A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 3
Chapt. 3. which sheweth that Antichrist is come.
OF Antichriſts coming we gave demonſtrations in the beginning of this refutation; which ſerve to moderate al the queſtiōs in this cauſe, that they may manifeſt the truth of every of them. Yet leaſt this place, where the thing is purpoſely handled, should complayn that it is naked & empty: it shal not be unprofitable, to add unto the former, one reaſon or two, in ſted of th'advantage. And theſe we draw from 2 Theſ. 2. and firſt from the 3. verſe, wher it is ſayd, except ther come a departing firſt, and that the man of ſyn, the ſon of perdition, be diſcloſed. In which words the Apoſtle ſetteth down, that both of theſe ſhal goe before the coming of our Lord; & alſo that the departure or Apoſtaſie shal come before the diſcloſing of Antichriſt. For that former is the cauſe of this latter, drawing this evil with it, as afterwards he teacheth, that Antichriſt shal therfore come, becauſe they received not the love of the truth that they might be ſaved; ver. 10.11. Neither should the diſcloſing ſtay long after the defection, wherunto it is ſtraight annexed, the Apoſtle ſaying, except ther come a departing firſt, and the man of ſyn be diſcloſ…d &c. but the impediment being taken away, which we hav shewed to have been doon ſhortly after: forthwith came this miſchief to light. But this departure began ſecretly even in the Apoſtle time; which is not a defection from the Roman Empire, but a neglect and contempt of the truth received, as the ſame Apoſtle there interpreteth it, and it hath prevailed now through many ages, to be ſeen in the veneration of reliques, the invocation of Saincts, and worship of Images, as was ſaid erewhile. For by ſuch manner of Idolatry, the Lord is forſaken, and men fal from him unto other Gods, as Ieremie ſaith, chap. 16.11. where he is biddē to ſpeake thus to the people; Then ſhalt thou ſay unto them, becauſe your Fathers have forſaken me, ſaith the Lord, and have walked after other Gods, and have ſerved them, and worſhiped them, and have forſaken me, and have not kept my law: After which manner the other Prophets alſo ſpeake continually. Needs therfore muſt Antichriſt be come long a goe; ſeing the conioined ſigne & cauſe of his coming, hath reigned now in the world many ages.
Secondly; that impediment is now long ſince taken away, which onelyonly hindred in the Apoſtles time, that the man of ſin was not reveled, ver, 7. Which was not the Roman Empire, but the ſixt head of that Empire; which had the ſupreme government of things whiles Iohn lived; for thus ſpeaketh the Apocalypſe, chap. 17.10. Five are fallen, one is, the other is not yet come. That one, which the Angel ſaith was then, was the ſixt King: with whom the Roman Empire should not fall, becauſe a ſeaventh King & head should after ſucceed. Neither did many reign togither with one head: wherupon the ſeventh should as wel ſuſteyn the Empire, for his part, as any one other of the former. Therfore ſo ſoon as that preſent regiment should be changed, which fel out about two hundred yeres after Iohn, then that weighty burden, which hitherto did reſtreyn, being removed, Antichriſt should come forth, and converſe in al mens ſight.
Thirdly, if the myſterie of iniquity wrough whiles the Apoſtles lived, of neceſsity the birth could not be farr of, whē the paynes of bringing forth did vex ſo betimes 2 Theſ. 2.7. Otherwiſe what a monſtrous thing is this, that one should be a breeding in the body theſe fifteen hūdred yeres, and yet the yongling is not brought forth; and when at laſt he shal come forth, he shal be but a King for three yeres and ſix moneths? But theſe ar dreams. If the Apoſtles ſcarſely repreſſed him, much leſſe did they keepe him in which came after, and which had leſſe piety, knowledge, ſtudie, diligence: whoſe gifts alſo decaying daylie more and more, made way for the ſpeedy riſing and increaſing of the Man of ſyn.
