that their Messias was to come in that humility, in which our Sauiour came, which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scrip­tures which we haue no reason to thinke, but that Ecclesiasti­cus, and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright, and conse­quently knew well inough, that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming, but at his second, since it is mani­fest in this place, that they expected his comming litterally, and in person. Now as for the authority of Iansenius, who M. VII Downam prayseth, as he did before Arias Montanus, because he Iansenius maketh for him, to be one of the best writers among the Papists, there had byn no great cause of his commending him, if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely, since Bel­larmine shewed, how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. [Page 111] where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vn­derstood but of the true Elias, and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sin­cerely ta­king the obiection & omit­ting the answere thinke, that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so. But this is another of M. Downams tricks, to steale an obiection from Bellarmine, and omit his answere: where we might meruayle at his impudent folly, but that it is no new nor strange thing in him, as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer, to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture, which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius, and of his changing so absurd an opinion, or ra­ther errour in his later writings, in which he doth not on­ly auouch and prooue this truth, but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church, which none but I. VI. an Heretike will deny. Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch, M. Downam triumpheth, saying, that it is Ecclesiast. 44. a wonder, that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose. But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose, he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple. The originall text hath; Henoch pleased the Lord God, and was translated for an example of repentance to the ge­nerations; that is, that the generations present and to come, might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord, and to walke before him, knowing by his example, that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord, and walke before him, as Henoch did. But will Bellarmine hence conclude, that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh, to oppose himselfe to Antichrist?

Hitherto M. Downam. And this is all he hath to say. Where first we see, that he cannot deny, but that the latin text, which Bellarmine cited, made much for this pur­pose: and there is no reason, but that we should attribute as much at least, to the latin interpretation, as to M. Downams interpretation: since it cannot be denyed, but that there is The latin interpre­ter not to be reie­cted. lesse suspition of partiality in him, being so ancient, who made no doubt of the sense, and therfore translated it in that sorte, as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise; and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture, we must not deny it now, because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions, especially since we see far grea­ter difference in other partes of Scripture, betwixt the ori­ginall text, & some interpretations allowed by the Church: [Page 112] neither of which the Fathers durst reiect, but rather imbra­ced and expounded them both, as the word of God: and in­deed who knoweth not, that the chiefest certainty, that we haue of either, dependeth vpon the approbation and autho­rity of the Church, which cannot erre in matters of this moment. And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any o­ther sufficient reason, why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture, rather then others, or this interpretation to be good, and others bad. But besides the authority of the latin text, we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also, at leastwise no man can deny, but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine, who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming, and consequently we are sure, that we may safe­ly expound it so, without danger of errour, and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily, M. Dow­nams opinion of He­nochs trā ­slation maketh as much for any other vertue, as for repen­tance cō ­trary to the Scrip­ture. though he thinke his owne better, which we meruayle not at. But further we cannot well see, why Henochs tran­slation should rather serue for an example of Repentance, then of Hope, Religion, Iustice, Innocency, Faith, Cha­rity, or any other vertue, if we admitt M. Downams expo­sition; and yet he is said particulerly, to be an example of pennance, which commeth very fitly for the latin inter­preter, and our explication, and agreeth passing well with that, which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis, in sack-cloth, which wilbe a good example of pennance indeed.

5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is, that by the Euangelist Marke, who speaketh in the present tense, E­lias I. VIII. indeed, comming first restoreth all thinges: the meaning of our Sa­uiour Christ, appeareth to haue byn this, Elias quidem venturus fuit pri­mum, & restituturus omnia: Elias indeed was to come first, and was to re­store Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Dow­nam egre­giously corrup­teth S. Marke & S. Mat­thews Text. all thinges. And you must note, that he putteth S. Markes wordes, as he citeth them, as also his owne interpretation in latin, in a distinct character, to bleare the eyes of the sim­ple, and make them belieue, that they are both very Scrip­ture. And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later, the first is somewhat hard, since that S. Markes words are; Elias cùm venerit primò, restituet omnia: which the Protestant Eng­lish Bible translateth; Elias verily when he commeth first, restoreth [Page 113] all thinges, where we see a (when) which sufficiently sheweth, that Elias was not yet come; and besides both (venerit & re­stituet) are the future, and not the present tense, and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an (&) which cleareth this matter greatly, Sed dico vobis, quia & Elias venit. But I say vnto you, that Elias is also come, which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming, as if he had said, Elias shall come in person, and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist, which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour. But nothing will serue head­strong Heretikes, & therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also, making him say, Iohn Baptist is that Elias, who was to come, putting it downe in a distinct letter, as before: whereas the wordes are, Ipse est Elias qui venturus est, where he could see the first (est) and translate it truly, but not the second, be­cause it was against him. But in this he deserueth some more fauour then before, because he followeth his Protestant translation, which hath, this is Elias, which was for to come: so sincerely do these men translate Scripture. But yet he hath one trick of his owne here also, for he addeth the word (that) which his Bible hath not, nor the Greek, because he would haue vs thinke, that our Sauiour alluded to the place in Malachy, and that S. Iohn was that Elias there promised. But by this we see, that all, that M. Downā saith, is not Scrip­ture, and therfore we are not bound to belieue him, when he telleth vs, that Elias was not promised litterally, and that both our Sauiour, and the Angell vnderstood not the pro­phesy Malach. 4. of Malachy litterally of Elias the Thes [...]ite, especially since he bringeth no other proofe, but that they vnderstood it al­legorically of S. Iohn Baptist, which is rather against himselfe since that place must not only haue an allegoricall, but also a litterall sense.

After this he commeth to answere Bellarmines proofe who inferred by the vision which the Apostles had seene a little before of the true Elias, that they asked of him, & con­sequently that our Sauiours answere is of him also. To which M. Downā answereth, that it followeth not, for the disci­ples spake according to the erroneous opinion of the Scribes, who vnder­standing Malachy litterally, thought that Elias was to come in his [Page 114] owne person, and therevpon (as it is thought) inferred, that Christ Downam condem­neth the Apostles, and in so­me sort our Saui­our him­selfe. was not the true Messias, because Elias came not before him. But Christ &c. where you see that the Apostles are cōdemned as follo­wers of the erroneous Iewes, as before Ecclesiasticus, and the Iewes of his tyme were also: and our Sauiour is behoul­ding to M. Downam, that he did him the fauour to let him goe fre from this imputation, though he chargeth him also with not answering to the purpose, and not freeing, but rather cōfirming his disciples in their errour, by telling thē, Elias quidem vēturus est, & restituet omnia. Elias indeed shall come, and restore all thinges, to wit, as you thinke; for other­wise no doubt, he would haue rather tould them the con­trarie, that he was not to come, but was alreadie come: but now he no lesse affirmeth the one then the other. Wher­fore if it were true, that Elias was come in S. Iohn Baptist, it must needes be true also that he was to come in his owne person, as our Sauiour affirmeth, and the Apostles thought, as likewise all other, that will belieue our Sauiour & his Scripture more thē thēselues: out of which nūber we must exclude M. Downam and his associates, and then our Sauiour, and his Disciples, and Ecclesiasticus, and all other which fol­low them will agree well inough: for as S. Hierome expoun­deth their meaning the Apostles did not only speake of Elias properlie, but also of the second comming of our Sauiour in glory: Aestimant ergo discipuli &c. (saith hee) VVherefore the disciples thinke, that this transformation which they had seene in the moū ­tayne, was that of glory, and they say, If thou beest now come in glory. why doth not thy forerunner appeare, chiefly because they saw Elias was departed. Bellarmines second proofe was, that S. Iohn Baptist did not restore all thinges, as our Sauiour affirmeth that Elias shall; that is (saith Bellarmine) recall all Iewes and heretikes, and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist, to the true faith. To which M. Downam answereth, that this doth not agree with the Prophesie of our Sauiour Christ, concerning the want of faith at his com­ming Luc. 18. 8. The sonne of mā when he commeth, shall he find Faith vpon earth? But if this conceipt of the Papists were true, there shalbe more Luc. 18. true belieuers at the end of the world thē euer bad bene at one tyme before. Thus argueth M. Downā. Where first I could wish he had ob­serued, that Bellarmine speaketh not absolutelie of all Iewes [Page 115] and heretikes, but only of such as were deceaued by Anti­christ: for many there shalbe then, as there are also now, that would be incredulous Iewes, & perfidious Heretikes, How Elias shall re­store all thinges. though Antichrist had neuer come. And of these Bellarmine speaketh not, but only houldeth with S. Augustine l. 1. Quaest. Euang. quaest. 21. Quod dixit Dominus: Helias quidem venturus est, & restituet omnia; id est, eos, quos persecutio Antichristi conturbauerit. That which our Lord said, Elias indeed shall come and re­store all thinges, that is, those whome the persecution of Antichrist shall disorder. So that now by M. Downams con­fession S. Augustine entreth into the number of the Papists. Wherefore Bellarmine, and we all are content to hould our peace, and let him answere M. Downams argument, as hee doth at large in his booke de vtilitat. credendi cap. 15. where this verie place was obiected to him by the Donatists, who S. Augu­stine ans­wereth Downās obiection. were something a kyn to M. Downam, and hee telleth them both, that our Sauiour spake those wordes, vel propter ipsam fi­dei perfectionem, quae ita difficilis est in hominibus, vt in ipsis quoque ad­mirabilibus Sanctis, sicut in ipso Moyse inueniatur aliquid vbi trepidaue­rint, vel trepidare potuerint: either for the perfection of Faith which is so hard for men to haue, that euen in the great & admirable Saintes them selues, as in Moyses himselfe (Exod. 20.) there may be something found, where they haue feared or might feare. And then hee giueth a second solution, vel propter illam iniquorum abundantiam, & paucitatem bonorum: or by reason of that aboundance of the wicked, and scarcitie of the good. And of this hee addeth an explication, which may serue also for a third solution: Propterea enim tāquam du­bitans Downam omitteth this putas. hoc Dominus dixit: Neque enim ait, veniens filius hominis, non in­ueniet fidem in terra, sed, putas inueniet fidem in terra? Cui vtique cū ­cta scienti, & praescienti de aliqua re dubitare non conuenit, sed illius du­bitatio nostram dubitationem figurauit; quia propter multa scandala cir­ca finem saeculi pullulantia, hoc quoque erat quande (que) infirmitas humana dictura. For this cause our Lord spake as being in doubt, for he saith not, The sonne of mā comming shall not find faith in the earth, but, thinkest thou, shall he find faith in the earth? To whome doubt­les knowing and foreknowing all thinges, it is not inci­dent to doubt of anie thing, but his doubt signified ours, for that by reasō of the many scandals arising towards the end [Page 116] of the world, the infirmitie of man was at length to vtter these doubtfull wordes. Thus farre S. Augustine. So that the conuersion of the deceaued Iewes, and heretikes, may well stand with this doubt, since it is chiefely to be vnderstood in the tyme of Antichrists persecutiō, which shalbe so great that if God had not prouided this extraordinary helpe of E­noch and Elias, it might seeme at least to weaklinges vnpos­sible The nece­ssity of the com­ming of Enoch & Elias. to preserue the faith in any sort, & much more in that perfect manner, of which our Sauiour speaketh, as S. Aug. vnderstandeth him in this place, and ser. 36. de verbis Domini secundum Lucam; and likewise S. Hierom. dial. contra Luciserianos cap. 6. And all this explication is greatly confirmed by the last wordes of the Prophet Malachy, where our Lord giueth a reason, why he would send Elias, saying: Ne fortè veniam, & percutiam terram anathemate: least perhaps I come and strike the earth with a curse, to wit, for the want of Faith, which were likely to be, if Elias were not sent.

The other obiection, which M. Downam intrudeth in this place of the vncertainty of our Sauiours comming, be­longeth to the next chapter but one, where it shalbe answe­red. Now it is sufficient to examine that, which is brought in due place, of which sort there remayneth nothing, but M. Downams interpretation, how S. Iohn Baptist did restore all thinges, to wit inchoatiue, which how vnproperly it is spo­ken, may easily appeare to any, that will but consider what the wordes (restituet & omnia) do import; but to our purpose it is inough, that Elias comming before the second com­ming (in which our Sauiour shall restore all thinges in a much more ample and perfect manner, then he did at his first) may be said also, to restore all thinges much more pro­perly then S. Iohn in this manner of inchoatiue, which may also be confirmed by that, which S. Peter saith Act. 3. that our Sauiour is to remaine in Heauen, vsque in tempora restituti­onis omnium: vntill the tymes of restoring all thinges, which can by no meanes be vnderstood of his first comming. And thus I would conclude this third place, but that I haue hope that it may be for the good of M. Downam, or at least of others as also for the greater glory of this great Doctor of the Church to cite at large the wordes of S. Aug. tract. 4. in Euang. [Page 117] Ioan. Where he excellently explicateth this very place: In [...]o Dominus Iesus Christus &c. Our lord Iesus Christ would prefigure his fu­ture comming in S. Iohn Baptist, and say that S. Iohn was come in the spi­rit of Elias, and that which S. Iohn was at the first comming, Elias shalbe at the second: as there are two comminges of the Iudge, so there are S. Aug. maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come, thē that S. Io. Bap. is come. two cryers; the same Iudge, but two cryers, not two Iudges: & the Iudge was first to come to be iudged; he sent before him his first cryer, called him Elias, because Elias shalbe that in the second comming, which S. Iohn was in the first. For let your Charity consider how true it is, that I say, when S. Iohn was conceaued, or rather when he was borne, the holy Ghost pro­phesied thus of him, and he shalbe the forerunner of the highest in the spirit & vertue of Elias. Then he was not Elias, but in the spirit and vertue of Elias. VVhat signisyeth, in the spirit and vertue of Elias? In the same spi­rit, insteed of Elias. VVhy insteed of Elias? Because that which Elias shalbe in the second comming, S. Iohn was at the first. VVherfore rightly S. Iohn answered. Ioan 1. now properly. For our Lord said Matth. 17. figura­tiuely Elias is Iohn, but he (as I said) properly: I am not Elias. If thou considerest the figure of a forerunner, S. Iohn is Elias, for that which he was at the first comming, the other shalbe at the second. If thou seekest for the propriety of the person, Iohn is Iohn, Elias is Elias: wherfore our Lord for the prefiguration, said rightly, he is Elias, and S. Iohn said rightly for the propriety, I am not Elias &c. And a little after: Numquid tu Elias es? Art thou Elias? Now if he should say, I am Elias, therefore Christ cōming now in his second comming should iudge, and not as yet be iudged in his first. As if he had said, Elias is as yet also to come: I am not, saith hee, Elias: but respect him, being humble, before whom Iohn commeth, least you feele him, being high, before whome Elias is to come. For our Lord also ended so: Iohn Baptist is he that it to come. He came in prefigura­tion, as Elias is to come in propriety. Then Elias shalbe Elias by proprie­ty, now S. Iohn was Elias by similitude: Now Iohn is Iohn by proprie­ty, then Elias shalbe Iohn by similitude. Both these Cryers haue giuen one another their similitudes, and haue kept their proprietyes, but there is one Lord Iudge, whether the one or the other Cryer go before him. Thus farre S. Augustine. Where you see, he maketh no more doubt, that Elias shall come, then that S. Iohn Baptist is come. But he is like to be accompted among the erroneous Iewes, for his labour by M. Downam, and S. Augustine wilbe content to take part with his betters the Apostles, as all other that are wise will also: and let this insolent Heretike go seeke o­ther [Page 118] companions like himselfe.

6. Concerning the fourth place, M. Downam hauing ve­rie X. XI. XII. little to say to the purpose, enlargeth himselfe with im­pertinent discourses, supposing that Enoch and Elias liue not in mortall bodies, and consequentlie being in Heauen can­not Apoc. 11. returne into this world to die againe. But let vs see how he proueth this supposition: If they were not in Heauen, in soule at least (saith he) their estate were worse, then of the rest of the faith­full departed, and so their translation should rather haue bene a punish­ment, then a blessing or prerogatiue vnto them. And this is all the Scripture or reason he hath for his opinion, against the cō ­sent of the Church of God and ancyēt Fathers, who alleage so much, and so plaine Scripture for their assertion. But M. Downam shall not need to take any thought for these bles­sed men, for they thinke their estates happie though it were much worse, then it is, in that they know, that God is most Enoch and Elias are in Heauen honoured in them so, and his blessed will most perfectlie fulfilled, which they, and all other perfect men esteeme much more of, then of their owne ioy and happines. But least this doctrine should not sinke into the Ministers head, wee may also put him in mind, that it was alway among all people accompted a great happines to liue long in this world, speciallie in good estate, and at ease; and it may be doubted, that it M. Downam might be well beneficed to his liking, he would content himselfe to haue this priuiledge, to remaine so, without molestation to the worlds end; for it is not euerie mans case to be so desirous to see God, that they would forth with forsake all worldly thinges, yea imbrace death it selfe, not to haue this happines differed: for very few so long as they liue in this world, haue their spirituall eyes so cleere, as to haue so great and effectuall a conceyt of Caluin thinketh that only Christ is in Heauen & that o­thers stay without. Heauen; and those which haue, are of those perfect, who easilie conforme themselues to Gods blessed will in this, & all other things. And heere likewise I might put M. Downam in mind, that his great Maister, Caluin l. [...]. Instit. cap. 20. §. 20. affirmeth, that only Christ is entred into the Sanctuarie of Hea­uen, and all other stay without in the Court, and there expect vntill the end of the world. And §. 24. he saith, that the soules of the Saintes haue faith still, as we haue: which being soe, no doubt he must [Page 119] needes thinke, that they enioy not the visiō of God, in which our essentiall happines consisteth. So that in this mans opi­nion, there is no great difference betwixt Henoch and Elias, and other Saintes. But I am glad to see M. Downam leaue his Maister in this: would to God he would do so in the rest al­so, that my ioy for him might be complete.

