A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 1
Chap. 1. Of the common name of Antichriſt.
ALTHOVGH, I ſuppoſe, it cannot be obſcure unto any, that d…ſirous of the trueth, hath diligently marked the things before written, but that the Pope of Rome is the great Antichriſt, and how long he hath ſo been: yet leaſt the miſt, wherby the Papiſts endevour to hide the trueth, should dazel the ſight of any; I have thought it expedient, before I goe on with the reſt of the interpretation, to ſcatter it all into thinn aier; that ſo the Sun may henceforward ſhine with clear beams on whomſoever.
Bellarmine deduceth this whole queſtion into nine chiefe points: of which the firſt is Of the n…me of Antichriſt; the ſecond, whither Antichriſt be one man, or a kind of men? The third, of the time of his comming, and death; The fourth, of his proper name; The fift, of what ſtock he is to be born, and by whō he is cheifly to be received; The ſixt, where he ſhall fixe his ſeate; The ſeventh, of his doctrine and manners; The eight, of his miracl s; The ninth, of his reign and warrs. What is to be minded of theſe all, and how the deſperate Papiſts ar deceived in every of them, may be manifeſt to any, by the things which the Angel hath taught us in the former chapter; touching the condemnation of the whore. For if Antichriſt be come, and hath fixt his ſeate at Rome, ever ſince the Empire was taken away from the hethen Emperours: then can it not be doubted, but Antichriſt, in a common name, is a ſecret adverſary; an impious Kingdome, and not one ſingular man; that the time of his coming is paſt, and not now to come; that his proper name is Lateinos; that he is not to be born of the Iewes ſtock, nor to reign otherwhere then at Rome; that his doctrine, is in name, Catholik and Chriſtian; & that his mitacles, reign, and warrs, ar no other then we have had experience of theſe many ages But Antichriſt came at the ſayd time; for the Angel hath taugh us, that Antichriſt is the Beaſt which was, and is not, & ſhould aſcend out of the bottomleſſe pit, and goe into deſtruction: chap. 17.8. And wee have shewed, that the Bp. of Rome, from the time of the Hethen Emperours, hath long ſince undergone the three firſt of theſe fowr notable chā ges, giving moſt ſure documents of the fourth alſo. Secondly, Antichriſt is the ſevēth head of the Beaſt, which next ſucceeded the hethen Emperours, who made the ſixt, which then was when Ihon wrote; Rev. 17.10.11. Therfore ſo ſoon as they ceaſed, came forth he that had the dignity of the next head. Thirdly, the then hornes, which are ten abſolute Kings, had their ſoveraingntie after that the ſixt head was fallen; that is, after that the Hethen Emperours were expelled. For from the time that the Beaſt begā firſt to reign; they never wanted crownes, chap. 18.7. And crownes have place no where ells, but on the heads and hornes: therfore of neceſsitie ſo ſoon as they be taken away from them, they are tranſferred unto theſe. But ſeing the ſeventh head, that is Antichriſt, receiveth power at the ſame howr, with the ten horns: it foloweth that then began he to exiſt, when the Roman Hethen tyrants ceaſed. Fourthly, the woman fled into the wildernes, when the Dragon was caſt out of heaven, that is, when the Hethē Emperours were depoſed; as is largely declared in the 7.11. and 12. chapters. And whom should she more fear and flee, than Antichriſt? Therfore she getting her ſelfe into the wildernes, at his riſing up: it plainly sheweth that Antichriſt came at the ſame abdication of the Emperours. Fiftly, ſince the Hethen Emperours have been doon away, Rome hath moſt vā ted of the defenſe & patronage of the Pope. And at that time should this City be both the whore, dnd ſeat of Antichriſt, when she should be caried of the Beaſt, and shine cheifly with his dignity. Sixtly, the conſent of the whole Propheſie confirmeth it; which according to this account, very wel agreeth with it ſelfe, both in the whole, and in al the parts therof: wheras otherwiſe, as it were with members rent and torn aſunder, it yeildeth a pourtrature of inexplicable confuſion. Laſtly, even the Papiſts themſelves unwares doo acknowledge, that Antichriſt hath drawn his original, frō this very beginnin. For whiles they boaſt of Conſtantines donation, and the whole Weſt to be ſubiect to the Biſhop of Rome: they shew ſufficiently, by their own cōfeſsion, about what time this Adverſarie of Chriſt came forth. Now was poyſon ſown in the Church, as a voice from heaven ſaid, as Platina recordeth in the life of Sylveſter. And if any doo obiect, that after this time ther were ſome godly Bishops, or at leaſt weiſe tollerable: I anſwer, that Antichriſt is not pa…ticular men, but a certayn Kingdome and ſucceſsiō; from which God may exempt according to his owne wil; wherin he sheweth the riches of his immeſurable mercy. But al theſe things, we hav more largely handled and unfolden, in opening the words of the Apoſtle: now we would but gather them into a breif ſumm, that the things which were ſpoken diſperſedly, being ſet under one view, might shew more clearly, how by the Apoſtles few words, al Popiſh and Ieſuitiſh ſubtilties, as toucht with lightning from heaven, doo fly on fyre, and come to nothing. Theſe therfore be the common arguments, and to be applyed unto al the chapters of the diſputation folowing: which we thought good to warn thee Reader of, that thou mayſt ſet them rather from hence, unto every queſtion, than that we should often repeat them. Things that properly belong to every place, we wil relate, as the matter shall require. Now therfore let us enconter with Bellarmine hand to hand, and not baulk any of his demaunds: that he may the better ſee how in vayn he hath tried his ſtrength againſt the truth.
