A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 12
Chapt. 12. Of Antichrists generation.
TOVCHING the generation and ſtock of Antichriſt, you rehearſe the opinions of certain Fathers; ſome of which, you ſay, are erroneous, ſome probable, otherſome ſure and certayn. Erroneous are the opinions of the Author of the treatiſe of Antichriſt, among the works of Auguſtine, of Hippolitus Martyr, of Origen and Sulpitius. Probable, are thoſe of Damaſcen, Irenaeus, Hippolitus, Ambroſe, Auguſtine, Proſper, Theodoret, Gregore, Bede, Rupertus, Aretas, Richard and Anſelmus. The catalogue of whom I now therfore repeat, to put you in mind, upon what authors you rely in this matter. For when you ſee theſe whom you eſteem for chief witneſſes in al queſtions, partly to be in manifeſt error, partly to confirm their opinion with no ſure arguments: why doo you wholly depend, I pray you, upon their words, as it wree upon ſome divine oracle, that could not be deceived? It is no wiſe mans part willingly to folow blind guides, eſpecially ſuch as himſelfe ackowledgeth to be blind. Awake then at laſt, and learn to know Antichrſt rather from the truth it ſelfe, than from them which have ſcarcely ſeen anie shadowing pourtraiture of him. But to let theſe paſſe, let us come to thoſe things which you count moſt certayn; of which the one is, that Antichriſt ſhal chiefly come for the Jewes, and be received of them as the Meſſias. The other, that he ſhalbe borne of the Jewes ſtock, and be circumciſed, and obſerve the Sabbath, at leaſt for a time. Both which, the time of Antichriſts coming teacheth to be moſt falſe. For ſeing he hath reigned now manie ages at Rome, to weet ſince the hethen Emperours were expelled; and yet the Iwes ſubmitt not-unto him: it neceſſarilie foloweth, that he neither is to be received of thē as the Meſsias, neither shal he come chiefly for them▪ Yea neither was he to be as appeareth by the teſtimonie of al memorie paſt, which never relateth any Iew to have ſitten in the chaire of the Pope of Rome, and it is in ſome ſort certayn that ther never ſhal. For he shal not invade by open force, and bring in a new regiment. For ſo he should not be the ſeventh head, or the eight▪ which is the ſame; but the ninth; wheras ſo manie heads the Beaſt hath not. And it is not likely, conſidering the ſagenes of the Cardinals, eſpecially being holpen by the Porphyrie ſeat, that ever they willingly wil chooſe ſuch a one, whiles things remayn as they are. Al theſe your trifles fal to the ground, by thoſe engins which the Spirit miniſtreth, and we applyed in the beginning of this treatiſe. But let us examine what you bring to the contrarie. Firſt you confirm that Antichriſt ſhal come ciefly for the Iewes, and ſhalbe received of them as the Meſſias, from the place often cited; J am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if an other come in his owne name, him ye wil receive: Iohn 5.43. I anſwer, it is true, that an Antichriſt ſhould be received of the Iewes; but the queſtion is of the Antichriſt properly ſo caled, not taken commonly. The proper Antichriſt they would never acknowledge, as is moſt ſure by manie arguments, which may be gathered from the things fore ſpoken: the other they would readily and ſtudiouſly folow: as came to paſſe as we read in Seder Olam Zuta of one Cuziba, and a certayn Syrian mentioned by Paulus Diaconus, lib. 21. rerum Rom.; and elſwhere of other ſuch like deceivers, which vaunted themſelves to be the Meſsias. That therfore which is ſpoken of the Antichriſts of the Iewes, is wrongly wreſted to the great Antichriſt, whom the Apocalypſe and Apoſtles doo deſcribe.