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

7. After that M. Downā hath thus substantiallie answered Bellarmines first argument out of the Scripture, he commeth XIII. XIV. to the Fathers, whom he will soone dispatch, and send thē Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. packing; for first seeing, that they all consent about the cō ­ming of Elias, his āswere is in plaine wordes to tell thē, that they were all deceaued, but yet he doth them so much fauour, [Page 120] as to confesse that they had reason to be so, because they fol­lowed the corrupt translation of the 72. who Malach. 4. v. 5. reade Elias the Thes [...]ite so that now all the fault is layd by M. Downam vpon these Interpreters, at which the latin Interpreter of Ecclesiasticus hath good cause to reioyce, since by this meanes Downam reiecteth the 72. Interpre­ters. his case is no worse, then that of these 72. Interpreters, who yet were approued by our Sauiour himselfe, and his Apo­stles, who were wont to cite the Scripture as they translated it, and all the holy Fathers to expound it also as vndoubted Scripture: and this place in particuler was approued by S. Hierome in his traslation of the 70. as also in his Commenta­ries, and by S. Cyril, and Theodoretus ibidem, S. Augustine l. 20. de. ciuit. cap. 22. where he also saith, that the 70. Interpreters prophetice interpretati sunt, did interprete as Prophets, and not as bare Interpreters. And lib. 18. cap. 42. he acknowledgeth in them vniuersally, mirabilem ac stupendum, planéque diuinum in eorum, verbis fuisse consensum: that there was an admirabley wonderfull, yea manifestly a diuine consent in their The 72. Interpre­ters not to be re­iected. wordes. And a little after, reuerà spiritus erat vnus in omnibus; verily they had all one spirit, to wit, the spirit of truth, and of prophesy with which the Scriptures were first written, conformably to which S. Hierome, praesat. in Paralip. acknow­ledgeth, that the 70. did adde some thinges, vel ob decoris gratiam, velob Spiritus sancti authoritatē: either for ornament, or for the authoritate of the Holy Ghost. But this place in particuler is likewise approued by Euthymius in Matth. 17. & Arethas in Apoc. 11. and finally by S. Chrysostom hom. 58. in Matth. where he al­so saith: Vides exactam &c. Thou seest the exact diligence of the Pro­phets prediction, for because S. Iohn might also be called Elias for the likenes of the mystery, to auoyde confusion, he added the Countrey, calling him Elias the Thesbite; for S▪ Iohn was no Thesbite. Secondly he saith, that some Author▪ disagre about Enochs comming, in whose place they put either Elizaeus, or Moyses, or Hieremy. But what is this to the purpose, since Bellarmines argument hath still the same force? For all consent that Elias is to come, and as yet he is not come; and besides the common opinion is, that Enoch shall come with him, though perhaps it bee not altogeather so certaine of him, as of Elias.

Lastly he would make vs belieue that among all the an­cient, [Page 121] which Bellarmine citeth, only S. Gregory is alleadged to the purpose, whose authority he reiecteth with a scoffe. But this is to shew himselfe in his colours, that is a ridiculous scof­fing Minister. For any man, that hath but morall honesty Downam scoffeth at S. Grego­ry. cannot choose but much condemne this his prophane spirit to contemne this Saintes auctority, because he morally ex­poūdeth a place of Scripture, with the receaued doctrine of the Church, not prouing it out of that place, but only affir­ming, that by a morall application, those wordes might haue that sense, which the very title of that whole booke might haue giuen this Minister to vnderstand, if he had ei­ther wit in his head or honesty in his hart. VVell he is con­tent to graunt, that S. Gregory was flat for Bellarmine. But why doth he deny it of the rest? Surely it is hard to imagine, since their wordes are so plaine, and therfore till he giueth vs a reason, we may iustly thinke, that he hath none, but was willing to delude his Reader, either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could deuise, for lightly he could not inuēt a worse, then to scoffe at Gods Saints, and particu­lerly at those, to whom we are most behoulding, a­mong which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accomp­ted, for the great loue he bare to all English men, and the great good he procured them, for which he is wor­thily called and honoured, as the Apostle of our Nati­on.

8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmines reason, XV that of Enoch & Elias their translation, there is this reason, that there might be euident examples of reward and happines, laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch, and for the zealous in Elias: of their yet liuing in mortall bodyes, if they did so, according to the opinion of some of the Fa­thers, that reason might be giuen which they alleadge, to witt, to con­uert Downam maketh Enochs translati­on an ex­ample of vpright­nes con­trary to Scripture. the Iewes. Where, in the first part I only note, that M. Downā maketh Enoch an example for the vpright, wheras the Scripture maketh him an example of pēnance. But indeed according to this explication, he may (as I noted before) be aswell an example of the one, as of the other: yea hardly of pennance since we read none he did, but rather that he was alway vp­right, and iust. But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose, is the same which Bellarmine vrgeth, [Page 122] if M. Downam vnderstandeth it aright as the Fathers held it, to wit, that these two witnesses shall labour to conuert the Iewes, at the end of the world, when Antichrist shall most labour to peruert them: which wilbe to oppose themselues XVI to him. Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire him­selfe, Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. and to tell the Fathers flatlie, that it is vntrue (which they say) that they liue in mortall bodies, or that they shall euer dye: and he offereth to dispute this matter with them. And first he asketh them where they liue in mortall bodies? To which S. Augustine, lib. 2. de peccato originali, cap. 23. answereth, That S. Augu­stine ans­wereth to Downās obiection. this is one of those questions which pertayne not to Faith, where Enoch & Elias are, quostamen non dubitamus, in quibus nati sunt, corporibus viuere: whome notwithstanding wee doubt not to liue in the bodies in which they were borne. By which oppositiō he plain­ly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith. And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not, but that the paradise where Adam was placed, is; though it be doubtfull wher or in what maner it is; all which is alleadged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis, cap. 14. to proue that para­dise is yet extant; but I cānot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 3. that al­though the place remaine, yet no paradise remaineth, & in the for­mer place he seemeth to teath altogeather the contray

Secondly, if they be in the earthly paradise, and not in heauen, he asketh how it is said of Elias, that hee was taken vp into Heauen. To which demaund S. Gregorie will answere him, if he may be so bould Hom. 29. in Euang. Aliud est caelum aëreū, S. Grego­rie āswe­reth ano­ther. aliud aethereum &c. vnde & aues caeli dicimus &c. In caelum aëre­um Elias subleuatus est, vt in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur, vbi cum magna iam carnis & spiritus quiete viueret, quousque ad finem mundi redeat, & mortis debitum soluat. Ille etenim mortem distulit, non euasit. The ayre is also called Heauen, for which cause we say the byrdes of heauen (according to the phrase of Scripture) and into this heauen was El as taken vp, that he might forthwith be carried into a certaine secret Region of the earth, where he might lyue in great quiet of bodie and mind, till he returneth at the end of the world, and payeth death his due: for he hath deferred not escaped death. Where also M. Downam may learne, what priuiledge [Page 123] Enoch and Helias haue aboue others, and how Enoch was said to haue byn translated, that he should not see death, to wit, at Heb. 11. that tyme, nor according to the course of nature: thē which a great deale lesse is sufficient, that one hath escaped death. And if M. Downā be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happi­nesse to be put to death by Anticrist. heere hee may be tould, that Enoch and Helias thinke it no misery, but an exceeding great happynesse that they shalbe put to death by Antichrist, by reason of the great desire they haueto doe and suffer whatsoeuer for the loue of God, and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand, but because he deserueth much more, then we are able to per­forme.

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

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

2. Wherefore all his long discourse about the thou­sand yeares Apoc. 20. is altogeather impertinent, and foolish also, in that he vnderstandeth those 1000. yeares definite­ly, The 1000: yeares Apoc. 20. are to be takē inde­finitely. which indefinitely signify all the yeares and space from Christs Passion, when the Deuill was bound, vntill Anti­christs time, when he shall be loosed; and it is false, that any were put to death, by the chiefe Antichrist within those thousand yeares. For how could that be, since he was not to come, before they were expired, as all but Heretikes a­gree? But all this, as also the question of Gog and Magog, is [Page 128] from the present purpose, which M. Downā could not choose but see, though he were content to cast this mist before the Readers eyes that he might not see the force of Bellarmines ar­gument, which consisteth in this, that the persecution of Antichrist is to be most grieuous, which he is content to The per­secution of Anti­christ shalbe greater then the calami­ties of the Iewes. graunt, because he cannot deny it, & would help to prooue it also, though verie simplie, God wot; but wee will ac­cept his good will, since his meaning seemeth to be only to confirme Bellarmines assertion, which wee onlie request him to graunt: though wee would not haue him afraid to thinke, that the persecution vnder Antichrist shalbe greater then the calamities of the Iewes, since the same wordes are vnderstood of both, and that of the Iewes was but a figure in comparison of the other. Wherfore Dan. also cap. 12. wri­teth, that this shalbe such a tyme, as hath not bene, since the Nations began to be. And surely no persecutiō can be greater, thē that in which the Diuell shall vse the vttermost of his owne, & all his followers forces, as S. Augustine affirmeth he shall in this, being then loosed from his long imprisonment, as S. Iohn affirmeth, whatsoeuer M. Downam imagineth.

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

4. And besides, this allegation of spirituall persecuti­on is from the purpose, and a fault by some called petitio prin­cipij, Downās petitio principij because all Catholikes count it a great blessing, and no persecution at all. Secondly he goeth into France for Mar­tyrs, where he taketh into his accoumpt the Albigenses & [Page 129] VVallenses, & ioyneth thē with his H [...]gon [...]s, & so he may wel inough, for they be Martyrs al alike, to wit, of the Diuell; since they were al Heretiks, though of diuers sects, as he may be fully instructed by the same Author I mentioned before, in his Treatise of Fox his Calendar-Martyrs. And yet M. Downam part. 1. cap. 3. shall not find so many Martyrs of these neither, except he will number them who were miraculously slaine in lawful warre by Symon Momford thē Earle of Leicester & after of Tolosa, which were plaine rebells against their King & Countrey. And Iohn Fox could only find 13. of these two sects, which he thought worth the putting into his Kalender, as the same Author sheweth, & euery man may see in Fox himselfe.

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

5. But why doth not M. Downam answere to Bellarmine, who telleth him, that all this persecution is but a ciuist V warre, since Protestants put Catholikes to death, as well as they do Protestants; and S. Augustine telleth vs, that in Downam flieth the difficulty. Antichrists persecution, only the children of the Church shalbe in Tribulation, and not their persecutors. The cause of this was, because he saw there was no shew of answere to be made, and therfore he thought it best to passe it ouer in silence, hoping that the Reader would not take the paines to looke vpon Bellarmine, nor any other to discouer his fol­lies▪ [Page 130] for he cannot deny, but that Catholikes haue bene per­secuted by Protestāts, & yet he would fayne diminish these persecutions against Catholikes by his brethren; & first hee auoucheth plainly, that the warres which haue bene vndertaken by the Hugonots in France and Flanders for their owne defence, that they Downam mayntey­neth open Rebellion & treasō. might be free from their Princes outrages, were lawfull battailes: euen as when the Machabees resisted: Antiochus and other Tyrants. So that you see open rebellion and treason mainteyned for lawfull by this new Ghospeller, which defence notwith­standing cannot comprehend the manifold murthers of Priestes, Religions and others which these Hugonots com­mitted in cold bloud, & out of battaile, of which M. Downā could not be ignorant. But let vs see, what he saith of our English persecution, for he is not afraid forthwith to char­ge all Priests and Catholikes put to death in our Countrey, of treason, and to complaine greatlie of the fauour which the Prince in some sort hath vsed to them in durance; so cruell and bloudie a mynd carrieth this Minister with him, being not ashamed to affirme, that the life of the pri­soners The per­secutiō of Catholi­kes in En­gland. in VVisbich & Framingham, hath bene more easie and pleasant, and mayntenance more plentifull, then of the Stu­dents and ministers of his crew; which all wise men will easilie laugh at, except he should speake of spirituall and heauenlie comfortes, which this poore Minister neuer ta­sted of: for other ease, pleasure, or maintenance, it were hard for them to haue, liuing in prison, and often in chaines, & hauing no other maintenance, then the almes of poore Catholikes, many of them being so impouerished with op­pressions for their conscience, that they should scarce be able to mainteyne themselues, and their families, were they not content to liue within their compasse, and vnder their de­grees, whilst a sort of marryed Ministers feed vpon their substance; which is another kind of persecution which Bellarmine vrgeth, and M. Downā passeth ouer in silence, to wit to be cast out of their Churches, and Church-lyuings, Vniuersities, and the like, which were instituted for Catho­likes by their Ancestors, and are now vsurped by Protestāts, altogeather against the Founders will & intention: and the like is of the Inheritances in some, and of their Coun­trey [Page 131] in many. And this shall suffice for these persecutions or rather the cyuill wars of this tyme betwixt Catholikes & Heretiks: only I could wish my Reader to reflect a little vpō the Christiā Princes, in whose dominiōs at this daie there is The diffe­rence bet­wixt the Catholi­ke & the Protestāt Princes. diuersity of Religions, & he shall find, that all the Catholike Princes tolerate in some sort their Hereticall subiects, as the Emperour, the King of France, the King of Poland, & now the Arch-duke in Flanders, whereas heere in England the Ca­tholikes canfind no such fauour, who, that they suffer for Religion, and not for treason none but impudent Mini­sters and their mates can deny.

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

6. Touching the manifestnes of it, M. Downam is not of Bellarmines mynd, yea he thinketh his doctrine contrary to our Sauiours, who hath said, that the good and bad shall grow togeather VI. VII. like wheat and tares, vntill the day of the great haruest. But M. Dow­nam Anti­christs persecutiō most manifest. Matth. 13. may vnderstand, that Bellarmine houldeth with S. Augu­stine quaest. 11. super Matth. that this is to be vnderstood of the whole world, in which Bellarmine denieth not, but there wilbe store of tares in this tyme of Antichrist; and be­sides [Page 132] our Sauiour only willeth his seruants not to roote out all the tares, when there is danger, that the corne may also he destroyed by that meanes. But now we speak of his ene­mies who partly by persecuting, partly for feare of persecuti­on will separate themselues of their owne accord, from a­mong Gods wheate, to wit, his elect; and yet are to bee separated also in the day of Iudgment against their wills, which is all that the place alleadged doth proue.

To the authority of S. Augustine alleadged by Bellarmine he giueth two answeres. First, if he had said so, we might haue Downam reiecteth S. Augu­stine esteemed his speach to haue bene but a human coniecture, rather then a prophesy diuine: so that it is no matter, what S. Augustine, or any other can say. For if it please not M. Downams vaine fancy, it shall be accompted but an humane coniecture, though he gather it out of Scripture, as S. Augustine doth this. But secondly, saith M. Downam, Bellarmine without all shame falfifieth his wordes, who speaketh of the Diuell alone, and not of all the wicked, saying: Now it is said, that he shall goe forth, viz. in­to open persecution: he shall breake forth of the couerts of hatred: for which we must note, that S. Augustine interpreteth the depth into which the Diuell was put, to be their hartes which hate the Christians, in quorum (saith he) quotidie velut in aby­sso, Bellarmin vniustly charged by M Downam cacis & prosundis cordibus includitur. cap. 8. In whose blind and profound hartes, he is daily inclosed, as in a depth. Which expositi­on he mentioneth againe cap. 11. which Bellarmine cited, where he expoundeth, how he is said to come forth out of this depth, to wit, out of the couerts of hatred, within which he was inclosed, into open persecution, because he shall seduce those, whose harts he possessed to make warre against Christians, which before he hated, but was not permitted to hurt; all which, that he meaneth of all the wicked, the wordes following immediately declare. Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio no [...]issimo imminente iudicio, cùm sācta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur, vniuersa scilicet ciuitas Chri­sti ab vniuersa Diaboli ciuitate, quantacumque erit vtraque super ter­ram. For this shalbe the last persecution, the last iudgment being at hand, which the holy Church shall suffer ouer all the world, to wit, the whole citty of Christ, by the whole citty of the Diuell, how great soeuer either of them shallbe [Page 133] vpon the earth. Can any thing be more plaine then this? And after againe he saith▪ that the holy Church shalbe en­uironed ab omnibus inimic [...] suis, by all her enemies: yea he repea­teth the very like wordes to those, which he had spoken in the singular number, againe in the plurall, speaking of the Nations, quae sunt in quatuor angulis terrae, in the foure corners or quarters of the earth, in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt: they shal breake forth into open hatred of their hidden ma­lice. Wherfore let any man iudge, whether Bellarmine changed S. Augustines sense, though for brenity and perspicuities sake he cited his wordes in the plurall number, as they were to be vnderstood, & are repeated also by S. Augustine himselfe. All the Churches enemies shal ioyne to im­pugne her in Anti­christs tyme.

7. Now, that al that hate Christians or the Church, haue not hitherto ioyned against them, is so manifest, that M. Downam cannot deny, and therfore granting it, he only turneth to aske: whether they shall do so when Antichrist commeth or no? To whome we returne answere, that they shall, as hath bene sufficiently proued, and therfore it is manifest, that Antichrist is not yet come. To the second part of Bellarmines proofe he answereth, that the vncertainty of the beginning of Antichrists persecution, if it were true, doth not disproue the VII greatnes: but argueth the length. As though now we treated of the greatnes, and not of the manifestnes of this persecution, Downam forgetteth what he impug­neth. which surely is plainly disproued, if it were so secret, that no man can tell when it began. Secondly he saith, the perse­cutions vnder Nero & the rest, were wel knowne when they be­gan, and when they ended, because there was some intermission of them, but these now, haue no end, nor yet intermission, except it be when they haue none to persecute. And is not this a wise answere thinke you, to tell vs that the beginning of a persecution cannot be shewed, because it hath no intermission, nor end? Except he would haue vs to vnderstand him, that he meaneth, that it hath had no beginning: neither to which we likewise willingly agree, for the tyme was, and that An inuisi­ble perse­cution of an inuisi­ble Con­gregation within these hundred yeares when there was no Protestant in the world to persecute, so that this is an inuisible persecu­tion of an inuisible Congregation, which he maketh so much adoe about, and will needes haue it to be the great persecution of Antichrist. Finally he would willingly bring [Page 134] his brethren to an agreement, about the time of Antichrists comming, but he laboureth in vaine, and bringeth no­thing, but that which is already confuted in the third chap­ter. VVherfore it remayneth cleere and manifest, that the persecution of Antichrist is not yet come.

8. The third part of this Demonstration was, that in VIII The pu­blike & daily of­fice and Sacrifice of the Church, shall cease in Anti­christs ty­me. the tyme of Antichrists persecution, the publike and daily office, and sacrifice of the Church shall cease, which M. Dow­nam denieth flatly, but yet would seeme to moderate it, by adding, that at least it shall not be so at his first cōming: & thē setteth downe certayne degrees inuented by himselfe of An­tichrists appearing, which so far as they make any way against vs, haue and shalbe sufficientlie confuted. But now wee must intreat M. Downam not to go from the difficultie, but to answere directly to Bellarmines argumēt, takē out of an expresse place of Scripture, ioyned with the exposition of the Fathers, whome hee easilie reiecteth in few wordes say­ing; Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. the hee needeth not runne with Bellarmine to the Fathers, for the exposition of this place: but I am afraid wee shall find him run­ning to worse men, who will leade him into most absurd errours; for that is most true, which S. Hierome writeth in the end of Dan. 11. hauing learnedly confuted M. Downās chief Captaine in the exposition of this whole place, which wee haue now in hand. Hoc ideo prolixiùs posui (saith he) vt & Prophyrij ostendam calumniam (qui haec omnia ignorauit, aut nescire se finxit) & Scripturae sanctae difficultatem, cuius intelligentiam absque Dei gratia & doctrina maiorum sibi imperitissimè vel maximè vendicant. I haue put downe this the more at large, both to shew Prophyries calumny (who either was i­gnorant The diffi­cultie of the Scri­pture, & why ma­ny erre in the inter­pretation thereof. of these thinges, or saygned that he knew thē not) & also the dif­ficultie of holy Scripture, the vnderstanding of which the most vnskillfull aboue all others, challeng to themselues without Gods grace, and their Ancestors learning. And may not M. Downam be ashamed to defēd this very calumny, and to shew himselfe, as ignorant, or malicious as wicked Prophyrie himselfe? and consequently to be without Gods grace, which S. Hierome ioyneth with the learning of our elders, whome M. Downam professeth to set litle by; and so by S. Hieromes iudgement is a graceles, im­pudent, & most vnlearned heretike. And will any man be so [Page 135] mad, as to aduenture his saluation vpon the conduct of such blind giudes?