The firſt cheife point is, of this common name of Antichriſt: which he enforceth to ſignify one contrary to Chriſt; and not contrarie in what ſort ſoever, but ſo, as that he ſtriveth with him for ſeat and dignitie; that is, one which is Chriſts envious adverſarie, and would be accounted the Chriſt, when he which is indeed the Chriſt, is caſt down. The firſt part of which interpretation I eaſily grant, that Antichriſt is one contrary to Chriſt: but wheras not content with this, he requireth ſuch a contrariety as was between Marius & Sylla, Pompey & Caeſar, that openly warred one with an other; the Spirit convinceth that of falſhood, teaching that the Beaſt hath two horns like the Lamb, Revel. 13.11. that he is a falſe Prophet, and that it is a point of ſingular wiſdome, to knowe and perceive the Beaſt; Here is the mind, ſaith he, that hath wiſdome: Revel. 17.9. Can any man be ſo blockiſh, that if opē warre be waged againſt Chriſt, he should not know his enemie? Need any man be deceived, wher the matter is carried by profeſſed force? The great Antichriſt shal deceive more than he shal compel: he shal come with al deceaveablenes of unrighteouſnes among them that periſh, ſaith th'Apoſtle, 2 Theſ. 2.10. wherto the Apocalypſe agreeth, and he ſhal ſeduce the inhabitans of the earth, chap. 13.14. Shal this ſeducer have his deceits and ſleights in open view? Nothing is more contrary to his diſpoſition. Be it therfore that ther is ſome Antichriſt, which wil openly vaunt himſelfe to be Chriſt: yet is not this the property of the Great Antichriſt. But think not therfore that any goeth before him in wickednes. The Divil hurteth more under the shape of an Angel of light: then under the horrible hiew of a Dragon.
But you goe about to prove the thing, three manner of wayes. Firſt becauſe the name Antichriſt, cannot by any meanes ſignify Chriſts Vicar. For Anti in compoſition, never ſignifyeth ſubordination, as is manifeſt by the exemples of all ſuch names. But a Vicar ſignifyeth not oppoſition but ſubordination: and the Pope is Chriſts Vicar; and therfore not Antichriſt. I anſwer; Though I should grant you that Antichriſt cannot ſignify Chriſts Vicar: yet were the Pope no whit the further from being Antichriſt. For the argument is framed of an aequivocation; and therfore concludeth nothing. In the firſt propoſition, you put a true and proper Vicar, ſuch as Antichriſt in deede cannot be; who is a malicious, although a ſecret enemy; that it is a true name wherby the Scriptures doo deſcribe him, of Adverſary, Man of ſin, Angel of the bottomleſſe pit, & Beaſt. In the ſecond, you aſſume a Ʋicar, not naturall & lawful, but one that is ſuch by wicked ambition, ſacrilegious uſurpation, and falſe boaſting. From which no other thing can be concluded than this, that the Pope is not Antichriſt by his own confeſsion; which I eaſily graunt you. For we reaſon not, I trow, by what name Antichriſt shal call himſelfe: but, what name he is worthy of, and what the Scriptures give unto him. It is not to be exſpected, that he will bewray himſelfe, and freely confeſſe that he is the man of ſin, the ſon of perdition, the Angel of the bottomleſſe pit, the Beaſt, and the like: which if he should doo, verily he should not play the falſe Prophet. Fayrly therfore have you freed your Pope, in arguing that he is not Antichriſt by his owne teſtimony. Secondly I anſwer, that it is falſe which you affirm of the ſignification of this word Anti, (though now it be little to the purpoſe what force it hath;) which I will make playn alſo by examples. Antimiſt hotos, is one that is hyred in an other mans ſted; Antibaſileus, is a Vice-roy, or one in the Kings ſtead: Antiſtrategos, is the Lievtenant, or he that is in ſtead of a Captayn; as H. Stephen sheweth in Theſ. Graec. even the ſame that Hypoſtrategos is with Appio in Anabaic: and the ſame that Propraetor, as Budaeus teacheth, from Demoſthenes. Antuputhos is the Deputie or Proconſul. In al which Anti ſignifyeth ſubordination. But, ſay you, Hypoſtrategos, is an equal Captaine, even as with the Latines Propraetor and Proconſul ſignifyeth not the vicar of the Prator or Conſul, but he that is the ſame in a Province, which a Praetor or Conſul is in a City: and that herein Muſculus was deceived, who becauſe he read that Antiſtrategos ſignifyed a Propraetor, thought that it ſignifyed a Vicar of the Praetor, which is falſe. I anſwer; the firſt Proconſuls had but a deputed Magiſtracie in ſted of others, as witneſſeth L. Feneſtella de Magiſtr. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 11. All which time, ſaith he, the Proconſul exerciſed not an ordinary but a delegated juriſdiction: though after through cuſtome it came to paſſe, that this Magiſtrate got a proper juriſdiction. And this is that which Dionyſ. Halicarnaſ. ſayth in Ant. Rom. lib. 11. that the firſt Proconſuls were created in the third yere of the 84. Olympiad: though he had before made mention of T. Quintius created Proconſul in the ſecond yere of the 79. Olympiad; that is, 21. yeres before; lib. 9. To weet, becauſe theſe Proconſuls, as T. Quintius and the like, exerciſing but a power of thruſt; were not to be reckned among the ordinary Magiſtrates, but thoſe that after the limits of their governance proroged, had proper authority. And then of right caried they the dignitie granted, & the name of Magiſtrate. Yet thoſe Proconſuls of-truſt, were called Anthupatoi, as appeareth by Dionyſius ſpeaking of this T. Quintius. Wherfore Muſculus was not deceived in this as you ſay: but your ſelfe are egregiouſly beguiled, who through affection of oppugning the trueth, ſee not the thing that is moſt certen.
Secondly, you prove it by ſcriptures, from which you rightly judge the ſignification of this name is to be cheifly fetched. And firſt you alledge, that he is caled Antichriſt. which is exalted above all that is caled God, 2 Theſ. 2.4. which certes, ſay you, is not to be the Vicar, but the enemy of Cgriſt, the true God. I anſwer; Firſt ſeing here is the ſame aequivocation in the word Vicar, which was before: this argument hath like force with the former, that is, none at al. Secondly I ſay, that to be exalted above all that is caled God, is figuratively ſpoken, not properly. For the true God, is never caled al God, but one, as th'Apoſtle ſayth, 1 Cor. 8.5.6. For though ther be which ar caled Gods both in heaven and in earth, (as there are Gods many, and Lords many,) yet to us ther is but one God even the Father, and one Lord Ieſus Chriſt. The other Gods which are many, are often caled, all; as Pſal. 97.7. worſhip him all ye Gods. Therfore to be exalted above every God, is not above the one God in heaven, but above every God on earth, that is, above the civil Magiſtrate, to whom the Scriptures doo attribute the name of God. VVhichWhich alſo is evident by the word which foloweth (Sebaſma) worſhip. For if God be takē properly, how is that ſet after, which is leſſe? In diſtributions, that which is leſſe, is wont to be ſet before; ſo that one can not rightly ſay, who is exalted above every King or every ſubiect; but contrary, he that is exalted above every ſubiect, or Ring. But taking God figuratively, the ſpeech encreaſeth elegantly, thus; who is exalted above al Magiſtrates, and not onelyonly the inferiour ſort, but alſo above every worshipful Maieſtie among men, even the higheſt Caeſars; which are caled Sebaſtoi & Sebaſmoi, 1. venerable. Finally, as touching the true God, how should Antichriſt, acknowledging no God but himſelfe, ſit in the Temple of that God? as the Apoſtle teacheth, 2 Theſ. 2.4. Doubtleſſe he would aboliſh the Temples of all thoſe, whoſe names, and much leſſe their worship and honour, he cannot abide. Neither should he be ſubtile, if he boaſted himſelfe ſuperiour unto God in heaven; but in al mens iudgement, moſt doting and fanatical. Wherfore by theſe words, Antichriſt should exerciſe his pride againſt the civil Magiſtrate, whom he would tread under his feet, as by too many lamentable examples your Pope of Rome hath doon. But this ſupreme eminency above al earthly powers, makes no neceſsity of open warr againſt Chriſt, but may very wel conſiſt togither with the feigned humility of his Vicar.