Secondly you bring that in 2 Theſſ. 2.10. Becauſe they received not the love of the truth that they might be ſaved, therfore God wil ſend them the operation of errour, that they may belpev lyes &c. This place, you ſay, the ancient Interpreters doo expound of the Iewes: I anſwer, as touching the ancient Interpreters, you know their mind being poſſeſſed with ſome preiudice, inclined all their cogitations therunto. Wherupon it came to paſſe that thoſe holy men, when once they had conceived in mind, that Antichriſt ſhould be a Iew, taking it ſo rather one from another than weighing the thing it ſelf: whatſoever anie where was delivered about this matter, they applyed for the moſt part therunto. But, ſay you, the thing it ſelf without the Fathers commentaries proclaymeth that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Iewes. This in deede is worthy to be conſidered, for from hence we shal have wherby we may judge of thoſe Fathers teſtimonie. Firſt therfore you ſay, Antichriſt ſhould be ſent unto them which would not receive Chriſt. And who are they which more ought and would not receiv Chriſt, than the Jewes? I anſwer, rhat which you firſt propound, is not firm ynough. For the Apoſtle ſaith not that Antichriſt ſhould be ſent unto them which would not receive Chriſt, but, becauſe they received not the love of the truth. And ther is a great difference between theſe two; as much ſurely as is between Iewes & Gentiles. For this manner of ſpeaking which the Apoſtle uſeth, properly belongeth to the Gentils, who ſhal bring, as he ſaith, this evil upon themſelves; not for that they altogither refuſed the truth, but becauſe outwardly profeſsing it, they cary not that ſtudie, zele, deſire towards it, that was meet. Even as the Angel of Epheſus is blamed, (& that in the name of the whole Church of the Gentiles, as there we shewed,) for that he had left his firſt love; Ap. 2▪4. From theſe words therfore I conclude moſt firmly againſt you, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them which acknowledging & profeſsing the truth, did not love the ſame as became them, which agreeth certes to the Gentiles onelyonly, not to the Iewes: who refuſing the whole truth, are not blamed for want of love: ſeing the leſſer crime is not wont to be obiected, & nothing ſaid of the greater. Secondly you ſay, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh not in the time to come, they wil not receive: but in the time paſt, they have not received: which agreeth to the Iewes that would not beleeve when Chriſt and his Apoſtles preached; when in the mean while the Gentiles received the Goſpel moſt deſirouſly. I anſwer, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh in reſpect of the time of Antichriſt, of whom he treateth. God wil ſend Antichriſt, becauſe before Antichriſt came, men ſtudiouſly folowed not the truth, as became them. Neither could he ſpeake otherweiſe, unleſſe he had ſet the punishment before the offenſe. For if he had ſayd, becauſe they wil not receive the truth, it might ſeem that Antichriſt should come upō thē for the obſtinacie that should be after his coming. Theſe ar your reaſons, which you ſay, doo proclaym that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Iewes: but if you diligently mark, you wil confeſſe that this is not ſo much as a ſoft whiſpering, unto the lowd crie on the other part. For hear what the Apoſtle ſaith in the beginning of the chapter, ver. 3. Vnleſſe ther come a departure firſt, and the man of ſin be reveled &c. Wherby he teacheth that the departure, (or Apoſtaſie) shal goe before Antichriſt; and the Revelation of Antichriſt, before the coming of the Lord. And whoſe departure shal this be? not the Iewes: for they received not the truth at all. And defection is from a thing, which one embraced before. Moreover theſe mens defection could not be to come, ſeing they from the firſt preaching of the faith, did reſiſt the truth. Therfore it should be the defection of the Gentiles; and not paſſed, but to come. For if it had been paſt, the Theſſalonians had ſeen Antichriſt, who had not yet shewed himſelfe, being reſtreyned by ſome impediment, as the Apoſtle after teacheth. But you wil ſay, this departure was from the Roman Empire. But let the Apoſtle, I pray you, interpret himſelfe, who afterwards expreſſeth that which here he caleth a departure, by other words, for that