But yet let vs discouer his follie more fully, that if it be possible, he may by shame be brought to leaue it, or at least others which are not so farre ingaged, may see it, and abhore it. Wherefore S. Hierome in the same 11. Chapter Dan. 11. vpon those wordes: Et saciet iuxta voluntatem suam Rex &c. sheweth, that now not onlie all Christians, but euen the Downam followeth Prophyry an Anpo­stata, a­gainst both Christians and Iewes. very Iewes themselues, who before had their particuler in­terpretations, agreed, that from that place the Prophet was to be vnderstood of Antichrist, Ab hoc loco (saith he) Iu­dai de Antichristo diciputant. And a little after: Quod quidem & not de Antichristo intelligimus. Prophyrius antem, & caeteri qui sequuntur eum, de Antiocho Epiphane dici arbitrantur. From this place the Iewes thinke, that Antichrist is spoken of; which truly we also vnderstand of Antichrist: but Prophyrie and those which follow him (among whome M. Downam will needes make one) suppose it to be spoken of Antiochus Epiphanes. But com­ming to the 12. Chap. out of which Bellarmine alleadged Dan. 12. his testimony, S. Hierome writeth thus: Hactenus Prophyrius vtcumque setenuit, & tam nostrorum imperitis, quàm suorum malè eru­ditis inposuit. De hoc capitulo, quid dicturus est, in quo mortuorum describitur resurrectio, alijs suscitat is in vitam aternam, & alijs in oppro­brium sempiternum? Nec potest dicere, quifuerint sub Antiocho fulgentes quasi splender firm amenti, & alij quasi stella in perpetuas aeternitates. Sed quid non facit pertinacia? Quasi contritus coluber cleuat caput, & mori­turus in eos, quimorturi sunt, venena diffundit. Hitherto in some sort Prophyrie hath defended himselfe, and deceaued aswell the vnlearned among vs, as the euill learned among them. What will hee say of this Chapter, in which the resurrectiō of the dead is described, some being raised to life euerlasting, others to euerlasting reproach? Neither can he tell vs, who vnder Antiochus they were that shined, as the brightenes of the firmament, and others as starres for euerlasting eter­nities. But what doth not pertinacie? She listeth vp her head like a brused snake, & dying spitteth out her venom Downās and Pro­phyries pertinacy. vpon them which are likewise to dy. And will M. Downam ioyne with Prophyrie in his pertinacie? Will he needes be one of these brused-dying-snakes, and still continue [Page 136] to spit out his hereticall, & persidious poison? If he be thus obstinate, yet I beseech my Readers, yea all my Countrey­men to fly from him, least he kill them with his venemous tongue. For if they will not approach too neere, they may perhaps heare him hisse like a goose, but sting them he cā ­not.

But let vs heare what S. Hierome writeth vpon the very words which Bellarmine citeth: Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi, & in desolatione Templidicit completos, quam & Iosephus & Machabeorum liber tribus tantùm annis fuisse com­memorat. Ex quo perspic [...] est tres istos, & semis annos de Antichristi di­ci temperibus, quitribus & semis annis, hoc est, mille ducento nonaginta diebus Sanctos persecuturus est. Postea corr [...]iturus in m [...]nte in [...]y [...]o & san­cto. A tempore igitur [...] (quod nos interpretari sumus, Iuge sacrificium) quando Antichristus orbem obtinens, Dei cultum interdixe­rit vsque ad intern [...]cionem eius, tres & semis anni, id est, mille ducento & nonaginta dies complebuntur. These thousand two hundreth and ninetie daies Porphyrie saith were fulfilled in the tyme of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the Temple, which both Iosephus and the booke of the Machabees mention to haue bene only three yeares. By which it is manifest, that these thret yeares and a halfe are spoken of Antichrists tymes, who shal persecuie the Saints three yeares and a halfe, that is, a thou­sand two hundreth ninety daies, and after shall perish in the famous and holy Mountayne. From the tyme therfore [...], which we haue trāslated, the cōtinuall sacrifice, whē Antichrist cōquering the world, shal forbid the wor­ship of God, vntill his destructiō, three yeares & a halfe, that is, a thousand two hundreth and nynety dayes. Thus farre S. Hierome: where we haue not only his opinion, but also his proofes, euen out of the conference with scripture, which M. S. Hierom confuteth Porphiry and Dow­nam Downam appealeth vnto: but perhaps he meaneth only if we giue him leauē to choose the places, & make the conference himself. But we must know him better before we giue him so much liberty, except it be reseruing the like to our selues, so that after we haue heard what he can say, we may confer it with other surer principles then his expositions are, and only admit of that which we find agreable to them. And vpon this condition we will see how well he conferreth in [Page 137] this place. First then he conferreth this place with Chap­ter 7. where he saith, that the tyme from the interruption of Gods seruice, to the first restitution therof by Iudas Machabaeus, which was three yeares and ten dayes, namely from the 15. of the moneth Casleu in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae 1. Machab. 1. 57. vnto the 25. Dan. 7. of the moneth of Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Machab. 4. 52. is called by Daniel a tyme, and tymes, and partell of a tyme. But now wee Downās petitio principij returne to the same difficulty: wherfore not to be too tedi­ous, remitting my Reader for the rest to that, which hath byn said about this 7. Chapter of Daniel in the 5. Chapter, I will only recyte S. Hierome vpon these very words in contro­uersy. Tempus annū significat (saith he) tempora iuxta Haebra­ici sermonis proprietatem, qui & ipsi dualem numerum ha­bent, duos ānos praefigurant; dimidium autem temporis sex menses, quibus Sancti potestati Antichristi permittendi sunt, vt condemnentur Iudaei, qui non credentes veritati suscepe­runt mendacium; de quo tempore & Saluator in Euangelio loquitur; Nisi abbr [...]iati essent dies illi, nequaquam salua esset omnis caro. Non conuenire haec tempora a Antiocho in extrema visione dicemus. A tyme signifieth a yeare, tymes according to the propriety of the hebrew speach, which haue also the duall number, prefigure two yeares; and halfe a tyme, six monthes, in which the Saintes are to be permitted to Antichrists power, that the Iewes may be condemned, who not belieuing the truth receaued a lye; of which tyme our Sauiour also in the Ghospell saith; Except those daies should be shortned all slesh thould not be safe. That these tymes agree not to Antiochus, we will teach in the last vision. Thus farre S. Hierome.

Where we see that both these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, and neither of Antiochus; which appeareth also by that in this Chapter, aswell as in the 12. there is expresse mention made of the last iudgment, as S. Hierome noted in The interruptiō of the Iewes Sacrifice was only three yeares. the place which I alleaged before. So that his computation of the times out of 1. Machab. are not to the purpose: and be­sides as S. Hierome also noreth, that time is only three yeares: for so it is rather to be accompted frō the 25. day of the mo­neth Casleu, when 1. Machah. 1. it is expressed, that the Gen­tiles first sacrificed super aram, quae erat contra altare: vpon the Are which was against the Altar; and so the Scripture it selfe accomp­teth in the place alleadged by M. Downam 1. Machab. 4. secun­dum [Page 138] tempus, & secundum diem, in qua contaminauerunt illud gentes; according to the tyme, and according to the day, in which the Gentills defiled it; and by this reckoning M. Downam hath lost his ten dayes, which he made so great accompt of, that hee was not afraid to corrupt the wordes of Scripture, Downam corrup­teth the Scripture. by changing halfe a tyme into a parcell of a tyme, as though because halfe is not the whole, but a parcell; therefore e­uery parcell had bene halfe. But now by the Scripture and S. Hieromes accompt, he hath neither halfe nor parcell aboue three yeares, and yet they must haue an entyre halfe of M. Downam, or els he is like to smart for it one day.

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

This then being so, I doubt not any discreet and in­different Reader will graunt, that not only the Iewes, but [Page 139] also the Christians were to haue a continuall sacrifice, and worship of God, which was not wholie to be interrupted vntill Antichrists tyme: and against all M. Downams rayling, I need to oppose no other argument, but only this place, which is sufficient to conuince any but obstinate heretikes. And he bringeth not any one argument, but only affirmeth many blasphemies without all proofe; and therefore at this tyme, the discreet Reader must expect no more but a bare Downam & his fel­low Mini­sters their manner of dispu­ting. denyall to a bare affirmation, for otherwise wee should neuer make an end of iangling, if whensoeuer he will blas­pheme, I should leaue the principall question, and refute other particulers altogeather from the present purpose, which seemeth to be that, which this Mynister desireth now, and the whole crew of them are wont to practise in all dis­putations. Wherfore I will end this Chapter, requesting my reader to consider attentiuely if it be not euident out of this last proofe, that Antichrist is not yet come, that the Pope is most con­trary to him, and that Protestants are his forerunners, as Bellarmine in­ferred.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

2. But first you must giue him leaue once more to be­wray Downam changeth Bellar­mines argumēt. his shameles folly, for he will needes resolue Bellarmines argument, and so make him bring the mayne question for an argument. But these are his idle conceiptes, for the mat­ter is plaine inough, since Bellarmine argueth thus: Whosoe­uer shalbe Antichrist, shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe, but none hitherto hath done so: Ergo, none hitherto hath bene Antichrist. Wherfore except M. Downam answe­reth to this argument in forme, he may well daunce in a round, but will say nothing to the purpose; which he himselfe see­meth [Page 146] to acknowledge, saying immediately after: But to come to the purpose, viz. from which he had spoken all this while.

2. And now we shall find him farre more coole: for first he graunteth the assumption or minor, so farre as is ne­cessary, to wit, that the Pope hath reigned more then three yeares, & a halfe: viz. a thousand yeares, which is sufficient for our pur­pose, and therefore I will not stryue with him about the o­ther Antichrist shall rai­gne three yeares & a halfe. Dan. 7. &. 12. 500. yeares, because I would not be like him in spea­king from the purpose. Wherefore let vs see what he can say to the proposition, concerning which, he affirmeth, the whole controuersie to be. And so hee flatly denieth it, affir­ming that the places of Daniel, are to be vnderstood of Antiochus, and not of Antichrist, and repeateth his Chymeri­call distinctions inuented by himselfe of the 4. degrees, in the deliuerance of the Iewes from the Tyranny of Antiochus, for which hoe hath neither Scripture nor other author, but Iosephus corru­pted. only Ioseph [...] corrupted by some fauourite of Porphyrie, & of his owne exposition of Daniel, for S. Hierome found no dif­ference betwixt Ioseph, and the Machabees, but both affirmed, that the desolation of the Temple lasted only three yeares, and by their authoritie he manifestlie conuinceth, that Da­niel cannot be vnderstood of the tyme of Antiochus, but of An­tichrist, because he putteth halfe a yeare more then the sa­crifice ceased among the Iewes in the tyme of Antiochus. Wherefore it is manifest, that S. Hierome found but 3. yeares in Ioseph, and that the 6. monethes were added since: and if See the precedent Chapter. Ioseph had written otherwise, he were to be euidently con­uinced of falshood out of the Machabees, which M. Downam would gladlie conceale, and therefore he maketh Ioseph to speake of another degree, and putteth his words only in Greeke: but all these deuises will not serue his turne, since he expresly affirmed, that the dailie sacrifice ceased 3. yeares and six moneths. Ipse (Antiochus) & Templum spoliauit, & quo­tidianae religionis assi [...]itatē per annos tressex (que) menses inhibuit: which is flatlie against the Machabees, and M. Downam himself also, who will haue it to haue byn only 3. yeares and ten daies, & so maketh Daniel to agree with him, by changing halfe a yeare into a parcell; and would no doubt willingly haue [Page 147] done as much for Ioseph, but that hee could not conuey it cleanly, because he expresly reckoneth 6. monethes, as now Hierom. in cap. 12. Dan. wee haue him, but indeed only accompted three yeares, as S. Hierome citeth him, and so he agreeth passing well with the Machabees; and it is euident, that Daniel spake not of An­tiochus, but Antichrists tyme, as hath bene sufficiently pro­ued, aswell by this number of three yeares, and a halfe, as by other circumstances, which agree not to Antiochus, in the former Chapter. And this is all he hath to say about the places of Daniel, only he repeateth an obiection, which III Bellarmine made to himselfe, that Daniel reckoneth 1290. daies, and S. Iohn but 1260. 30. lesse. To which he answered, that Anticrists last mo­neth is not accō ­pted in his raigne. S. Iohn speaketh of the preaching of Henoch and Helias, and Daniel of the death of Antichrist, which shalbe 30. daies af­ter, in which he shall notraigne so absolutly as before, and therfore this last moneth is not commonly accompted in his raigne, as neither the yeares before, in which hee ob­teyned to the height of his greatnes. For after the death, resurrection, and assumption of Enoch and Helias, the third part of the Citty shall fall, and 7000. shalbe slaine with an earthquake, and the rest shalbe terrified, and giue glory to the God of Heauen, as S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. by which Antichrists kingdome shalbe much diminished, though hee shall liue one moneth Ion­ger, Dan. cap. 12. and persecute so much as he may, as the Angel tould Daniel, being desirous to know what was to follow after the 3. yeares and a halfe. II

3. The places of the Apoc. trouble M. Downam shrewd­ly, and therfore he giueth six solutions (such as they are) poore ones, God wot. First then he denieth that the tymes Apoc. 11. 12. 13. mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters are the same, and putteth Bellarmine to proue it, because he himself hath nei­ther reason nor authority to impugne it withal, both which Bellarmine hath alleadged for his exposition, in which there is no difficultie, where wee are to begin the accompt. Neither will M. Downams bare word be taken, affirming, that all these tymes are not to be taken litterally, and that none of them defineth Antichrists raigne. For Bellarmine expresly prooueth the contrary. But, saith M. Downam, the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. Chapters signifie the tyme of the persecution vnder the Roman Em­perours, [Page 148] either only or specially. For cap. 11. v. 2. it is said, that the Gentills shall tread vpon the holy Citty 42. moneths. But Antichrist as the Antichrist shalbe the Prince of all the wicked in generall. Papists hold, shalbe the Prince of the Iewes, and counterfaite Christians: and of all the wicked in generall also, as M. Downam cannot choose but know, if he would deale sincerely, and not seeke for shiftes, and starting-holes. For in the last Chapter that was plainly, not only affirmed, but also proued, as af­terward it shall againe: as likewise in due place, that the great Citty, where the two witnesses shalbe slaine, is Hierusalem & See cap. 13. not Rome; though if it were Rome, it were no proofe, but that they might be slain by Antichrist there, in whose tyme they shall preach, as hath bene largly conuinced. By which it is likewise manifest that these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist. But nothing conuinceth this more euidently The foo­lish dreame of the foole Fox. then the foolish dreame of the foole Fox, whome the diuell which seemeth to haue perswaded him, rightly so called, because he was so blockish, as to beleiue so absurd a deuise, which notwithstanding M. Downam is content to make his cheifest ground, because he hath no better, to wit, that by 42. moneths should be vnderstood so many sabbaths, or weekes of yeares. Was there euer a more absurd or ridiculous deuise inuented, or maintayned? Is this the sincere exposition of Scripture, which they so greatly brag and boast of? what connexion hath 30. dayes with 7. yeares? Surely a moneth contayneth 4. weekes. VVherfore if they will haue these 42. monthes to be vnderstood of yeares, they must not tell vs of 42. weekes of yeares, but of so many monthes, which they cannot do; and besides Bellarmine well proueth, XV that there are not moneths of yeares, as there are weekes, and much lesse that moneths are taken for weekes, which is There are no mo­nethes of yeares. a meere madnesse to imagine, and altogeather as absurd as to thinke that Foxes head was of glasse, as he is reported to haue most fōdly imagined. And yet is M. Downā cōtēt thus to shift of the difficulty of all these places, thinking it suf­ficient to haue found this goodly Glosse for the 42. months, and that the number of daies, or yeares need no further ex­plication, but is to be reduced to these 42. weekes of yeares though neither himself, nor any man els, can possibly inuent how to make thē agree. For first cōcerning the daies, if we [Page 149] take a day for a yeare, and after this accompt, we can take it for no lesse, they make 4. tymes as many yeares as the 42. Downam & Fox their ab­surd ex­position of Scri­pture. sabbothes come to at least, and then what shall we make of the three yeares and a halfe? Surely this is an endles labour and labyrinth; but to this passe must these good fellowes needes come, that will go about to frame Scripture to their owne brittle and beetle braines.

But yet M. Downam will giue one attempt more about the three yeares and a halfe, which he thinketh may be vn­derstod of the tyme, wherin the Church of Christ, which was at Hie­rusalem, after it was admonished by a voice out of the Sanctuary to de­part, and accordingly remoued to Pella, was susteyned there. In which deuise; First he must graunt that the 1260. dayes, signify also 3. yeares and a halfe, for the same space in this Chapter is twice accompted, once by tymes, and againe by dayes: by which it wil seeme more thē probable, that the moneths are to be vnderstood so also, and so the foole Fox hath lost his bable; and besides, many things in this 12. Chapter can­not be applied to those few Christians which were at Hieru­salem, as the battaile betwixt Michael and the Diuell, the great persecution which was raised against the woman &c. But M. Downam obiecteth, that in this 12. Chapter, there is no speach of Antichrist, but of the Diuel, who first seeketh to ouerthrow the Church of Christ among the Iewes, and afterward commeth to the Gentiles, and therfore it is said, that he standeth vpon the sea shore, from whence he rayseth the Beast with 7. heades &c. where it is meruaile, that Apoc. 12. he did not marke, how the Serpent or Dragon had 7. heads and ten hornes, aswell as this beast, and consequently, that they are both to be at the same tyme; and to be the chiefe causers of this great persecution: yet with this difference, that the diuell is the cause of all other, aswell as this. Wher­fore not vnfitly Antichrist is here called his taile, in which chiefly the venome of this serpent lyeth: so that whatsoeuer The diuel and Anti­christ de­scribed af­ter the same mā ­ner. Antichrist shall do either by himselfe or his instruments, may be peculiarlie applied to the Diuell. For which cause the Diuell in Antichrists tyme cannot be more liuely set forth then by the same description, which representeth Antichrist himselfe, by which M. Downams deuise is quite ouerthrowne and become ridiculous, as also his profe, for that the Diuell is [Page 150] said to stand vpon the sea shore, from whence hee raiseth the beast with 7. heads &c. for this prooueth nothing but that Antichrist, is a beast of the Diuells raising, and hath his power from him, which no man denieth: though I meruaile how M. Downam forgot his Greeke in this place, in which wee read [...] (steti:) as also Andreas Arethas, Erasmus, Rupertus, and Codex Complutensis haue it; and consequentlie were to be referred to S. Iohn himselfe, who signifieth whither he was carried in spirit to see the beast (which followeth) arise; for which cause diuers ancient writers begin the next chapter at those words.