Theſe things being thus layd down, now come we unto yours: which is but one onelyonly argument about this matter. Long inough in deed it is, for it reacheth from the beginning of the chapter to the end: but it is no leſſe weake and feeble, then long and tedious. Thus it goeth: Antichriſt is not yet come, becauſe he came not at the time which ſome both of the ancient & later men have ſuppoſed. The ancient men you mention are the Theſſalonians, Cyprian, Ierom. Gregorie, one Iudas, Lactantius, and a Biſhop of Florence: the later are, the Samoſatenians of Hungarie, and Tranſilvania, Jllyricus, Chytreus, Luther, Bulinger, Muſculus. And in folowing this matter, is the whole chapter ſpent. I anſwe twofold; firſt falſe it is, that he which cam not in the times ſpoken of by the ſayd authors, is not yet come. It was not neceſſary that they should know the firſt riſing & original of Antichriſt. The Beaſt remayneth a Myſterie after his diſcloſing, Apoc. 17.7. whoſe perſon was manifeſt, but not his wickednes and original. Eor the Myſterie were taken away, if that which lay hidd within, should lye open unto al men. And as Gods Kingdom, though foretold by the Prophets, came not with obſervation, Luk 17.20. ſo neyther dooth Antichriſts Kingdome. The tares are ſowen, whiles the husbandmen ſleep, Mat. 13.25. neither were they perceived in the firſt ſpringing: but were they not therfore, becauſe the husband-men knew not which way they grew? Shal we not acknowledge the motion of the ſun, becauſe we perceive it not as it moveth? Doubtleſſe the craftie enemy, of his ingenious diſpoſition had much rather that his Vicar ſhould invade men privilie, wherby he might oppreſſe the moe unwares: than that rushing upon them with noiſe and tumult, he should give men a ſign for to looke to themſelves. Moreover, when you conclude that he is not yet come; you ſhould have comprehended al the other times, and not thoſe few onelyonly, which the ſaid ancient and later men doo mention. Is not one come in ſome day, becauſe he is not come in the firſt, or ſecond, or third houre therof? It is a fault in reckning up the parts, to paſſe by anie one: and ſeing you have omitted manie, your propoſition is made diverſe wayes abſurd, and the whole argumentation that hangeth thereon.
Secondly I anſwer ſeverally to the reſt; and firſt concerning the ancīet Fathers, from whoſe words, we doo more then probably conclude, that Antichriſt is come. For thus ſaith Cyprian, lib, 4. Epiſt. 6. You ought to know, and for certayn to beleeve and hold, that the day of vexation is begun to be upon our heads; and that the fal of the world and time of Antichriſt is at hand. Ierom in his Epiſtle to Ageruchia, concerning Monogamie, ſaith, He that did hold is taken out of the way, and doo we not underſtand that Antichriſt is neer? Alſo Gregory lib. 4. Epiſt. 38. All things foretold, are come to paſſe; the King of prid is neer. For if Antichriſt were neer thirteen hundred yeres agoe, or a thouſand at the leaſt; as is evident by theſe teſtimonies: how can it be that he is not yet come? You anſwer, that the ancient Fathers were deceived, with opinion that the worlds end was neerer, than in deede it was: and that therfore Antichriſt was then neer in falſe opinion, not in very deed. Wherunto I ſay, If the ancient Fathers had grounded their ſentence upon the perſuaſiō onelyonly of the worlds end; it muſt needs have been, as they erred in this, ſo alſo they had erred in Antichriſt: but ſeing they perſuaded themſelves ſo by other arguments, and gathered, not ſo much that Antichriſt was neer, becauſe the end of the world was at hand, as that the worlds end was at hand, becauſe Antichriſt was neer; needs muſt that be firm and ſtable which they avouched of this thing, unleſſe beſide that vain opinion, you can prov the other reaſons alſo to be light. But it is manifeſt by their words, that they had ſuſpicion of the worlds end, by Antichriſts coming, not contraryweiſe. For Ierome reaſoneth from the impediment taken away, that Antichriſt was neer. He that held, ſaith he, is taken out of the way; and doo we not underſtand that Antichriſt is neer? Gregorie by the fulfilling all things that were foretold: than which, what can be a more certayn argument? And you confeſſe, that al the ancients, minding the evilnes of their times, ſuſpected that Antichriſts times were at hand. They did not therfore upon ſuſpicion of the end, conclude of Antichriſt. For the laſt end is never made a ſigne of things going before, but the things that goe before are determined to be ſignes of the laſt end. The end ſeing it is the laſt and the moſt unknown, even to the Angels in heaven, and to the Son of man himſelfe Mark 13.32. can give no fore-perceiving of things that are before & more known. By ſure argumēts therfore they knew that Antichriſt was at hand: but that which they joyned therto of the laſt end, relyed but upon an unſure & humane conjecture. They had received from Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 1. a falſe Chronologie of five thouſand, ſeven hundred, foure skore & foure yeres, two moneths and twelve dayes paſt from Adam unto the death of Cōmodus the Emperour. Therunto was added an opinion of the worlds durance ſix thouſand yeres: wherupon Cyprian in the preface de exhort. Martyr. ſaith, the ſix thouſand yeres are now almoſt fulfilled, ſince the Divil impugned man. And Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 25. Divinar. Inſtitut. All exſpectation ſeemeth to be more than of two hundred yeres. Add unto theſe, the conjecture of the worlds ſpeedy end, after Antichriſts coming, and then it will eaſily appear, that great difference ther is, between thoſe things which are handled of Antichriſt, and of the end of the world. The firſt they had found out by many Propheſies, and undoubted ſignes: the later they did perſuade themſelves, by ſome likelyhood of truth, and the infirme authority of men.