The ſecond place is from 1 Iohn. 2.22. that he is caled Antichriſt, which denieth Jeſus to be the Chriſt; that is, ſay you, which denieth Jeſus to be the Chriſt, that he may vaunt himſelfe to be the Chriſt. I anſwer; this interpretation is Ieſuitical, that is, quite from the purpoſe of the holy Apoſtle. You wil have this denyal to be open, manifeſt, impudent: the Apoſtle ſeemeth to ſignify no ſuch matter, but rather al things contrary. For it was of men which newly and privily had crept in, of whom the faithfull ſcarſely ſuſpected any ſuch thing; but had need to be warned, that many Antichriſts were come already, ver. 18. It was of them which went out from us, but were not of us; ver. 19. that is, which bare the name of Chriſtians, as did Ebion, Cerinthus, and others of that leven, who reteyning Chriſts name, could not openly deny him, but onelyonly privily and trecherouſly. Finally, it was of ſuch an Antichriſt, as should deny alike the Father and the Son, as ver. 22. But he would not openly deny the Father, for ſo he should manifeſt himſelfe unto al, to be altogither Godleſſe, contrary to that which the Apoſtle teacheth, that he should ſit in the Temple of God. Therfore, when the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of a privie denyal, and you would wreſt it unto that which is put before al mens eyes: you shal get nothing from this place, but a proof unto us of your egregious skil, to conclude from any thing, whatſoever you lyſt.
The third place is from Mat. 24.5. For many ſhal come in my name, ſaying, J am Chriſt: and againe verſ. 24. For ther ſhal ariſe falſe Chriſts: from which you gather that he ſhal affirme himſelfe to be Chriſt, which ſurely, ſay you, is not the part of a Vicar, but of an adverſary. I anſwer; this Vicar is very fertile unto fraud, that corrupteth ſo many arguments with the ambiguity thereof. For here it dallyeth as it did before, with the divers acception of the word. But beſides that, why doo you not obſerv, that many ſhal come in Chriſts name? and that falſe Chriſts ſhal ariſe? Our Lord treateth not of one ſingular man: but sheweth that many shal arrogate to themſelves his name of Chriſt. If theſe things therfore be ſpoken of the very Antichriſt, then ſurely he shalbe no one ſingular man. So this place, in ſted of gayn which you hoped for, turneth to your dammage. Our Lord chiefly noteth out the Antichriſts of the Iewes: whoſe impudency, though it should be greater, yet the hurt by them should be leſſer, then that which should redounde from the great An…ichriſt. But we shal hav occaſion hereafter to interpret this place: in the meane while, theſe Scriptures doo help your cauſe nothing at all.
Your third argument, is from al authors which have written of Antichriſt; & from the conſent of al Chriſtians: And in ſted of them al, you mention of the ancients Damaſcen, and Hierom; and Henry Stephen of our writers. I return to you agayn, of the ancient Fathers, this one S. Ephrem, (whom Ierom celebrateth with the praiſes of an high witt) that hence forth you boaſt no more ſo laviſhly of al authors. Thus ſpeaketh he in his ſermon of Antichriſt: Jn this habit ſhall the foul theif come. For that the deceiver and deceitful ſpeaker, may deceive al men; he wil feighn himſefe humble, courteous, deſpiſing unrighteouſnes, ſhuning Idols, making a ſhew of piety, benigne, poor, ſtudious, fayr beyond al admiration, gentle, cheerful unto al men. Theſe things ſaith he. Where now is that open warr, with this notable Iugler? where is that manifeſt pride, wherby this deep diſſembler of humility, should lift up himſelfe above every God? where is that manifeſt tyranny, with this iuſt, pious, beningn, poor, and courteous fellow in shew towards al men? If I would ſerch the iudgements of the reſt; I doubt not but you should wāt much of your ſumme of al authors. As for H. Stephen, he acknowledgeth the word to have this force, that he iudgeth them alſo to be reckned by the name of Antichriſts, which thou they profeſſe the name of Chriſtians, yet are in deed the enemies of Chriſt, whiles they adulterate his doctrine with many forgeries. For howſoever they boaſt of Chriſt with their mouth, yet in hart they deſire his overthrow: and eſpecially they which with wicked boldnes doo invade his royal ſeat: and likewiſe they which derogate from his godhead. Theſe be his words; none of which, but doo very well fit the Bp. of Rome. From al which thus diſputed, you now gather up your firſt argument againſt us adverſaries: and leaſt the whole should not agree with the parts, you conclude with the ſame fine equivocation, that you trimmed al the former with, after this manner: The name of Antichriſt ſignifyeth an enemy and rival of Chriſt: But the Pope of Rome profeſſeth himſelfe Chriſts ſervant, and ſubiect to Chriſt in al things: Therfore he is not Antichriſt: to weet, by his owne confeſſion: which who ſo yeildeth not, let him be Anathema. For ſo you might more rightly have eſtablished this moſt ſure concluſion, than the Fathers of Trent, doo their canons. But know, I pray you, Bellarmine, that continual equivocating, is intolerable trifling.