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

But M. Downam addeth further in his 6. Chapter, that our Sauiour Matth. 24. 39. and Luc. 17. 26. hath foretould, that the end of the world shalbe suddaine, and vnlooked for euen as it was in the daies of Noah and Lot. This is the obiection which I referred to this place, as belonging to it, and Daniel answe­reth it with a distinction, that at the death of Antichrist [Page 151] there shalbe both good and wicked men, as there were in the time of Noah and Let, and euer since. Now saith Daniel, Only the iust & le­arned shall make this collectiō. impièagent impij, neque intelligent ownes impij: porrò docti. intelligent. the wicked shall doe wickedly, and none of them shall vn­derstand (these mysteries, though they be so plainely for­tould) and of these speaketh our Sauiour when he saith, that the day of iudgemēt shall come vnlooked for. But Daniel addeth further, porrò docti intelligent; the learned shall vnder­stand them, and may make a certaine collection of the ty­me of the daie of Iudgement, when they once see Antichrist dead, that is, such pious interpreters as S. Hierome was. And this difference wee see in the tyme of Noah and Lot, and now also: for though the Scripture speaketh plainly of Antichrist and his persecution, and how long it is to continue: yet wicked Porphyrie, M. Downam, and the rest of that crew vnder­stand it not: but S. Hierome and other holy Saintes and Ca­tholikes instructed by them vnderstand it plainely. So true is, and euer was, and shalbe that saying of the Wiseman, In maleuolam animam non introibit sapientia. Wisdome will not Sap. 1. enter into a wicked and malicious soule; such as all hereti­kes haue, and alway had, though they brag neuer so much of Scripture, and their priuate spirit, which is one of the chiefest branches of their impiety. Neither doth this any whit infring Bellarmines argument against those which ex­pound the 1260. daies to be so manie yeares: for they cannot haue any ground at all, to affirme that those yeares are to Downās iugling. begin more at one tyme, then at another, and yet euery one by assigning what tyme it pleaseth him, must needs graunt, that from that tyme vntill Christs comming there are iust so many yeares, which is, to take vpon them to know that, which Christ said was so hydden, that without an euident reuelation, as that of Daniel is, after Antichrists death, no man, nor Angell can know it. So that Bellarmine vseth that argument, only to disprooue the tyme, which Illyricus and others appoint of Antichrists comming, and not absolutly to reproue that interpretation; as M. Downam would haue his reader think. Wherefore in all this Chapter, in which he so largelie refuteth that interpretation, he neuer vrgeth that illation. But this is no iugling at all in M. Downās con­ceipt.

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

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

Fiftly (saith M. Downam) Antichrist according to the conceipt of the Papists is to raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses, and as Enoch & Elias shal-begin to preach in the begin­ning of Anti­christs Raigne. Bell saith, is to cōtinue one moneth after their death. Seeing thē the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes, which as Bellarmine also saith make three yeares & a halfe precisely; how can the terme of Antichrists raigne, be three yeares & a halfe precisely? First M. Downā might haue done well to haue named those Papists who cōceipt Antichrists raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses, for we would haue byn so bould, as to haue tould them, that they were in a wrong conceipt, vnles they meāt that he should be of great power before; but yet not of so great, as he shalbe for the space of three yeares and a halfe, in which these two glorious wit­nesses shall preach, as neither in his last moneth after their death, by which he shall receaue such a blow, that his kingdome shalbe so much diminished, that the last moneth [Page 153] is not accompted to belong to the height of his raigne, as be­fore we also explicated out of Apoc. 11. and so there remay­neth iust three yeares and a halfe for Antichrists reigne, Supra nu. 2. and these two holy witnesses preaching. Lastly he remit­teth himselfe to his proofes, that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme, and reuealed in the yeare 670. for answere of which bare assertion (for heere he goeth not about to proue any thing) I must likewise remit my Reader to the answers See Chap. 3. which I gaue to those his proofes in their due places, and so leaue him to iudge how well M. Downam hath answered Bel­larmines allegations, and confuted his assertions.

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

To Bellarmines secōd proofe M. Downam hath more to say: for first he reprehendeth Bellarmine, for saying, that the Scrip­tures VIII affirme, the tyme of the diuels loosing & Antichrists raigne, to be bre­uissimum, Bellarmin vniustly charged. very short, or most short, they only saying, that it is short, or smal. But his VVisdome should haue considered, that Belar­mine putteth that breuissimum for the sense, and not for the wordes of the Scripture; which afterward he alleadgeth as they ly; so that if they import a very short, or most short tyme, Bellarm. is not to blame. But M. Downā denieth this also, shewing at large, that many tymes a thousād yeares or more Apoc. 12. in Scripture are accoumpted but as a day, or a very short tyme, in respect of the Lord, who speaketh in the Scripture: which we willingly graunt: but he should haue shewed vs, that these places now in question are to be vnderstood in respect [Page 154] of the Lord, and not rather in respect of the thousand yeares, in which the Diuell was bound. And cap. 17. it is yet more p [...]aine, that Antichrist shall raigne a small tyme in respect of The tyme of Anti­christs rai­gne verie short. Apoc. 17. the 6. Kinges, which went before him, which howsoeuer M. Downam vnderstandeth them, cannot be said to haue raig­ned much more then a thousand yeares a peece. Neither is it true, that Antichrist not only was, but also persecuted those, that refu­sed his marke, within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment: though S. Iohn. Apoc. 20. saw the Martyrs in the tyme of An­tichrist, Apoc. 20. togeather with those which were before; of which only he speaketh, when he saith that they liued and raigned with Christ in the thousand yeares: except some will say with S. Ambrose, that the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist are said to raigne (before they were) in the former Martyrs, because they were members of the same body: or that the thousand yeares are diuersly taken. And thus wee see plain­ly, that the tyme of Antichristes raigne, and the Diuells being loose, is said to be a very short tyme.

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

In answering the fourth congruence, he is somewhat large. First he saith, that Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man, which is true in some sort, because he had proo­ued it before, and yet proueth it now againe thus farre, that it is very improbable, that more then one should be neces­sarie [Page 155] for the space of 3. yeares and a halfe, longer then which Christ preached not; and therefore in likelihood Anti­christ shall preach no longer neither.

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

Thirdly he would make a difference betwixt Christ and Antichrist, in that Christ hath spoken by the mouth of his Prophets and Ministers. As though Antichrist hath not alway had his Ministers also, all heretikes; and now M. Downam, and his rable must be content to let all the world but them­selues thinke, that they are his Ministers. Fourthly hee Antichrist may raise a vniuer­sall perse­cution, [...] one time, would begin to proue, that Antichrist cannot doe all those thinges which Catholikes attribute to him, in so short a tyme. But this is another matter now, and he cannot deny but that Antichrist may raise a generall persecution in all his Kingdomes in one tyme, from which daie for­ward, [Page 156] let M. Downam begin to reckon the three yeares & a halfe of his raigne, & if any thing cannot be well comprized with in this space, we will not stick to graunt, that it was to be done before, as the subduing of so many Kingdoms &c.

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

7. In the last place M. Downam goeth about to reply to XIII the answers which Bellarmine gaue to his fellowes reasons; and first to keep Chytraeus out of the ditch, he lendeth him his authority, saying, that he saith it as well as Chytraeus, at which I imagine the Reader will laugh; and then because he saw that the place of S. Paul proued nothing neither, vn­lesse it might be graunted, that Antichrist was already come, he lendeth him another of S. Iohn, affirming that the Antichrist was come in his tyme: at which I suppose Chytraeus would chafe. Chap. 2. Downam cānot de­fend his fellowes. For now we shall haue Antichrist to ēdure as long as Christ; & besides S. Iohn affirmeth not, that the Antichrist was come in his tyme, but that he had many members then, as hath byn sufficiently proued in due place; so that Chytraeus remay­neth in as ill case, as he was before M. Downam layd to his helping hand. But yet once againe he will try what he can XIV do for him and Henry Bullenger togeather, which he perfour­meth with a very subtill distinction, saying: that they speake [Page 157] of the tyme, & Bellarm. of the nūber; so that there shalbe iust 42. & 1260. but no man can tell of what. And is not this a wise ex­positiō think you? Will not Chytraeus & Bullenger be ashamed of such a P [...]cter, who make the say they know not what thēsel­ues. But M. Downā will saue their credit if they will be ruled by him by bringing their vncertainties to some certainety, as to the 4 [...]. sabbothes of Iohn Fox, & the 1260. yeares of the Magdeburgē ­ses, the former of which I refuted before, and the latter is here exploded by Bellarmine: in defence of which M. Downam hath nothing to say, but to repeate their Argument out or E­zechiel, without seeming to vnderstand Bellarmines distincti­on, denying that daies are litterally taken there for yeares; which is necessary for their argument, though they may be a signe or figure of yeares, and consequently signify thē my­sticallie, as tho [...]e 390. daies in which Ezechiel slept vpon his left side, were a figure and signe of so many yeares, euen as his sleeping was a sign of the toleration which God vsed to­wards the people of Israel: but yet none but a mad man will XV. XVI. XVII. say, that Ezechiels sleeping is to be vnderstood litterally of Gods tolerating, so that when he was bidden to sleepe so many dayes, God was litterally commaunded to sleepe so many yeares. Neither is M. Downams addition out of some of the Ezech. 4. learned, namely Iunius, any thing to the purpose. For Apoc. 2. only the number of 10. is put indefinitely, as is vsually in Scripture, so that 10. daies is all one, as if he had said many dayes. And this is all, that M. Downā can say for his fellow Dayes are not taken for yeares Ministers. Now he will say some thing against them, tel­ling them plainly that if they take daies for yeares, it will follow, that the speciall tyme of Christs comming may be fore tould after the Reuelation of Antichrist, which he thin­keth Apoc. 2. must in no wise be graunted: and we haue shewed how far the Catholikes may fortell it without danger of any inconuenience. Wherfore we may now conclude this Chap­ter, in which it sufficiently appeareth, that Antichrist is not come, as the heretikes affirme.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. MAISTER Downam first cauelleth with Bellarmine because he will not prooue that Antichrist is not yet come, but only, that he is not come long since. As though Bellar­mine had taken vpon him to fight with the wind, and not to impugne M. Downam, and his fellowes, who affirme, that I Antichrist came long since. Wherfore this shift will not serue his turne, but he must either yield himselfe, or answere the argument, which he will do very substantially with a di­stinction, that the comming of Antichrist, and his death, are two thinges; so that though it be true, that he is not vtterly to be de­stroyed before the second comming of Christ, yet he came euen in the Apostles tymes, as S. Paul insinuateth, and S. Iohn plainely tea­cheth. VVhere we must put M. Downam in mynd, that these The end of the world shal not be lōg after An­tichrists cōming. two Apostles only teach, that Antichrist came in their tyme only in his forerunners, but now we seeke for him in persō, or as M. Downam speaketh [...], in which sort, he and his fellowes make him to haue raigned a 1000. yeares vvhich Bellarmine impugneth, because presently after his destruction the world must end, and he shalbe destroyed within 3. yeares and a halfe after his being in that height, and consequently the world should haue ben ended 1000. [Page 161] yeares since, if the Protestants opiniō about the tyme of Anti­christs comming in that sort were true. In the Protestāts opinion the world should haue byn ended ma­ny hun­dred yeares since.

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

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

3. After this he commeth to Matth. 24. 29. where he confesseth, that the signes of Christs comming are to follow the tribula­tions Matth. 24. vnder Antichrist; which is asmuch as Bellarmine desireth at his handes; but yet he will needes inferre out of this place al­so, that Antichrist shall not be one man, because v. 23. 24. our Sa­uiour speaketh of many false Christs, and false Prophets, which we know very well; and haue daily experience, how true it is by seeing so many sectaries in our dayes: but we al­so know, that euery false Christ or false Prophet is not Antichrist, though we will not deny, but that he shalbe a false Christ, and a false Prophet also; yea the falsest of [Page 162] them all. But what is this to the purpose, to prooue that he shall not be one man? Next he commeth to 2. Thess. 2. where he repeateth his distinction of Antichrists comming and en­ding, but to as little purpose as before, though he expli­cateth many Chymericall degrees more largely, which so farre as they make against vs, are elswhere confuted. Last­ly IV he commeth to the 1. Ioan. 2. where he impugneth the 1. Iohn 2. argument that Bellarmine frameth out S. Iohn, making him prooue, that it is now the last houre, because wee see many petite Antichrists. For, saith M. Downam, by the like reason wee might prooue, that the fulnes of tyme was from the beginning, because there were alway Prophets, which Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Christ. But M. Downam should haue considered, that it is not absolutely true, that it is the fulnes of time, whensoeuer it may be said that Christ commeth, but only when he com­meth in person, and therfore it is no meruaile, though he commeth in his forerunners frō the beginning of the world, Antichrist cannot be said to come at al but in the last ho­ure. and yet the fulnes of tyme was not come; but Antichrist cannot be said to come at all, but only in the last houre, and therfore S. Iohn proueth verie well, that it was the last houre, because Antichrist was already come in his members and forerunners.

After he hath thus checked Bellarmine for framing of S. Iohns argument, M. Downam taketh vpon him to put it in forme himselfe. This then (in his opinion) is the Apostles reason. VVhen the Antichrist commeth, it is the last houre. Now, saith he, Antichrists are come (meaning by Antichrists, the same with the Anti­christ, which elswhere he affirmeth was then entred into the world, or els there are 4. termini, 4. termes in the Apostles argument:) Therfore now is the last houre. But in this manner S. Iohns argument should not only haue 4. but 5. termes. For Antichrist, and Anti­christs Downam peruer­teth S. Io. text & argumēt. are not all one, nor commeth, and are come; to omit that the wordes of S. Iohn be (are become.) Wherfore M. Dow­nam sheweth himselfe a veric poore Logitian, if he can fra­me no better arguments then this. Neither can wee belieue him whē he telleth vs, that the Antichrist and Antichrists are all one in S. Iohn: for besides, that the article is put only in one place as hath ben noted before, why should S. Iohn change both number and phrase, and so obscure his sentence, if there [Page 163] were no difference in the thing it selfe? And if M. Downam would be ashamed to speake thus absurdly himselfe, much greater cause hath he to blush for attributing so grosse an absurdity to S. Io. or rather to the Holy Ghost who speaketh in him. And by this it is plaine that in these few wordes of S. Io. there are conteyned two arguments, if wee will reduce them to forme, as before I haue shewed, and Bellarmine sup­poseth Chap. 2. in this place.

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

The other obiection, which hee maketh concer­ning the length of Antichrists raigne, is a meere cauill: for Bellarmine in his whole discourse sufficiently explicateth in what sense he saith, that Antichrist shall not begin his raigne but 3. yeares and a halfe before the end, viz. before the end begin, for he taketh not the end for the very last instant, but for that space in which God shall begin to confound Antichrist, and destroy his kingdome; which in all wilbe 75. daies, as Daniel foretelleth, which space helpeth M. Dow­nams The ēd of the world is not ōly the last instant. cause very little, who hath need of manie tymes so many yeares, to make his position good, that Antichrist came 1000. yeares since, and yet the world indureth: and that this was Bellarmines mind, he himselfe hath now suffici­ently explicated in recognit. operum pag. 18. where he noteth, that he said that Antichrist shall not appeare, nor begin to [Page 164] raigne but 3. yeares and a halfe before the end of the world, because the space betwixt the death of Antichrist, & the end of the world, shalbe so little, that it may be accompted no­thing: for otherwise he had not forgotten, that he had pro­ued a little before, that there should be 45. daies betwixt the death of Antichrist, and the end of the world, out of Dan. 12. And thus we will conclude these 6. demonstrations which make Bellarmines third argument, and desire the Rea­der to consider attentiuely, whether Bellarmines proofes, or M. Downams solutions, be more substantiall; and vvhat is to be thought of such men as will open their mouthes in such blasphemous manner, against all authority & reason, in a matter of this importance, vpon vvhich al other questions in controuersy in great part depend.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

2. Secondly M. Downam telleth vs, that in the similitude taken from Christ there is no likenesse, because Christ was ore particuler man, but Antichrist is not, but a State which cannot haue a proper name: which as you see is no answere at all, if Antichrist shalbe See. chap. 2. one particuler man, as hath ben proued in due place, to [Page 173] which I remit my Reader: and besides I see no reason why a State may not haue a proper name also. Yet M. Downam giueth vs another difference, for that Christ comming to saue, his name Iesus, the name of the Sauiour was to be made knowne, that he might the rather be imbraced: Antichrist comming to deceaue, and to de­stroy M. Dow­nams iug­ling. was (according to his diuellish policy) to conceale that name, where­by he should be knowne to be Antichrist; where you must marke how cunningly M. Downam concealeth the diligence which the Diuell vsed to obscure the name of Christ, and like­wise the power and wisdome of God to make Antichrist knowne, for otherwise his Reader would very easily haue conceyued how God is as able to manifest Antichrists name, that he may be auoyded, as he was to make our Saui­ours name knowne, that he might be imbraced. And besides it is more then probable, that Antichrist will not be so humble, but that he will desire to haue his name knowne: for this is the great and powerfull wisdome of God to ouer­throw the wicked by their owne courses. Wherefore it is not certayn, that Antichrist shall either know, or make accompt of this Prophesy, nor reflect vpon his name, whether it conteyneth this number or no. But though all this should be so, yet he will thinke to ouercome this dif­ficulty, aswell as the rest, especially when he is come to that height of pryde to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God. And sure we are, that by one meanes or other his name shalbe manifest, for otherwise this reuelation of S. Iohn concerning it, would serue to small purpose.