The like we doo ſee in Chriſts diſciples, which exſpected as we knowe a temporal Kingdome. Yet when they preached that Chriſt was come, & that the Kingdome was thē to be reſtored to Iſrael; ſhould any which ſaw not the Kingdom reſtored; diſanull their faith touching Chriſts coming? ſurely he should doo them wrong. For that Chriſt was come, they knew by moſt ſure arguments, which could not deceive: but their opiniō of the temporal Kingdom, they drew from the dreggs of the common error. Even ſo, the ancient Fathers, underſtood by true ſignes from the Scriptures, that Antichriſt was at the dores: but that which they affirmed of the laſt end, was of their own; & should not diminiſh the credit of that wherwith it is joyned. Therfore you have not eſcaped by this your anſwer, but by the ſentence of the ancient Fathers, it remayneth firm and ſtedfaſt that Antichriſt is come: and therfore it was not for nought, that the Bishop of Florence one of your owne men, openly avouched five hundred yeres agoe, that Antichriſt was then come: to ſtop whoſe mouth, the Councel of Florence was gathered. But you thought it better, that the fame of this Coūcil should rather come ūto poſterity, than that the acts therof ſhould come unto their knowledge.
As touching the later men, in the firſt place you mention the Samoſatenians of Hungary: whith whom I wil have nothing to doo. Whatſoever they think or think not, is al one to me: until they return unto ſoundnes of mind. The other learned men have a threefold difference: Illyricus, Chytraeus, and Luther, make Antichriſts coming to be about the yere of our L. 500. Bullinger, at the yere 763. Muſculus, about the yeere 1200. Surely the ſecond riſing of the Beaſt, in whoſe territories they remayned, did caſt ſo ſtrong a ſmel, to thoſe prudent men, that they could retch their minds to no further thing: even as hownds, which when they fal upon the denn of the wild beaſt, doo run with ful courſe and cry, not ſenting anie more the ſeveral footſteps. Therfore for the moſt part they transfer unto this ſecond riſing, the things which belong to the firſt, and bring in here ſome other things that are not to the purpoſe. Nevertheleſſe, this light aberration of the time of his riſing, taketh not away his riſing: but by their voices and cryes, we know that Antichriſt is; though the moment when firſt he began to be, was hidd from them. Let us therfore run through your anſwers unto every of them; that you may perceive how they have not ſo much erred, as your ſelfe have laboured in vayn, in oppugning their judgements.
Secondly therfore you encounter with Illyricus, who ſaith, Antichriſt was thē born, when Phocas grāted to the Biſhop of Rome, that he ſhould be caled Head of the whole Church, which fel out in the yere 606. You anſwer; that he was not born at this time, for two cauſes: firſt, becauſe Antichriſts temporal reign of 666. yeres, which Illyricus would have to begin at that ariſing; ſhould now long ſince be ended, and Antichriſt ſhould be dead. Secondly, that by his ſpiritual reign, which Illyricus wil have to be of 5260 yeres, the Centurie writers might exactly know the end of the world; contrary to our Lords words Acts. 1. & Mat. 24. I anſwer unto the firſt: It is a fooliſh thing which you gather of Antichriſts death, at the end of 666. yeres: when you ſee they give unto him a ſpiritual reign of 1260. yeres. Can any one reigne 594. yeres, (for ſo many is this reign proroged beyond the temporal,) after he is dead? But perhaps your ſpiritual Pope hath no more vital life without temporal things, then the ſerpent hath without duſt.
VntoUnto the ſecond I anſwer, it is as lawful for the Centurie writers exactly to know the yere when the world ſhal end: as it is for your Papiſts, to know the very day. Doo not you recken 1335. dayes, from the beginning of Antichriſts reign, unto the laſt judgment? Shal that ſpeech of Chriſt touching this unknown day, have no longer place than til Antichriſt cometh? Mark 13.32. How then ſhal it come as a ſnare upon al that dwel on the face of al the earth? Luk. 21.33. Your refutation therfore is nothing. We have shewed that that firſt number is not of his Reigne, but of his nam: & that the other is to be coūted frō the firſt coming of Antic. not from the ſecond. But I wilbe no longer now about this matter: I return agayn to you, & doo grant that which you ſtrive for. Be it, that Antichriſt was not then firſt born. I ask this onething of you; whither was he then or no? If you deny him then to be; I thus convince it. Then was the impediment taken away, which onelyonly hindred his coming, as Ierom even now affirmed. Then al things were doon, which were foretold ſhould goe before his coming; as Gregorie did avouch. Then was ther an Vniverſal Prieſt, ſuch as the ſame Gregory confidently ſayth, whoſoever caleth himſelfe, or deſireth to be caled, he is in his pride the forerunner of Antichriſt. lib. 7. Epiſt. 194. unto Mauricius. But, if he that deſireth ſuch a name be the forerunner of Antichriſt: what shal we cal him that hath the name? Seing therfore Antichriſt was at that time: now look you how he is not yet come.