After this M. Downam maketh a litle digression from his purpose to tell vs, that the Sybil did not only foretell, that our Sauiours name should conteyne the number 888. but also, by certayne Acrostiches foretould that he should be Iesus Christ, the sonne of God and Sauieur But of Antichrist she speaketh nothing so playnly: howbeit she calleth Rome Babylon as Io. doth. And in the 8. booke describing Anti­christ as some thinke, she calleth him a Prince with many heads: which The Sy­bills verses of Adrian are ex­pounded. M. Downam will haue to be vnderstood, either by a Metonymie for the Popes triple crowne, or by a Synechdoche for the succession of Popes. Likewise the Sybil addeth, that he shall haue a name neere to Ponti, that is Pontisex, the Pope, saith M. Downam. Now how Rone is Babylon we shall see afterward. And as for that [Page 174] thought of some, it is euident, that not Antichrist, but A­drian the Emperour is spoken of in those verses, in which See Flori­mond Rey­mond of Antichrist cap. 22. among other things, his little God Antin [...] is described. Neither is he called a Prince with many heads, as M. Dow­nam supposeth, but is only sayd to haue one white, or gray head, as Spartianus testifieth in his life, that Adrian had, and that either by these verses of the Sybil, or by those of Virgil, [...]n which he describeth Numa Pompilius, by his gray head also, Nosco crines, incana (que) menta, Adrian prognosticated that he Aeneid, 6. should come to be Emperour. Bullenger and Castalio differ from M. Downam, and the truth also; for they will not haue it to be a white head, but a white hat, or helmet, deriuing it rather from [...], then [...], contrary to the com­mon vse of such compounds. But euen by Castalio his con­sent, he that in this 8. booke is by the Sybil called [...], in the fifth booke is also named [...], in which place he is expressely sayd to succeed Traian, as Adrian did. And in both places he is sayd to haue a name neare to the sea, which in greeke is called [...], in respect of the Adria­tike sea, which was denominated of a Citty called Adria, neere Venice, in which this Emperour was also borne, and from thence had his name Adrianus. That other conceypt of M. Downam, who thinketh that this name neere to Ponti, is Pontifex, is very farre fetched; for what connexion is there betwixt [...] in greeke, and Pons in latin? especially since that Pontifex is no greeke word, and the Sybil wrote in that language, and consequently the name which she spake of, must not be only among Latins. Finally, if we should ad­mit this fond conceipt, yet all might be applyed to this Em­perour, who, as Platina writeth in vita Alexandri, repayred one bridge at Athens, and built another at Rome of his owne name, and besides was consecrated Bishop of Ceres; but this refuge is needlesse, since we haue the former most manifest explication. I haue stood longer vpon this, then was ne­cessary, since that M. Downam confesseth, that it is from the purpose, to which now he promiseth to returne.

3. And he goeth about to answere Bellarmines other XVII proofe, which is, that Prophesies are obscure till they be fulfilled, and cleere when they are fulfilled; and his answere [Page 175] is, that although they become more cleere after then before; yet many tymes they remayne darke and obscure to very many. And he exem­plifieth in the Prophesies of Christ, which are cleere to good Chri­stians, but not to the Iewes; and confesseth, that many Prophesies con­cerning Antichrist are plainely vnderstood of the true Professors, yet they seeme darke and obscure to the followers of Antichrist. Where me thinkes he granteth all that which he denyed before, viz. that the name of Antichrist being once come, shall be aswell knowne, as that of Christ: and besides, he openly gain­sayeth Marloratus, who affirmeth, that euen among M. Dow­nams true Professors, there are as many expositions, as expositors of M. Dow­nam con­tradicteth himselfe & Marlo­ratus. this place. And besides Bellarmine sheweth, that euen the Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans graunt, that the name of our Christ is Iesus, which manifestly conteyneth the number 888. But all Catholikes, and others are far from thinking that the Pope is to be called Romanus, and Latinus, except something els be added; and besides these names conteyne not iustly the number 666. as Bellarmine proueth. Hauing thus put off the Argument, M. Downam maketh another digression, taking hould of the former part of Bellarmines proposition, that prophesies till they be fulfilled are (for the most part) darke and ambiguous: and heereupon he inferreth, that therefore the writinges of the Fathers, who lyued before Antichrist, were most vncertayne ghesses in their expositions of the Prophesies concerning him: which illation we deny, and rather inferre the quyte contrary, that since the Prophesies are The ne­cessity of the Fa­thers ex­positions. obscure, and ambiguous, we had the more need to take some light and certainty from the Fathers writings, who receaued their expositions from the light of Gods spirit, and the certainty of the Apostles Traditions. But M. Downam proueth his inferrence by Bellarmines confession, euen in this Chapter, and cyteth his wordes in the margent. Sed necisti Patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi, quàm suspicionum & cōiecturarum. Neither would these Fathers haue those their opinions otherwise accompted of, then as suspicions, and coniectures; which assertion of Bellarmine commeth far short of M. Downams position, for he speaketh only of two Fathers Rupertus and Beda, M. Downam speaketh in generall of all the Fathers; Bellarmine calleth only those two particuler opini­ons [Page 176] of theirs, suspicions and coniectures: M. Downam would proue, that all the opinions of all the Fathers concerning Downam proueth an vniuer­sall by a particuler. prophesies not fulfilled, are but ghesses, which is to proue an vniuersall by a particuler; a fit argument for M. Downams Diuinity, if not for his Logick, which perhappes the bad­nes of his Diuinity maketh him either to forget or forsake. The like fault he committeth againe in alleaging S. Irenaeus, who only speaketh of this one prophesy of Antichrists name: and Andraeas maketh as little to his purpose, only affirming with Bellarmine, that experience will make manyfest to them that are vigilant, both the exact computation of this num­ber, and all other thinges which are written of Antichrist; which M. Downam seemed before to deny, and now is as far The au­ctority of the Fa­thers. from prouing, that the Fathers expositions when they all agree, make not a Prophesy certainely to be vnderstood; though when they are deuyded, their expositions be but probable, and therefore, because they were so in this place, we see that Bellarmine grounded not his argument vpon any of them, but vpon another certayne rule, which they all agree in, and M. Downam himselfe cannot choose, but con­fesse in great part.

4. Thus much for this digression. Now M. Downam XVIII commeth againe to the purpose, & goeth about to answere Bellarmines Assumption; which is, that Antichrists name is Anti­christs name yet vn­knowne. yet vnknowne, where M. Downam distinguisheth, confes­sing that in the Church of Rome, it is not knowne of the ignorant, nor acknowledged of the obstinate; but in the true Church of God Antichrist is knowne, and his name acknowledged. But Marloratus affirmeth the contrary, and M. Downam insinuateth as much saying, that to the opinions which Bellarmine alleadgeth many more Downam contradi­cteth him selfe and Marlora­tus. might be added: which he will hardly make good, except he haue recourse to his new Ghospellers, who though they be vnited in malyee against the Pope, yet their proud heads cannot agree in the exposition of this, or almost any other place of Scripture. And besides the agreement of Protestants in this or in any thing els must needs be of little accompt, except they could bring better proofes, that they are the true Church of God: which affirmation whilst it be pro­ued is petitio principij, and the Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans will [Page 177] say asmuch for themselues, if any man wilbe so foolish as to belieue them, which he hath reason to doe assoone as here­tikes, of which number to vs, it seemeth euident, that Protestants are.

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

6. Well, you must giue M. Downam leaue to mistake sometymes, otherwise he should haue very little to say to the purpose: Yet he will try what he can say to Bellarmines [Page 178] true proofe, which is, that Antichrists name is not yet knowne, because there is a great controuersy about it. A­gainst which he obiecteth: that by the same reason Bellarmine may conclude, that few pointes of religion are yet knowne, because there be few, concerning which there is no controuersy. But M. Downam must consider the difference, which is great. For first about Antichrists name, there is not only a question betwixt Ca­tholikes and Protestants, but likewise euen Protestants M. Dow­nam con­tradicteth himselfe. themselues doe vary, and Catholikes also are not all of one opinion, which M. Downam insinuateth in some sort, say­ing, that in other controuersies the truth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall, howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it. But of this matter he dareth not go so farre, but only aduentureth to say, that he doubteth not, but that the truth of it is knowne, although some cannot, and others will not as yet see it. So that in this, some cannot know the truth but in other controuersies, all may that will. And besides M. Downam might haue noted, that not only the Orthodoxall, but all others must know and acknowledge Antichrists name thus farre, that they con­fesse, that he whome the Orthodoxall take to be Antichrist hath that name which hath this number of 666. as all Pagans, Turkes, and Iewes confesse, that the name of Iesus, which Christian should to be the name of Christ, is indeed the name of our Christ, and contayneth the number 888. But heere it is otherwise; for though M. Downam and his fellowes giue the Pope the name of Romanus and Latinus: yet neither the Popes themselues, nor any other giue them that name without addition, especially that of Latin cannot be attributed to him, for he is head aswell of the Greeke as the The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope. Latin Church: & his particuler Sea or Bishoprick, to which this supreme iurisdiction is annexed, is only Rome. And besides there is much controuersy whether these names con­tayne the number 666. or no, as we shall see presently. Neither can M. Downam help himselfe with telling vs that without doubt the Roman State is signified by the beast, whose name contayneth this number 666. for this he knoweth is denied by vs, and his proofes wherof he brag­geth are all discussed, and confuted in their due places.

7. Wherefore now let vs see, how he will confute [Page 179] Bellarmines Answere to the reasons which Chytraeus, and Bibli­ander bring for their opinions. And heere Bellarmine must be content to put vp an iniuryous imputation that M. Downam layeth vpon him, that it is his manner to make choyce of the easiest Bellar­mine slaū ­dered by Downam. obiections, omitting the harder; which is so manifest and no­toriou [...] a slander, that I dare remit the iudgement to any in­different, or morall Protestant. For no man, that hath read Bellarmine, can deny, but that he vrgeth all arguments a­gainst himselfe to the vttermost, in so much that it is the common censure of Protestants, that he is a good Author to be read against himselfe, because his obiections are so for­cible: but their meaning is, that the Reader should stay in them, and not passe to his answers, because they are also most plaine and euident. But to come to our particuler, M. Downam should haue shewed vs those hard obiections of Chytraeus and Bibliander which Bellarmine omitted; but he hath no such matter, only he writeth thus: VVe produce three other arguments, as you haue heard, speaking of himselfe in the plurall number, and as it seemeth vsing the same figure in num­bring his arguments; for I can only find one of his owne adding, which is that the number of 666. is not the name of Antichrist himselfe, but of the former beast, which si­gnifieth the Roman State. But how can Bellarmine be bla­med for not answering this argument, which M. Downam hath framed so many yeares after his booke was written? Downam contrary to his fel­lowes. For Chytraeus and Bibliander could not vse this argument since they were not of M. Downams opinion in this point, but tooke that number to be vnderstood of the name of Anti­christ himselfe, as all other Authors, but M. Downam, do also, for ought I can perceaue, since he alleadgeth none for See cap. 5. n. 5. &c. his opinion: and indeed the matter is playne, as you may see in those places, where it is discussed at large.

The first reason then which Bellarmine answereth is the V authority of Irenaeus, to which he saith that Irenaeus preferred another name before [...], and M. Downam graunteth, that it is true indeed, that he seemeth to do so, and addeth, that they buyld not vpon Irenaeus his authority, but vpon those reasons where­upon his coniecture is grounded, which are two; the one because it is the name of that Kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. [Page 180] 13: 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe: and he translateth Irenaeus thus: It is the name of that which most truly is called the King­dome, for they are the Latines that now raigne; and addeth his Apoc. 13. owne exposition, making Irenaeus say, that it is the name of the former Beast, spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum Re­gnum, Downam corrup­teth Ire­naeus his wordes & meaning. that Kingdome which most truly is called a Kingdome, that is the Latin or Roman State. All which is a plaine corruption, both of Irenaeus his wordes, and meaning. For there can be nothing more playne, then that Irenaeus attributeth this number to Antichrist himselfe, whome also he vnderstan­deth to be signified by that former beast as commonly all o­ther VI Authors doe; only he giueth a reason, why he thought it probable, that Antichrist should take that name, as Bellar­mine truly explicateth, and withall sheweth, that though that reason might seeme to haue some force in Irenaeus his tyme, now it hath none at all, because the Kingdome of the Latins is decayed since that tyme. And if Irenaeus had thought that this name was to be attributed to a Kingdome or State, surely he had no reason to preferre the name of Teitan before Lateinos, as he did. Neither are we to make any accompt of M. Downams confirmation, vpon supposition that Antichrist it come, for this is his ordinary fault, and is called petitio Antichrist shalbe a most po­tent King. principij: and his deniall, that Antichrist shalbe a most potent King, is tooto shameles, and disproued vpon diuers occa­sions; and in this very place, according to the best exposi­tion, he is said to haue the power of the 4. Monarches: for the 10. Princes which shall deuyde the Roman Empire a­mongst them, shall belong to him, and he shalbe like to a Pard, and haue feete like a Beare, and a mouth like a Lyon, which are the three beastes, to which the other three Mo­narches are compared by Daniel, and lastly the Diuell signi­fied Dan. 7. by a Dragon, shall giue him his force and great power.

The other reason of S. Irenaeus, vpon which M. Dow­nam VII now saith that he graunteth his opinion (though a little before he said it was easy to answere) is because the letters of the name [...] make the number 666 to which Bellarmine obiecteth that the name of Latin, as it signifieth a Roman, is not written with [...], but which a simple iota, and then it maketh not that number. M. Downam answereth [Page 181] that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce [...], long, by [...], dip­thong, and the Grecians vsually expresse [...], long, by [...], and he ob­serueth, The name of Latin containeth not the numbe [...] 666, that S. Irenaeus setting downe these two names [...] and [...], as conteyning 666. taketh it for graunted, that [...] may be so written; whereas of [...] he saith that it maketh that number, if it be written with [...], dipthong. For answere of all which, I re­ply: first, that M. Downam should haue shewed vs, that the ancient Latins euer wrote their owne name by [...], diphong, which I can hardly belieue, since they tooke it from Latium, which can hardly be so writtē. Secondly the Grecians did not vsually write [...], long, by [...]: and we need go no further then to the word [...] for an example. Thirdly, the reason why S. Irenaeus expressed the diuersity of writing in [...] & not in [...] is plaine, because he writing in greeke could not alter the greeke Orthography without much note in the word [...], which is a greeke word: but for the word [...], he made no such difficulty, because he respected only the sound and pronunciation, as we commonly doe in all Greeke wordes, which we wryte or vse as Latin. But this hindreth not, but that there is a difference betwixt [...], and Latinus, except M. Downam thinketh, that the changing, or taking away of a letter will not alter the signi­fication, which were too absurd and grosse. And no doubt, we must rather stand to the Latin then to the Greeke Ortho­graphy of a Latin word. The like obiection maketh Bellar­mine The name Romansh cōteynet [...] not the number 666. against Romanus, for it maketh not the number, except it endeth in Tau, and be a feminine, whereas Antichrist is to be a man by the consent of all Authors. To which M. Downam answereth, that collectyue names in Hebrew, are indiffe­rently expressed in either genders: but he neither telleth vs, what names be collectiue, nor sheweth that Romanus is one of them, nor produceth any authority for that he saith: and therfore we are rather to stand to Bellarmines iudgment, who hath written an Hebrew grammer, then to M. Downams, of whō we are not sure, that he can read Hebrew: and if by a colle­ctyue name, he exclude a proper, he is farre wyde. His second answer is, that because the name heere spoken of, is the name of the Roman State, it may be feminyne, since that elswhere that State is called the whore of Babylon, & a woman. But we [Page 182] deny, that the name is to be attributed to any other then to Antichrist himselfe: and with vs agree in a manner all Au­thors, and indeed the matter is euident, and els where suffi­ciently See cap. 5. n. 5. &c. proued.

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

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

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

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

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

3. As also for the other, that this Character is not [Page 188] yet knowne, because there is so much controuersy about it▪ for he only teacheth briefely that which he explicated more at large, about the number of his name, which we examined and confuted before.

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

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

To Bellarmines second instance, out of the Scripture, M. IIII Downam giueth no direct answere at all, but would same put it off, by telling vs, that the Pope hath declared, that it is necessary to saluation, to be subiect to the Pope. But this is only [Page 189] to shew, that the body must be vnited with the head, in which all Religions whatsoeuer, yea all Societies must The mark of Anti­christ shal­be com­mon to all in his King dome. needes agree. But Bellarmines instance impugneth two of the markes, which some Protestants affirme to be the Chara­cters of Antichrist, by this euident proofe, that the Chara­cter of Antichrist shalbe common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as the Scripture plainely affirmeth: but the oath of Obedience, and the Priestly vnction agree to few, therefore these cānot be the Character wherof the Scripture speaketh. To this M. Downam answereth not a word, neither indeed could he, for euery part and parcel is most euident and playne, and therefore he was inforced to run to his old shift, and to bring vs his wonted figure of petitio principij, by which he desireth vs to graunt him his conclusion, that the Pope is Antichrist, without any further proofe. But he must pardon vs, because it importeth vs much to hould with Christ, which we cannot see how we can possibly doe, if we oppose our selues against his substitute and Vicege­rent, as though he were Antichrist, as M. Downam would haue vs.

To the third instance, M. Downam answereth more for­mally, V denying that the Scripture speaketh of the carrying of this marke, and the carrying of it indifferently either in the forehead or in the Anti­christs Character may be ca­ried either in the right hand or fore­head. hand. But by M. Downams leaue, the Scripture mentioneth both the forehead and the right hand, & that with disiunction, that all must haue the marke in the one or in the other: by which it is plaine, that either of them will serue: so that it is indifferent to Antichrist in which of them his marke be carryed, so that it be carried in the one of them: for that it must be carryed, is euident by the Scripture euen according to M. Downams translation, which is this: That he may giue them a marke on their right hand, or els on their foreheads. For surely if he giue them a marke on either place, they must carry it perforce. Now as for his Mysticall interpretation, that they shall receaue this marke on their forehead by profession, or in the right This Cha­racter is not pro­fession or practise. hand by practize and operation: first it is hard to vnderstand, how profession is made with the forehead, except there be some marke vpon the forehead, and it will be no very easy matter for Antichrists Ministers to examine euery man that [Page 190] would [...] or [...] practise and operation; and final­ly those vactions, which are assigned can hardly be drawne to either of these two heads, if profession be taken properly for declaration, by speach, and practise for our owne actions and operations, since they doe rather import a suffering and passiue receauing, then any actiue operation, in which not­withstanding they draw neerer to this marke which shalbe giuen by Antichrist, and receaued by all others; and there­fore neither profession, not practise agreeth well to this M. Dow­nam con­tradicteth himselfe. marke. Finally M. Downam seemeth to contradict himselfe: for on the one side he will haue profession and practise to answere to the forehead and hand, and consequently to be the marke, and yet a little after he saith, that the subiection it selfe is the marke, which is not only contrary to the for­mer, but also foolish: since that this subiection is the thing signified by the marke, and not the marke it selfe. For what wise man would euer say, that subiectiō is a signe or marke, but rather that other things are signes and markes of it, as appeareth plainly to any, that will consider the subiection of seruantes to their Maisters, subiects to their Prince, and of Christians to Christ and God &c.

To the fourth instance M. Downams answere is, that An­tichrist VI shall prohibite all Christians, that haue not his marke to buy or sell &c. but he will permit the Iewes &c. But we find no such exceptiō in the Scripture, which generally affirmeth, that he shall not permit any, little or great, rich or poore, free or bound, vnder which diuisions, no doubt, not only the whole nation of the Iewes, but euen euery particu­ler Iew is comprehended. And besides, we find no such ri­gour in the Pope towards M. Downams Christians: for though that Bull of Martinus Quintus had ben generall for all The Bull of Mar­tinus Quintus against the Hus­sites. tymes and places, as it was not, yet doth it not exact that euery man should professe by word or worke his subiection to the Pope, before he be admitted to buy or fell any thing at all, especially such things as are necessary for daily suste­nance, but only excludeth all Hussites &c. from all human conuersation (when voility or decessity, or some other law­full circumstance doth not otherwise require) which are openly, manifestly, and notoriously such: which is farre [Page 191] lesse rigour, then Antichrist shall vse, and yet much more then we see vsed in many Countries now, euen by Martinus Quintus his authority, where Catholikes and Heretikes are permitted to liue peaceably togeather. Yea euen in Italy & Spayne, & Rome it selfe, where they are most carefull to auoyd this contagion, there is no such rigour vsed as M. Downam See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 7. speaketh of; the reason of which we shall afterward declare more at large. But though all this be true, yet we must not omit to obserue, that Bellarmine in this instance only impu­gneth three of the markes, which M. Downams brethren as­signed, viz. Chrisme, the Oath of Fidelity, and Preisthood. All which three, it is euident, that not only all Iewes, but likewise very many Christians, yea Catholikes also haue not, and yet are permitted to buy and sell: neither are they once questioned withall about any of them. All which M. Downam could not choose but see, though because he could find no solution for Bellarmines instance thus lymited, he thought best to runne to generalityes, where he might roue a [...] randome, and make his Reader belieue, that he had something to say, though he saw himselfe that he could say nothing directly to the purpose.

M. Downam hauing this dispatched the first argument VII commeth to the second; where first he affirmeth, that though those things had bene vsed in the Catholike Church before the reuelation of Antichrist, yet that hindereth not, but that now they may appertayne to the marke of the beast, because he doubteth not to affirme that there were many corruptions crept into the Church before the reuealing of An­tichrist, which he was to retayne with increase. So that as you see, the marke of Antichrist was in the world before himselfe, yea in the Catholike Church, which consequently must The Church of God can­not haue the marke of Anti­christ. needes belong to Antichrist, and be a great freind of his, as indeed she is to the Pope, and euer was, and wilbe as to her chiefe Pastour vpon earth. But how she should beare and vniuersally imbrace any marke or corruption of Anti­christ, seemeth as vnpossible, as that Christ and Antichrist shall haue both one marke, or one Church, and therefore M. Downam must either perswade vs, that euen from the Apostles tymes the Church of Christ bare Antichrists marke, and consequently that he was then come, or els he [Page 192] must graunt, that his brethren haue not rightely assigned the markes of Antichrist, but rather haue vttered an horri­ble M. Dow­nams blas­phemy. blasphemy, charging Christs Church, and consequently Christ himselfe (who teacheth his Church) with the markes and doctrine of Antichrist. But M. Downam giueth vs two differences, betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after. First vntill the yeare 607. there was not (saith he) in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head, and consequently till then, these things could not be vsed as signes thereof, as since they haue. But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him, take the paines to peruse what Bellar­mine The Church was al­way sub­iect to the Pope. bringeth in the 19. & last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point, & I doubt not, but he will acknow­ledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles; or if he be obstinate, and will nor yield to an eui­dent truth, yet I am sure, he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes; & if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can; let him begin, when he will, and see what he shall gaine by it. The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is, that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are; so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church, but the authority of the Popes law. But this is a very poore diffe­rence, and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church, since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes, that she needed no commaund: and besides, if M. Downam maketh the anciēt Church to be very corrupt. Downam will take the paines to peruse the anciēt Councells, and Decrees of Popes, which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies, he shall find, that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then, that there is now, many of them being commaunded by Gods law, and others not exacted of all, and some not of any, as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers.

6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam an­swereth VII. Bellarmines particuler obiectiōs. And first cōcerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth, that those three Fathers speake of the an­noynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme; and addeth, that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists. [Page 193] Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least: and though it be true, that they acknow­ledge that Cerimony of Baptisme; yet in these places, they speake most plainely of Chrisme, and the Sacrament of Confirmation. For T [...]rtullian, and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme, attributing to it the effects of grace, aswell as to Baptisme: and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist, and calleth it Chrisming, which is the proper name of this Sacrament. Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse, that these Fathers were Papists in this point also, and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primi­tiue Church, or no, is a new question belonging to another place, and it is inough for vs now, that it was long before Antichrist came, according to the Protestants accompt: and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands, which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church: of which M. Downam can giue no better reason, then for that it was abu­sed by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme, Eucharist, and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians. de Conse­crat. dist. 5. c. Vt ieiun. Ibid. c. De bis verò. Christian Religion, as indeed they haue done in great part; only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit, though they say neuer a true, nor wise word. I omit his o­ther impertinent obiections out of the Canon law, where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith, that a man shall neuer be a Christian (meaning a strong and valiant, or per­fect Christian) except he first receaue this Sacrament: for so he vseth the name (Christianus) as the Latins vse (Vir) and the Aurelian Councell saith, that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced, then Baptisme, if we respect the person of him who ministreth it, because he must of necessity be a Bishop, How Chrisme is more to be reue­renced then Bap­tisme. and besides this Sacrament supposeth, and in some sort in­cludeth baptisme, and in that respect is said to be more ve­nerable, then baptisme by it selfe. And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe, or against vs; for that which he addeth cōcerning the ordayning of the Sacrament, as though it were ordayned by the Church, and not by Christ, is a fond Chymera of his owne. For we affirme that it was in­stituted by Christ, as all other Sacraments were: and besides [Page 194] it is now from the purpose, since our whole question is, whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was.

To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction; that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme, was the note of a good Christian, because then that Church was Apostoli­call; VIII. IX. but now it is the marke of an Antichristian, because now that Church is Apostaticall. Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij. And besides you see, he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him, that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist, that it was the (chiefest) note to know a good Catholike Christian, from a false and wicked heretike: and consequently it is to be accompted so still. For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth, that the Roman Church was Apostaticall, but they were not able to proue it any more, then M. Downam is: and all good Catholikes were then, and are now certayne, that it can neuer be so, since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors. And besides it is very strange, that Christ & Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke. And that the argumēts, which the old Fathers vsed against here­tikes, should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catho­likes. But to these absurdities must they needes fall, who call light darkenes, and darkenes light, as M. Downam and all heretikes doe. M. Downam goeth forward with his distin­ctions and differences, affirming, that in ancient tymes, at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome, so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them. Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe. All which is false; for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome, as to their head; and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members; and it acknow­ledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still, though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer. How the Church of Rome is vnited & standeth with other Churches. And that which he addeth is a meere cauill; for the Church of Rome, if we vnderstand that particuler diocesse, is still accompted but a part of the Catholike Church: and in this sense, a man may still be a good Christian, although he be not of the Church of Rome. And in ancient tymes, the [Page 195] Church of Rome alone (that is the Church, of which the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe Pastor) was accompted the Catholike Church. And consequently that he that was not a member of that Church was not taken for a Catholike or true Christian, as appeareth sufficiently by the places, which Bellarmine citeth, to which I will only adde one more out of S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus. I am vnited in Communion (saith he) to thy Blessednes, that is, to the Chayre of Peter. I know that the Church was built vpon that rock; whosoeuer eateth the Lambe out of this house, is prophane: if any man be not in the Arke of Noe, he will perish in the deluge. I know not Vitalis, I refuse Those which be­long not to the Church of Rome be­long not to Christ but to An­tichrist. Meletius, I esteeme not Paulinus, whosoeuer gathereth not what thee scattereth, that is, whosoeuer belongeth not to Christ, belongeth to Anti­christ. Now let M. Downam compare the writing of any Catholike at this tyme, and see if they attribute more to the Pope or Church of Rome at this tyme, then S. Hierome did at that; and with all consider, if in S. Hieromes iudgement, it be not a playne marke of an Antichristian to be against the Roman Church, and of a good Christian to be vnited to it.

8. To the third obiection M. Downam answereth, that the Oath which Bellarmine alleadgeth, is not an Oath of obedi­ence, X and allegiance to the Pope, but of faith and Religion towards God, conformable to the faith, and Religion then professed by the Bishop and The oath of obedi­ence made to the B. of Rome be­fore the yeare 606. Church of Rome. But by M. Downams leaue, the wordes of the Bishop are these: Sub meiordinis casu spondeo, at (que) promitto tibi, & perte Sancto Petro Apostolorum principi, at (que) eius Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio, vel successoribus ipsius, me numquā &c. ad schismata reuersurū, sed semper me in vnitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae, & communione Ro­mani Pontificis per omnia permansurum. Vnder perill of loosing my place, I profer & promise to thee, and by thee to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and to most blessed Gregory his Vicar, or to the successors of him, that I will neuer returne to schisme, but will alwayes in all pointes remayne in the vnity of the holy Catholike Church, and in the communi­on of the B. of Rome. By which we see, that the promise to remayme in the communion of the Pope, was as abso­lute, as that other to remayne in the vnity of the Ca­tholike Church: which I suppose M. Downam will admit to be perpetuall without limitation of any tyme. And this [Page 196] promise he presently cōfirmeth with an Oath by Almighty God, by the 4. Ghospells which he held in his hands, and by the health of Nations, and of the rulers of his Com­mon wealth. Now it is a friuolous cauill to say, that this Oath was taken vpon the occasion of his lapse; for this Bellarmine denieth not, but only affirmeth that it was taken before the comming of Antichrist, according to the Pro­testāts accompt. Neither is it to the purpose, that now such Oathes are more generall, and common; for this Bellarmine denieth not: and who seeth not that the exaction of Oaths may proceed vpon diuers occasions? And if the Oath be lawfull, the often exacting of it is not culpable, but rather If the Oath be lawfull, the often exacting of it is not culpable. commendable: arguing greater vigilancy in them, which gouerne. And the like may be said of some other clauses more expresly set downe in some other formes of oathes, according to the necessity of tymes, and the qualities of them, who are to sweare. M. Downam should shew vs that there is any oath exacted of any now, that is not fit to be performed by them, which thinke it necessary to liue in the communion of the Pope, as this Bishop did, as appea­reth by his Oath; wherein he promiseth as much in gene­rall, as any other can expresse in particuler: for he protesteth, that he will neuer be drawne from this cōmunion by any perswasions or any other meanes, and consequently that he will alway remaine in the obedience of the Pope; for he re­nounceth not any heresy, as M. Downam supposeth, but on­ly schisme, which he performed by returning ad vnitatem Sedis Apostolicae, to the vnity of the Apostolike Sea, which I hartily wish, that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants may also doe; for otherwise it would not be sufficient to renounce their heresies, though this were a good step to that. XI

To the fourth, after a fit of rayling, M. Downam answe­reth Priestly vnction vsed be­fore the yeare 606. Desacra vnctione c. Cum ve­nisset. at length, that both the places of S. Gregory Nazianzen are to be vnderstood figuratiuely of consecration to the Ministry: & this he en­deauoureth to proue by the testimony of Innoc. 3. by which it ap­peareth that this cerimony of annoynting was not vsed in the Greek Church, whereof Naziāzen was; but reiected as Iewish, vntill he imposed the same vpon them about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam goeth [Page 197] beyond Innocentius, for he only affirmeth that they, to whom he wrote, that is at the most, the Grecians of his tyme, were not wont to vse this cerimony of annoynting: but that the Greeke Church had not vsed it before, Innocentius affirmeth not, and much lesse, that they had reiected it as Iewish. Wherefore these are M. Downams additions, which we may bouldly reiect, since he hath no proofe for them, and conse­quently his figuratiue interpretation falleth to the ground, and we are to take the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen, as they sound, especially since others as ancient as he both of the Greeke and Latin Church make expresse mention of this Cerimony, as M. Downam may see in Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacra­mento Ordinis cap. 12. where he also handleth this obiection out of Innocentius 3. and vrgeth it further then M. Downam Bellarmin vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth him­selfe. doth: whome I must intreat not to be angry though I passe ouer his rayling in silence, since he saith nothing to the pur­pose which is not already answered; for now all our que­stion is, how ancient this Cerimony is, and for the law­fulnesse therof I remit him to the place of Bellarmine alrea­dy alleaged, where he solueth that obiection taken from the Iewes, and whatsoeuer els M. Downam can inuent.

10. To the fifth obiection M. Downams answere is, XII that S. Augustine is to be vnderstood of Sacrifice of prayer, and not of any propitiatory Sacrifice; but by M. Downams leaue he cannot carry it so; for we will appeale to S. Chrysostome, S. Sacrifice for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. Cyril, and S. Augustine himselfe. For first S. Chrysostome lib. 6. de Sacerdotio writeth thus. The Priest is an Embassador for the whole world, and an intercessour with God, that he wilbe propitious to the sinnes of all men, not only of the liuing, but also of the dead. Cyrillus Hieros. cateches. 5. mystag. VVe belieue (saith he) that it is the greatest help of those soules for which the obsecration of that holy and dreadfull Sacri­fice which is laid vpon the Altar is offred. And S. Augustine himselfe quaest. 57. in Leuit. affirmeth, that in this Sacrifice, vera fit re­missio peccatorum, sinnes are truly forgiuen: and tract. 84. in Ioan. answering directely M. Downams distinction, he writeth thus: Therefore at the Table in selfe we do not so make Commemoration of the Martyrs, as of others, who rest in peace so that we also pray for them: but rather that they may pray for vs. By all which, it is plaine, that in the tyme of these Saintes, Masses were offered for the [Page 198] dead, in the very same manner, that they are offered now, and consequently this is no marke of Antichrist, except M. Downam wilbe so bould, as to marke these holy Fathers with it, by which amongst wise men, he shall only get to himselfe the opinion of an impudent heretike, one of the forerunners of the true Antichrist indeed.

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

To the authority of S. Amborse for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, he answereth, that Christ may be adored in XIIII his Sacraments; but the Sacrament is not to be adored. To which I Adoratiō of the Eu­charist vsed before the yeare 606. answere, that we adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacra­ment, which the Protestants will not allow of, but S. Ambrose doth, & the Sacrament it selfe, that is, euen the forme of bread and wyne may be adored in that manner, that we haue explicated of the Crosse, that is, as a thing belonging to Christ; but alway the inward submission and adoration is to be referred to the person of Christ, which must needes be in the Sacrament, since his body and humanity is there, [Page 199] as S. Ambrose affirmeth. Now that which M. Downam addeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place, is nothing to the pur­pose. For we know very well, that our B. Lady is not to be adored with that adoration, which is due to the Holy Ghost and Christ, which is all that S. Ambrose there affir­meth, as appeareth euidently euen by those words which M. Downam alleadgeth. Finally his euasion to the authority of S. Augustine is very friuolous, for he neuer goeth about to answere the words, but supposeth that S. Augustine would not affirme the reall presence which yet his wordes must needes import, since he saith that we eate Christs flesh, and that no man eateth, but he first adoreth: which is the very same, that M. Downam will needes haue to be the marke of Antichrist: so that if we will belieue him, all the Christians in S. Augu­stines tyme had the marke of Antichrist: for which his plea­ding no doubt if M. Downam lyue to see Antichrists raigne, he shall haue a good fee; and howsoeuer, he cannot goe vn­rewarded, since the Dragon to whom Antichrist belongeth taketh a record of all such worthy enterpryzes, that tend so highly to the aduancement of his Kingdome. God graunt that M. Downam may take a better course in time.

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

But let vs see, how M. Downam impugneth those Ca­tholike Anti­christs marke shalbe vi­sible. Authors, that thinke it shalbe a visible marke: his first argument is, because it is a grosse thing to imagine, that Princes and Magistrates, and men of all sortes would euer suffer themselues to be branded, as it were with Antichrists visible marke. To which I an­swere, that it were grosse indeed to imagine so, if these Princes &c. were not forced vnto it by danger of incurring otherwise some greater inconuenience, because it is not pro­bable, that all shalbe so far gone that they will glory in An­tichrists marke, though no doubt many will, and others will seem to do so, though in their harts they mislike it. Nei­ther are we to thinke, that Antichrist shall want deuises how to do this without paine or deformity. But I would faine know, where M. Downam found this imagination of branding, for I cannot see why all Catholikes may not be vnderstood to speake only of such a visible marke, as the signe of the Crosse, which is visible inough, and yet we see no man branded with it. His second Argument is▪ that if this were Antichrist, practize, euery man would be able to dis­cerne him. But what meaneth M. Downam by discerning. No doubt men shall discerne him to be an enemy of Christ, and the question in those daies wilbe, which of them is the true Christ, for he will affirme himselfe not only to be the true Christ, but also will extoll himselfe aboue all, that is called God. Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth the ordinary glosse, Downam contradi­cteth him selfe. Antoninus, and Lira, and referreth himselfe to some places of Scripture: by all which he only ouerthroweth his owne assertion, that all Catholikes agree that Antichrists marke [Page 221] shalbe such a visible signe, as he impugneth, since now he himselfe hath found some who thinke otherwise: and be­sides, this is a new confirmation, that this Character is yet vnknowne since that Authors are so deuided in their opini­ons concerning it. Finally, so farre, as these Authors agree See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 4. with the heretikes or differ from Bellarmine, they are suffici­ently confuted by him, with the same arguments with which he impugned the heretikes themselues. And as for the Scriptures we shall more commodiously discusse them in another place, where M. Downam vrgeth them somewhat more in particuler, for now he alleadgeth them only in ge­nerall, and so we answere in generall, that though other places cannot without absurdity be vnderstood of visible marks, yet that proueth not, but that this place is so to be vnderstood, since no doubt, some markes may be visible, and all circumstances argue a visible marke in this place, though we cannot in particuler certainely tell, what this marke shalbe, which is a plaine token, that Antichrist is not yet come as M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to reason in this place, and he himselfe demonstrateth a little before, apply­ing it to Antichrist name, as we haue seene.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. TO this Argument, first M. Downam obiecteth in generall, that in all this dispuration Bellarmine presup­poseth, See cap. [...]. that Antichrist is but one singular person; which though it [Page 228] were trne, yet he did presuppose nothing but what he had proued before, which I remit to the Readers iudgement. Downams absurdity. But now indeed this argumēt presupposeth no such thing, but is of much moreforce, if we speake of many then if we speake only of one, for it is most euident, that neither all the XII Popes since 607. were Iewes not that the Iewes haue recea­ued them as their Messias: both which thinges shalbe veri­fied in Antichrist, be he one man or many, as Bellarmine most certainely proueth.