Jn the third place you anſwer to Chytreus, who maketh his birth to be about the ſame time; eſpecially, becauſe Gregorie at this time ſtabliſhed prayer to Saincts, and Maſſes for the dead &c. To this you ſay, that Gregory was not the firſt that taught to pray unto the Saincts, and to offer Maſſes for the dead. For al the ancient Fathers taught the ſame; and in ſted of al you bring forth one Ambroſe, which was two hundred yere before Gregorie. I anſwer, ſurely Chytreus erred, that though Antichriſt to be ſome yeres yonger, then in deede he was. He was much more ancient, but did ſo bear his age, that as an other Cupid he alwayes ſeemed to be a childe. For the man was deceived by his ſecond riſing, wherby he revived from the dead: and as Aeſon of an old man became a yong; ſo he frō youth returned to his cradle. Neither ſhould it be ſtrange to have him then accounted firſt, who then ſeemed to be new. But you ſo deny his birth, as you add yeres to Antichriſt, & take none away: as if you should require inheritance for a ward, and be afraid, leaſt he should goe too late out of his wardship.
Fourthly you come to Luther, who makes a double coming of Antichriſt; one with a ſpiritual ſword, after the yere 600. an other with a temporal ſword, after the yere 1000. You anſwer, that the Popes depoſed Emperours, and made warrs before the thouſand yere. I anſwer, therfore thou Luther alſo waſt deceived: Antichriſt was come before thou ſuppoſeſt. Surely you ſo defend the Popes, as if one being charged with theft, to avoide the crime should openly crye, that that was not the firſt thing that he had ſtollen; but for many other greater things had he plaid the theef before. You feared not, as it ſeemeth, that any should afterwards come, which would ſearch out the higher origine of Antichriſt.
Fiftly, Bullinger ſo expoundeth that number 666. as to deſigne the yere of Antichriſt coming, after the writing of the Apocalypſe, namely the yere of our Lord 763. To which you anſwer, and rightly, that this is the number of Antichriſts name, not of his time. Though from hence your cauſe have but litle help. For although he were not then firſt born, yet he mought be born before: which ſufficiently sheweth, that you falſly doo avouch, He was not yet come.
Sixtly, Muſculus affirmeth that Antichriſt came about the yere 1200. moved hereunto by Bernards authoritie, who ſaith after manie other things, wherwith he bewayleth the wickednes of thoſe times, Jt remayneth that the man of ſyn be reveled. Serm. 6. of Pſal. 90. You anſwer two things, firſt that Bernards ſuſpicion was falſe, as was Cyprians, Ieroms, Gregories, in their times. For he ſuſpected by the evils which he ſaw, that Antichriſt was neer. Secondly, that ther were worſer Popes without any compariſon, in the former age than in that. I anſwer to the firſt, you fayrlie contradict the Apoſtle. He teacheth that the Apoſtaſie goeth before Antichriſt: and that he should come into the world for mens deſpiſing the love of the truth: declaring therby, that ther is no more evident ſigne both of Antichriſt approching & reigning; than that al kind of hypocritical impietie licenciouſly rangeth abroad. You wil have Bernard to be deceived, and that he ſuſpected by the evils which he ſaw, that Antichriſt was neer. In verie deed he was deceived in that he thought him to be but neer, and not preſent. Otherwiſe he iudged more ſyncerely of Antichriſt; than the Ieſuites are wont; or any other Papiſts. VntoUnto the ſecond I ſay, ſeing they were worſer in the age before, we grāt you that his firſt birth did not now beginn, but having been brought forth long before, now onelyonly he was exſtant. And thus, when al comes to al, you have diſputed this queſtion, as if one should contend, that the Sun is not riſen at noon day, though it began to shine in the horiſon at ſix a clock in the morning: becauſe it neither roſe at eight a clock, as one affirmed; nor at nine, as the ſecond, nor at ten, as the third avouched By the verie like argument, you and yours would perſwade, that Antichriſt is not yet come.