Secondly M. Downam noteth briefely three pointes out I. II. III. IIII. V. VI. VII. of the errours which Bellarmine reiecteth. First his cunning in that he imitateth crafty tradesmen, who being desirous to vtter their bad wares at a good price, first shew those that are worse, that the naughtines of the worse may comnend and set forth those that be not so bad. But where M. Downam learnt this cunning, or of what tradesmen I know not, except he meaneth those of his owne profession: but sure I am that no tradesman can deale more plainely and sincerely, then Bellarmine doth, telling vs what wares are so bad, that by no meanes they are to be delt withall. Againe what wares are likely to be very good, Bellar­mines sin­cere dea­ling. but yet some doubt may be made of them, which he decla­reth and vrgeth to the vttermost. Finally what they are al­so, that are out of all question, being generally warranted by all the most skilfull and honest Merchants. This is Bellar­mines proceding in this, and all other difficulties, as the Reader may easily perceaue by perusing his workes, and in particuler this place. Now, how this can be disliked by any good and substantiall chapman, I cannot imagine; on­ly some crafty and deceiptfull Merchant may be hindered thereby to vtter his broken trash, and therefore out of enuy cauill at him, as M. Downam doth. His second note is, that S. Hippolytus is the Father of one of these errors: vpon whose counterfaite authority (saith M. Downam) the Papists in other points concerning this controuersy do so muchrely. But it M. Downam had asmuch wit, as he hath malice, he might haue noted out of this place in what manner we esteeme the authority of any Father, though neuer so ancient or graue, viz. if he holdeth any thing against all the rest, and against a plaine place of Scripture, in the interpretation of which all the [Page 229] rest agree, we altogeather reiect the authority of that Fa­ther. If he affirmeth any thing without euident proofe, How Ca­tholikes esteeme of the Fa­thers. in which the rest are silent, and yet he hath probability for that he saith, we admit of his authority as probable: and this so much the more or lesse, as we find more or fewer of his opinion, or that they affirme it with more certainty and resolution, or bring better proofes for that they say. But yet so long as we find any controuersy among the Fathers, or that they vary in their expositions of any place of Scri­pture, we hould it not altogeather certayne that the grea­ter part affirme, except the matter be decided by the succes­sours of S. Peter, and the other Pastors of the Church to whome it doth belong to decyde and define such controuer­sies. But when all the Fathers agree it were more then ra­shenes, yea plaine madnesse to goe against the whole streame of all antiquity either in opinions belonging to faith, or in the exposition of the Scripture. And by this M. Downam may see, that though we esteeme the authority of S. Hippoly­tus much, yet it alone is no certayne ground of our Faith, though we are farre from reiecting him altogeather, or calling him counterfaite, as M. Downam doth, without any other reason then that he displeaseth him, as commonly all other Fathers doe. M. Downams third obseruation is, that these opinions (which Bellarmine calleth errours) shew into what absurdities men doe fall, when as they will needes be comparing Christ with Antichrist, as the Papists in many things doe. But he should haue added, that these absurdityes fall out, when these comparisons are made without any sound or sufficient ground, which the Papists do not in any thing at all, as appeareth plainely by this whole Treatise, and may in part be gathered by this, that Bellarmine reiecteth those conceipts that were only grounded vpon these similitudes, because they were only builded vpon them, and are repugnant to other former groundes.

2. Thus M. Downam passeth ouer the errors, and VIII. IX. X. XI. commeth to the two probable opinions, about which he liketh Bellarmines iudgement well inough, in that he thinketh M. Dow­nams iu­gling. neither of them certain, but maketh no mention of the o­ther part in which he affirmeth that the latter is very pro­bable [Page 230] for the authority of the Fathers. M. Downam liketh also so well of Bellarmines interpretation of the two first places of Scripture, that he would challeng them to be his owne, or at least to belong to his fellows. For in the first he plainely saith, that Bellarmine answereth with them; and in Gen. 49. Ierem. 8. the second he relateth it so cunningly, that if the Reader be not very wary, he will easily thinke, that Bellarmine were against S. Hierome, and that M. Downam had found it out.

In the third place, M. Downam goeth against Bellarmine, affirming that the trybe of Ephraim is not left out, but vn­derstood by the Tribe of Ioseph, in which I like his iudge­ment very well, for indeed (as Ribera and others vpon this The tribe of Eph­raim, not omitted. Apoc. 7. place, proue very well) the Tribe of Ephraim is in other places called the Tribe of Ioseph, as Psal. 77. Ezech. 27. Amos 5. and the reason is, because though Ephraim were the yonger brother, yet he was preferred before Manasses the elder Gen. 48. But what hath M. Downam gained by this? Is not this rather a confirmation of the Fathers opinion, that Anti­christ M. Dow­nam im­pugneth himselfe. shalbe borne of the Tribe of Dan, since that only was omitted in this place? Yea but (saith M. Downam) Symeon is not mentioned in the blessing of Moyses Deut. 33. no more then Dan in the Apocalyps. But he himselfe confesseth, that Symeon is comprehended vnder Iuda, but that Dan is altogether omitted, Deut. 33. which as you see is a great difference. And besides though Symeon were altogeather omitted also, the reason were to be found out and not put off with another difficulty. Where­fore Why Moyses omitted Symeon in his bles­sing. there be two reasons why he was not mentioned by Moyses. First because that Tribe was not to haue any particu­ler possession distinct from the rest in the land of Promise but only some small portion among those of Iuda, for which cause, as it seemeth M. Downam saith, that Symeon is com­prehended vnder Iuda in this place, to which we may adde that other obseruation of S. Hierome in quaest. Hebr. that in processe of tyme, the Tribe of Symeon was constrayned to goe into the desert because they had not possession sufficient for them, after they were multiplyed, which he proueth out of 1. Paral. 4. But though this reason be probable, [...]et the two Apollinarij giue another more certayne, for this reason [Page 231] would also haue excluded the Tribe of Leui which had no particular possession in the Land of Promise, but was Why the Tribe of Leui is often o­mitted. deuided among all the Tribes: for which cause when men­tion is made of the Tribes in respect of their temporall possessions, the Tribe of Leui is omitted. But heere we see, that Moyses maketh most honorable mention of Leui. Wher­fore the two Apollinarij with whome also agreeth Caietan, and Lippomanus rather thinke, that Moyses made no mention of Caiet. in Genes. Symeon, by reason of the curse which Iacob laid vpon him, togeather with Leui vpon his death-bed, from which the Tribe of Leui was freed, by the zeale which the shewed in Gods cause against Idolatry at Moyses his commandement, by which they wiped away the curse which Iacob had laid vpon them for their fury and vniust reuenge, and consecra­ted their handes to God, and deserued to haue a benediction giuen them as we see that Moyses gaue them, absoluing them from their Father Iacobs malediction, but passing ouer Symeon Exod. 32. in silence, & Deo iudicandum relinquens, and leauing him to Gods iudgment, as the elder Apollinarius writeth, with whom agreeth the assertion of the Iewes, that there was not a poore Scribe nor Schoolemaster among all the Tribes, but he was of the Tribe of Symeon, many of them (as it seemeth) beeing constrayned by necessity to seeke their liuing by that meanes, as others were inforced to fly the country, and so Iacobs Prophesy was fulfilled in both these Tribes, that they were deuided and dispersed through Iacob and Israel, but with this difference, that Leui liued with great autho­rity and plenty, and Symeon in great disgrace and pouerty: which perhaps was also insinuated by the holy Patriarch by those distinct wordes of deuiding and dispersing in Iacob and Israel. So that now we haue the reason why Symeon was omitted Deut. 33. but still we seeke for this other, why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. And M. Downam giueth vs a generall rea­son why some one was to be left out, viz. because Leui was Why the Tribe of Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. put in, and consequently if all the rest had byn recyted, there should haue ben 13. Whereas he supposeth that the Holy Ghost would nei­ther number more nor lesse then 12. But first this were strange, that the Holy Ghost should stand so precisely vpon any number. And if a Papist should do so, M. Downam would [Page 232] exclaime against him for superstition. Secondly Moyses Deut. 33. indeed numbreth only 1 [...]. Tribes, for he includeth Ephraim and Manesses vnder the name of Ioseph, as he himselfe expresseth in the end of his benediction, and M. Downam well obserueth that the like is to be seene Deut. 27. and Ezech. 48. Thirdly our difficulty is not now why any Tribe is omitted; but why rather the Tribe of Dan then any other. And to this M. Downam answereth, that the reason is, because that was the first Tribe which fell from God vnto Idolatry: and that for the same cause (as some thinke) the Genealogy of that Tribe is omitted in the first booke of Chronicles. But this is not a good reason, for though it were true, that the Tribe of Dan fell first from God to Idolatry, yet this is no particuler cause, why that The Tri­be of Dan fell not first to I­dolatry Exod. 32. Num. 25. Ios. 22. Tribe should be omitted only in these two places and in no other, and besides it is not true, that this Tribe fell first to Idolatry: for all the Tribes are said to haue fallen togea­ther, when they worshiped the calfe, and after againe Beel­phegor, which seemeth to be particulerly obiected to the Tribe of Ruben, and God, and the halfe Tribe of Manasses, by Phinees and the 10. Princes of the other 10. Tribes. And in the tyme of the Iudges almost in euery Chapter, there is men­tion made of the peoples falling to Idolatry without any particuler mention of Dan, and euen that particuler Idolatry Iudic. 17. 18. which M. Downam seemeth to ayme at, was not begun by the Tribe of Dan, but by Michas of the mountayne of Ephraim from whome those of Dan tooke perforce his idolls and Priest: which indeed was a great sinne in them, but not the first, nor yet the greatest, and therefore not a sufficient reason why the Tribe of Dan should be omitted only in these two places, as M. Downam will needes affirme against the Fathers, but indeed proueth nothing at all against them. For suppose his reason were good, yet that is no hinderance, why the reason of the Fathers should not be good also: for why might not this Tribe be omitted for both these rea­sons, and the latter which these Fathers bring be a punish­ment of the former, which M. Downam alleadgeth? For since S. Iohn speaketh of those which shalbe saued of the Iewes in the tyme of Antichrist, and only omitteth the Tribe of Dan, of which he reckoneth none to be saued, is it [Page 233] not more then probable that the cause of this is, because the Tribe of Dan shall wholy giue themselues to Antichrist Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan. as to the head of their Tribe? And likewise since the chiefe reason why the Genealogyes of the Tribes are rehearsed, is because Christ was to be borne of one of them, may it not be very well thought that in hatred of Antichrist, which was to be of the Tribe of Dan, the Genealogy of that Tribe was omitted? though indeed this latter proueth no more of the Tribe of Dan, then of divers other Tribes, whose Genealogyes were also omitted in that place; and therefore no meruaile, though the Fathers made no inference out of this, as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely doe.

3. M. Downam hauing thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Fathers opinion in this point, though he differeth in this, that Bellarmine thinketh it very proba­ble for their authority, which he doth not; he would by this president prooue, that they may lawfully reiect the Downam impu­gneth the Fathers authority. Fathers authority in all other pointes cōcerning Antichrist, when it seemeth to them the Fathers alleadge not the Scri­ptures in their true sense. But first M. Downom must remem­ber, that an vniuersall is not to be inferred from a particu­ler. Secondly Bellarmine reiecteth not the authority of these Fathers, but admitteth their opinion as probable, which is asmuch as they themselues for the most part affirmed, and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so farre as they would haue him. Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fa­thers for his exposition of the two first places, and therefore he might well follow their opinion, especially since most of the other did rather follow the mysticall, then the lit­terall sense. In the third place where he brought no autho­rity for himselfe, M. Downam did rightely correct him, she­wing his instance to be very probable, though still there remayneth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses, but comprehended vnder the name of Ioseph. Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reiect all the Fathers, when they agree without contradiction or doubt, nor to make himself wiser then he is, to take vpon him to vnderstand the Scripture better then they all; yea [Page 234] though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mysticall sense, yet he may well assure himselfe, that they would neuer be so resolute, except they had some other good ground of diuine or Apostolicall tradition, known by them to haue ben taught by the Apostles, and from their tyme, from age to age conserued in the Church: for which reason I also incline to thinke that it is in a manner certayne, that Antichrist shalbe of the Tribe of Dan, since so many Fathers affirme it without contradiction of any.

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

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

[Page 235] 6. The second testimony 2. Thess. 2. troubleth him somewhat more, and therefore his tongue runneth at ran­dome, 2. Thess. 2. explicating the place at large after his owne fancy and railing against Catholikes, but obiecteth nothing worth the answering: the most that he hath to the purpose is, that the Apostles wordes may be applyed to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the Iewes. In which we will not stand with him; but now our question is, whether the Iewes be included in these wordes or no, and Bellarmine saith they are, and that chiefly: and this he proueth out of the Scripture it selfe. First because none ought more, and would lesse receaue Christ then the Iewes.

7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word, but that the Rhemists confesse, that others may be said not to receaue the loue of the Truth also. But what is this to the purpose? Doe the Rhemists, or can any other deny that none refused more to receaue the loue of the Truth then the Iewes? And yet this is all the answere, that M. Downam giueth, but falleth into a rage, and railing againe like a man more then halfe beside himselfe; yet after a while, he com­meth to himselfe againe, and returneth to Bellarmines second proofe out of the Scripture, where he noteth, that the Apo­stle speake in the preter tense, of the refusers to receaue the Truth, and in the future tense of the comming & receauing of Antichrist: out of which he inferreth, that he is to be vnderstood of the Iewes, who were they that chiefly had refused to receaue Christ in the Apostles tyme. To which M. Downam answereth, that this preter tense is not to be referred to the tyme of the Apostles writing, but to the tyme of their punishment. By which as you see, he maketh the preter and future tense all one, or at least ioyneth them togeather, expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus: That all may be condemned, that shall not haue belieued the Truth, but shall haue de­lighted in iniquity, and willing vs to conferre this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner: He that shall haue belieued, and shall haue ben baptized, shalbe saued; but he that shall not haue belieued, shalbe condenmed, though in both places, he is inforced to confesse that the greeke is the preter tense, and he dareth not translate it other­wise, [Page 236] howsoeuer he expoundes it. So that vnlesse we will stand to M. Downam [...] exposition rather then to the wordes of the Scripture, we are to vnderstand all this of the preter tense only, as the condemnation, and the receauing of An­tichrist in the future tense only, which is a plaine signe, that all this is not to be vnderstood of the same tyme, as is also euident by the thing it selfe, for men refuse to belieue, and to be baptized in this life when they are preached vnto, but they are condemned in the other life, when all Sermons are at an end for them. And this out Sauiours words signify most exactely, if M. Downams commentary be taken away. And yet the matter is more cleere in the words, which Bellarmine vrgeth, in which there is no Participle in the Greeke, as in the places which M. Downam compareth, but the Verbe it selfe; which cannot well be vnderstood, but of things truly past, as neither the Verbe in the future tense, but of thinges truly to come; and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other tyme, as our Sauiour doth: it must be vnderstood to signify that, which was past before the tyme of his writing. But M. Downam obiecteth further, that if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter tense, as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be receaued only of those, who before that tyme had reiected the truth, he must withall hould, that Antichrist shalbe receaued in the end of the world of those who dyed aboue 1500. yeares since. But this is both a false, and friuolous obiection: false, because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellar­mines wordes. (only) which Bellarmine hath nor, for he neuer went about to prooue, that only the Iewes should receaue Antichrist, but that they should receaue him: friuolous, because the Apostle & Bellarmine also speake of the Nation of the Iewes, and not of any particuler men, as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice, of which number it grieueth me that M. Downam will needes be one.

8. To the authority of the Fathers, M. Downam brief­ly answereth, that there is no probability in their assertion or ex­position XII. XIII. XIIII. no more then in the former, that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan, or in their expositions of the places of Scripture, which they brought to that effect, which (sayth he) no man now, vnles he wilbe too ridiculous can vnderstand of An­tichrist. [Page 237] Where I desire the Reader to cōsider the little accompt that M. Downam maketh of al the Fathers, when they make a­gainst Downam reiecteth the Fa­thers. him: and as for his similitude, I haue already shewed how vnlike it is, aswell because the Fathers speake not reso­lutly thēselues in that point, as they do in this, and also be­cause all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or expo­sition. And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous, which follow the Fathers exposition of those places of Scripture: for first there is no doubt, but that the two former may be mystically so vnderstood, and the last can haue no other probable sense, as hath suffi­ciently appeared. Neither is that obiection of his worth the answering, by which he would prooue, that the Fa­thers might aswell prooue, that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Beniamin, because of him it is said in the same place, that he shall raigne as a wolfe, for M. Downam might haue added the other clause, which is to be taken in good num. 2. part, and therfore cannot be applied to Antichrist, but to some other who shall change his condition, and of a raue­ning wolfe become a glorious Preacher, and Apostle of Christ, as S. Paul did, of whom some of the Fathers misti­cally expound those words. Wherfore M. Downam must be content, though much against his will, that both these as­sertions and expositions haue that probability and certain­ty, which the Fathers affirme that they haue, as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared.

9. Lastly to Bellarmines reason M. Downam answereth, XV that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe, not to any whatsoeuer, but to those in the Church, that are ready to receaue him. For proofe wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian epist. 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Diuell troubleth the seruants of God, and Antichrist impugneth Christians, and seeketh not those whome he hath already subdued, or de­sireth to ouerthrow those whome he hath already made his owne &c. Which in truth is a strange proofe (if you marke it well) for M. Dow­nam ridi­culously impu­gneth himselfe▪ Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling, impugning, or ouer­throwing, but only of ioyning with the Iewes as with friends; and M. Downam to proue, that Antichrist shall not ioyne with them, so alleadgeth S. Cyprian, who affirmeth that he shall impugne Christians. Would any man take M. [Page 238] Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Diuinity, that should heare him dispute thus grossely, bringing quid, pro quo, and impugning himselfe insteed of his aduersary? But let vs pitty his folly, and affirme with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine, that Antichrist shall impugne Christians, and to that effect, first ioyne himselfe to the Iewes. To Bellarmines minor, that the Iewes are ready to receaue Antichrist, M. Downam hath nothing to answere directly, but only repeateth certaine assertions of his owne, that Antichrist shall not be one particu­ler man &c. which haue, and shall be confuted in their due places.

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

10. M. Downam hauing thus worthily answered Bellar­mines XVI first certaine position, he commeth to the second, which is, that Antichrist shall be a Iew: which Bellarmine [Page 239] proueth out of his former assertion, that the Iewes shall receaue Antichrist, which they would neuer do, except he Antichrist shall be a Iew. were a Iew. To which M. Downam answereth, that he hath ouerthrowne that former assertion: which how true it is, I remit to the Readers iudgment. Secondly he obiecteth, that the Herodians receaued Herod for their Messias, but he doth well not The He­rodians. to stand vpon this; for the solution is euident, for these He­rodians were a few flattering Courtiers, & now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes, and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture, which teacheth most euidently, that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation, and the Tribe of Iuda, though for this second, they cannot now much striue, because their Gene­alogies are so confounded: and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda, though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan.

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

Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition XVII. XVIII. which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope, because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Pro­testants are in this behalfe: but yet he is content to take hold of their application, of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope, because they are no parties, and therfore their autho­rity The Iews opposite to the Pope. may be some inducement, to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist: where I could wish the Reader to marke atten­tiuely, the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants [Page 240] in this point of impugning the Pope, though vpon diffe­rent grounds. For if you examine a Iew, why he is so eager against the Pope, he will tell you, that it is, because he hateth Christ himselfe, and for his sake all Christians, but chiefly the Pope, who is the chiefe of them. Againe if you How the Iewes and the Prote­stāts agree and differ in impug­ning the Pope. pose M. Downam with the same question, why he cannot abide the Pope? He will tell you another tale, that it is, because he loueth Christ and all true Christians, to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most oppo­site. And is it not strange, that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture? Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope, but an indif­ferent man, and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine? Is it not too plaine, that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ, howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary, since he ha­teth the Pope, whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe? True it is, that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ, as contrariwise, but yet he that is come so farre, as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree, and with vnplacable hatred, may easily be carried a step further, except God giue him grace to turne back in time, which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe, and all others, that are in that most miserable and dangerous e­state.

M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted.

1. MAISTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall fit at Hieresalem, and to Bellarmines first proofe out of V. IX. X. XI. Apoc. 11. he answereth: first, that it may be doubted, that S. Antichrist his Seate shall be in Ierusalē. Iohn speaketh not of Antichrist, because he seemeth to speake of the former beast Apoc. 13. which M. Downam supposeth not to be Antichrist. But this is a very good confirmation, that S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist in this place also, since it is cer­taine, that he speaketh of him in the 13. chapter, and expres­seth Apoc. 11. Apoc. 13. See c. 5. §. 5. &c. him by the former beast, and in a manner all Interpre­ters agree, that Antichrist is spoken of in both places, and of this latter we haue said some thing before. Secondly, M. Downam confirmeth this his doubt, that Antichrist is not spoken of Apoc. 11. because the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall be the King of the Iewes, and counterfaite Christians, therfore by their owne Doctrine, this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles, should not be the persecution vnder Antichrist. But the answere is easie, as Ribe­ra, and others vpon this place learnedly declare, for S. Iohn Why those that follow Antichrist are called Gentiles. speaketh of the Church vnder the metaphor of the Tem­ple, and consequently calleth her enemies Gentiles, because those that impugned the Temple were such: and besides M. Downam cannot choose but know that the Papists thinke, that all those which follow Antichrist, though they were before Iewes, and Christians, yet then they shall be Gen­tiles, and Idolaters, since they shall acknowledg no other God, but Antichrist himselfe. Besides this doubt, whether S. Iohn speaketh in this place of Antichrist, or no, M. Downam saith, that he hath proued two other points more certainely: First, that Henoch and Elias be not heere spoken of, and that See c. [...]. the holy Ghost doth not meane Hierusalem. But these proofs of his are all confuted in their due places, to which I remit [Page 252] the Reader, for now I will only examine that which he bringeth in this place, where he is content to suppose, that S. Iohn speaketh both of Antichrist and of Ierusalem, and yet saith, M. Dow­nams iu­gling. that it followeth not, that whersoeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him, or by his authority, that there should be his principall seate: and then he putteth Bellarmines argument in forme for him, making the proposition thus, VVhere the two witnesses are put to death, there is the seate of Antichrist: to which he also answereth with this distinction, that being generally vnderstood, it is false, if particulerly, then Bellarmines argument is not a Syllogisme, but a Pa­ralogisme, where you see how he tosseth and turneth Bellar­mines argument, to auoid the force of it, and yet it will not be: for first he would make vs belieue, that Bellarmine spake of witnesses without determination of number, then ha­uing added the number, yet he saith, that it may be vnder­stood generally, which I cannot conceaue how he mea­neth, except it be that Bellarmine should speake of any two witnesses whatsoeuer, which notwithstanding is very ri­diculous, since it is manifest that he speaketh of those two only, which S. Iohn speaketh of. But, saith M. Downam, if it be vnderstood particulerly of two determinate and particu­ler witnesses, then Bellarmines argument is a Paralogisme. And why so I pray you Syr? What deceipt is there here? Yea, were it not great deceipt to speake vniuersally, since the Scripture speaketh determinately, and particulerly of only two, which Bellarmine hath also euidently conuin­ced to be Helias and Enoch? and consequently M. Downam can­not deny, but that it is a perfect Syllogisme and an euident See part. [...]. c. 2. §. 17. demonstration, except he can find some fault in the Assump­tion, for which he remitteth vs to his former proofes, by which he telleth vs, that he hath made good, that the Citty which is here spoken of, is Ciuitas Romana, the Citty and Em­pire of Rome; which no doubt will proue a great Citty in­deed, & comprehendeth Ierusalem, & many great Citties be­sides, and consquently Antichrist may very well sit in Hie­rusalem, M. Dow­nam foo­lishly con­tradicteth himselfe. and yet be sayd in this sense to sit in Ciuitate Romana, in the Citty and Empire of Rome, as we see that M. Downam auoucheth, that our Lord was crucified in this great Citty, and yet all men know that he was crucifyed at Hierusalem, [Page 253] by which the Reader may take a scantling of M. Downams proofes till we examine them in particuler: for it is mani­fest, that they will only proue, that Antichrists seate shall be some where within the Roman Empire, which neuer any man doubted of yet: but this is no proofe at all, that it shall not be in Hierusalem, since that also is within M. Dow­nams great Citty, and so I cannot see, but that Bellarmine and M. Downam will agree well inough in this point, since he granteth that it is as true, that Antichrist shall sit at Hieru­salem, as that our Sauiour was crucified at Hierusalem, which all men know to be most true.

2. To the second place Apoc. 17. M. Downam remitteth XII himselfe to his answere in another place, whither I will See part. 2. cap. 2. §. 18. also refer the Reader for the confutation. Likewise to Bellar­mines proofe from his former argument, in which he proued XIII that Antichrist shall be a Iew &c. he only saith, that he hath disproued this position in his former Chapter: Wherfore I must also desire the Reader to take a view of his disproofes, and my confutatiō in the precedent argument. Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe the authority of 4. Fathers, and pre­sently M. Dow­nam reie­cteth the Fathers. reiecteth them, because their assertions cannot be proued out of Scriptures, and will needs father this his impudency v­pon Bellarmine himselfe: but I would willingly know who shall be iudge, whether the Fathers, or M. Downam vnder­stand the Scriptures aright? Bellarmine sometimes when the Fathers are different among themselues, may very well cleaue to those that seeme to him to bring better proofes, for that they say: and likewise when they affirme a thing as probable, he needeth not auouch it for certaine. Bu M. Downam hath none of them of his side, and flatly deny [...]th that which they affirme, without any doubt at all. And his cauils against the authorities in particuler, are impertinent and ridiculous, for Lactantius plainly speaketh of the chiefest kingdome in Antichrists time, which neither he, nor any other doubteth, but that it shall belong to Antichrist him­selfe, and consequently M. Downam is exceeding ridiculous, if not worse, to tell vs, that Lanctantius speaketh not of Antichrist, M. Dow­nams fol­ly. since it is manifest that he speaketh of his Kingdome. Now as for S. Hierome and Theodoret, they affirme both the one and [Page 254] the other, viz. that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple at Ie­rusalem, and in the Churches of Christ as Bellarmine proueth, and sheweth that there is no opposition at all betwixt those two assertions, whatsoeuer M. Downam sayth to the contra­ry, but bringeth no proofes at all for that he saith: so that he should seeme to thinke his credit very good, and that he shall be belieued vpon his bare word, in which he is migh­tily deceaued. Lastly, in this place I must desire the Reader to note M. Downams subtilty: for to discredit the Fathers M. Dow­nams iug­ling. which Bellarmine alleadgeth, he telleth vs that they are foure, and yet to make some shew of an answere to them, he con­foundeth the sitting of Antichrist as in his Kingdome, and his sitting in the Temple of God, wherof Bellarmin speaketh in his next proofe, and for which he alleageth not only foure Fathers, but almost foureteene, for if you add Lactan­tius and S. Hierome whome he bringeth heere, they are in all thirteene.

3. In the third place 2. Thess. 2. M. Downam first en­deauoreth XIV to apply the three former expositions to the Pope, 2. Thess. 2. whome he affirmeth only to sit as it were a God in the minds of men, prescribing lawes to binde the Conscience, and that with guilt of mortall sinne, as we speake. But in this, he is at least deceaued, for we Both spi­rituall & temporal Superi­ours may prescribe lawes to binde the consciēce vnder mortall sinne. affirme that not only the Pope, but all other both spirituall and temporall Superiours may prescribe lawes to bind the conscience, and that with guilt of mortall sinne, and this we may gather euidently out of the Scripture: and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it, and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary, if he were well examined by the temporall Maie­strate. Secondly, sayth M. Downam, the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholike Church, and that all others pro­fessing the name of Christ, which are not subiect to the Pope, or ac­knowledge not themselues members of the Church of Rome, are heretikes or schismatikes. This is very true indeed, for we thinke that there is but one faith, and one Church, and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church. Christians are out of it, must needes be schismatikes at least, if not heretikes, and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd, as to deny this common principle agreed of by all, which if he had graunted, he [Page 255] would not much haue meruailed, that we hould our selues to be of the true Church, and consequently that all, that are not vnited to vs, are out of the Church, for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do. And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also, which if he make so capable, that it may comprehend vs also, we shall in some sort be beholding vn­to him, though we cannot requite him with the like. But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church, it will be an easy matter to inferre, that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it, and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Dow­nams Church, and any other, as to the Roman. How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope, M. Downam ex­plicateth not, but only affirmeth that this is the most true ex­position, and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome. Of the truth we shall see in due place, but how properly it agreeth to the Pope, is not so easy to conceaue. For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true, or at least the best Christians, acknowledg not the Pope at all, and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth, which is far from that which Antichrist shall do, when he shall so sit in the Temple of God, that he shall shew himselfe, as if he were God himselfe.

Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. M. Downam, first he denieth it to be the more common opi­nion, as Bellarmine affirmed it was, and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion, M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his, foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth, and are by him alleadged to that purpose, which M. Downam could not choose but see, and therfore thought good to add, that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true, for truth goeth not by voyces, neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages, but by weight of reason. By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason, and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue, and how little he attributeth to the Fathers. But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt, for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded, that there was more wit and true wis­dome [Page 256] in the meanest of these ancient Fathers, then there is in this insolent Minister, though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him. Secondly he denieth this ex­position to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified, which were his wonted figure of petitio principij, but that he addeth (as hath bene shewed.) Wherfore I will not cen­sure him any further, till the Reader hath seene how lear­nedly he sheweth it, and whether the Fathers, or he haue more reason and probability in this point.

Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall, though this ex­position were more litterall, vnles the litterall were vsuall. And to shew that it is not vsuall, he obserueth, that in all the Epistles, by the Temple of God is meant the Church, where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle, but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians, and in the 2. to the Corinthians, and only in 3. Chapters of them both, in the which the faithfull, and their bodies are called the Temple of God, because the Holy Ghost is present, and Temple what it si­gnifieth in the new Testamēt. remaineth with them. But how can this be applied to Anti­christ sitting in the Temple of God, and shewing himselfe as if he were God? Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men, as in his Temple? Or if he could, were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation, or shewing of himselfe as God? And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so, for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple, by which most properly is si­gnified the Temple of Hierusalem, yea when S. Paul wrote, and for many yeares after, only that was so called, as Bellarmine proueth, and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles. Wherfore since this place may, yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple, aswell as many other places of the new Testament, it is ri­diculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs, that in some few places, the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also, and contrariwise the word Church materially, for of this we neuer made question. Yea but, saith M. Downam, to sit in the Temple of God, as God, is to rule, and raigne in the Church of God, as if he were a God vpon earth. By which expositiō he ma­keth all Prelats & Magistrats, which rule and raigne in the [Page 257] Church of God, to sit in the Temple of God as God, in the manner that S. Paul saith, that Antichrist shal sit in the Tēple of God, which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Mi­nister, who seeketh to peruert the whole order & Hierarchy of Gods Church, & by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours, prepare thē to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth, and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes, of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Pu­ritan whē he wrote this. M. Downam is one himselfe, no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself, his fellowes, and Maister: but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposi­tion out of the Fathers, or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe, neither of which he once attempteth, but yet remitteth vs to another place, See part. [...]: §. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth.

4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bel­larmines proofes out of the Scripture, returneth to his argu­ment VI ad hominem, where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word (true) in the premisses, and yet expressing it in the conclusion, which is a meere cauill, for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premis­ses, which he found not in Melancthon, Caluin, and Illyricus, whose opinion he alleadged. In the conclusion which was his owne, he might very well expresse that which was ne­cessarily to be vnderstood, as Bellarmin explicateth out of Cal­uin himselfe, for M. Downams deuise, that the Church of Christ The Church compre­hendeth not al that professe the name of Christ. may be taken for the company of Christians, that is of those, that professe the name of Christ, is too ridiculous, since by this meanes he in­cludeth all heretikes whatsouer, who are indeed the Syna­gogue of the Diuell, & so confoundeth the Church of God, and the Sinagogue of the Deuill; & wheras S. Paul saith, that Antichrist shall sit in the Tēple of God, he meaneth accor­ding to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell. All which is so obsurd, that the authors with whom Bellar­mine disputeth, would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion, and therfore they sought other cuasions, as we shal see forthwith; but now let vs go on with the other illation, that the Protestants are out of the true Church: for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of [Page 258] God, we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants.

5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe, and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ, is driuen to this exigent, to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church, but only one invisible Catholike Church, and many particuler visible Churches, which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox, contrary both to Scriptures, Fathers, and Councells, as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visi­ble Catho­licke Church. Ecclesia militant. cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes, the authority of the Creed generally re­ceaued of all, where the Church is called One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolike: and who seeth not, that all which belong truly to Christ, must agree in one faith, and not to be de­uided by schismes and heresies, which in M. Downams con­ceipt can only happen in particuler Churches, or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out? So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either, or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall, there is not meanes left for his reduction, since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches, nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church, or to any visible head ther­of: which is as much in effect, as to say, that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concer­ning Faith, or to take away schismes & diuisions, but that euery particuler Church, or Pastor, yea indeed euery particu­ler man may freely follow his owne fancies without con­tradiction, or controlement of any, so long as he can pre­tend any text of Scripture (though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood) for that, which he is resolued to hould. And is it meruarle, that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant? But what should heretikes and schismatikes do, but defend schismes and diuisions: and im [...]ugne vnity and concord, which if they would admit, they must of force returne to the Catholike Church, whereit is only to be found? Since ther­fore the visible Church of Christ is one, and by the aduer­saries confession it is the Romā, it followeth manifestly that [Page 259] they themselues are out of Christs Church, since that they The Pro­testāts are out of the Church of Christ. are out of the Roman. For the other cauill which M. Dow­nam maketh, that the Romā Church is a particuler Church, is not worth the answering, for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith, and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome, who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty, but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church, which of him, her Head, is called the Roman Church, which cōtinueth the true Church of Christ, as Bellarmine proueth, and Melancthon, Caluin, and Illyricus dare not deny, howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling, consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet, whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is.

6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter VII hitherto, at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly, and agreeth with Caluin, that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God, in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church, as the administration of the Sacra­ment of Baptisme, and the profession of the Name of Christ, as also of some reliques and remainder, as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church, for he doubteth not, but that, in the corruptest times of Popery, the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast. And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab, because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision, and professed Ie­houa to be their God, although they worshipped him Idolatrously. And e­uen vnder Achab, the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal. In which comparison M. Downam insisteth who­ly Downam his petitio principij. vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij, and consequent­ly, all that he saith is but meere railing. If he would haue said any thing to the purpose, he should haue shewed two points in that example: the first that the visible Church a­mong the Iewes was altogeather ceased, by that Idolatry of Israel. The second, that Israel departed not from the Reli­gion which was generally houlden before, but that the an­cient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry, and that those which came after, separated themselues from the former, and yet were the true Church. With these two [Page 260] points M. Downam might haue made some comparison, be­twixt the people of Israel, and the Church of Rome. But since The Pro­testants like to Is­rael & the Catho­likes to Iuda. neither of these are so, but the quite contrary, it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel, since they haue left the visible Church, of which they once were, as the other did, and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda, and the rest which ioyned with them, since it continueth in the anci­ent faith generally holden throughout Christendome, be­fore there were any Protestants in the World. Neither do we graunt, that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church, no more then the Israelites had, since they haue not any iote of true faith, howsoeuer they make profession of some articles: for the reason why they hould them, is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures, or the Church, but only their owne fancies, because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit, or some other hu­man and priuate respect, how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture, for of this they admit no more The Pro­testants haue no probable rule of faith, nor any true faith at al. then they please, and for the interpretation, they haue no other rule, then their owne pruate spirit, or fancy, which is far of from being any probable rule of truth, & much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon. And this is the true rea­son why the Church of God is but one, because there is but one rule of fayth: from which whosoeuer falleth, cannot haue any true faith at all, nor belong to the true Church of God. The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose, for it is not the Church, but the Bishop of Sardis (as he himselfe saith, that it is agreed by In his Ser­mō at Lā ­beth pag. 2. Apoc. [...] 1. Interpreters both new and old) who had a name, that he liued, but indeed was dead, neither was this death for want of faith, but of charity and good workes, as is mani­fest, and though it were otherwise, yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison, except we would be­lieue his bare word, that the Church of Rome were in this case, which is our chiefe question, and M. Downams won­ted figure, to take it as granted. Wherfore since he can ar­gue no better, let vs see how he can answere.