they received not the love of the truth, ver. 10. And what other departure, could bring forth this miſcheevous evil? Was the Roman Empire which crucified the Son of God, ſo regarded of God, as for departure from it, he would ſend Antichriſt into the world? Theſe are the dreams of Romish men that abound with exceſſ and ſurfetting: not of ſuch as with true deſire doo folow the truth. Therfore whatſoever hitherto you have ſaid, it is clear ynough, that they be not Iewes which should receive this Antichriſt, but Gentiles: and that for iuſt cauſes, Calvin of bleſſed memorie, and others whom yoy cal Heretiks, did depart from the ancient Fathers interpretation; & alſo did expoūd theſe things of you and ſuch like, from whom certaynly, ſo farr as it ſeemeth, God hath taken away al iudgement of right and wrong in matters of ſalvation; becauſe you more eſteme the honour and pleaſures of this world, than the ſimplicitie of the Goſpel. But, by reaſon alſo you would perſuade that the Jewes are they which ſhal receive Antichriſt, who ſhould joyn himſelfe firſt unto them. For they be ready to receav him, which expect the Meſſias to be a tē poral King. I anſwer, they are readie in deed to receive Antichriſts, and oft-times they have received them, according to that which Chriſt foretold: but what is this unto the Antichriſt, of whom we ſpeak? For inquiſition is made of Antichriſt properlie ſo caled, who becauſe he hath two horns like the Lamb, Apoc. 13.11. they which hate the Lamb, doo hate him alſo that is ſomewhat like him. and therfore eſchew him as much as they can. Let the Iewes therfore cal the Pope of Rome Heghmon, that is tail, and give him what reprochful names ſo ever: yet foloweth it not therupon, that he is not the great Antichriſt, ſeing it is no where ſaid that he should be honoured by this people, in anie peculiar ſort. For wheras you ſay Antichriſt shal in like manner come from the Iewes to the Gentiles, as Chriſt came from the Iewes to the Gentiles: ſurely you either gheſſe or dream. Yow prove nothing, unleſſe perhaps you would make Chriſt to be a tipe of Antichriſt; which impious divinitie of yours we heard once before, in the ch. of Antichriſts durance. That which you bring therfore of Antichriſt properly ſo caled, to be received of the Iewes, is altogither vayn. The ſecond, which you ſaid was alſo moſt certayn, is that Antichriſt ſhalbe a Jew, and circumciſed: and this, you ſay, is deduced from the things foreſpoken: I anſwer, thoſe things alreadie ſpoken from which this is deduced, we have ſufficiently shewed to be moſt abſurd: and therfore this which is builded upon them, is of like ſtrength and authoritie. For that which you annex in ſted of confirmation, that the Iewes wil never receive a man that is not a Jew, and uncircumciſed: it makes againſt you. For hence it foloweth that they wil never receive Antichriſt properlie ſo caled, whom by neceſſarie reaſons wee have evinced to be a Gentile and uncircumciſed.
Secondly, you ſay, Antichriſt feynenth himſelfe to be of Davids familie, becauſe ſuch a one the Jewes doo expect; I anſwer, either Antichriſt shal fein it, or you now feyn it of him. VVhere, I pray you, dooth the holy Ghoſt, amōg al other notes of the true Antichriſt, deſcribe him unto us by this? But it is Gods juſt iudgmēt, that you which turn the truth into shadows should be deluded by shadowes in ſtead of the truth. And ſo as your cuſtome is, being deſtitute of al ſcripture and probable reaſon, you flee to the patronage of humane authoritie: wherunto, beſides the other things already fore mentioned, I oppoſe this reaſon in ſted of a concluſion. The Iewes shal have no dominion, before they return unto Chriſt: and therfore the Antichriſt shal not be of them; who should be the higheſt ruler, and as you feighn, by help of the Iewes should ſubdue the Gentils. The firſt part of the reaſon is plainly confirmed by manie ſcriptures: ſome of which I wil ſet down, not ſo much for your ſake Bellarmine, (though for yours alſo, if ſo be at laſt you shal affect the truth;) as for my brethrens: whom I would have to be ſtirred up by this iudgment, unto a more diligent ſerch of manie places, which being commonly counted plain and evident, are yet altogither unknown. The firſt is Lev. 26.39.40. &c. Where the laſt plague of the chapter, is this greevous caſting of of the Iewish nation, in which they lye for deſpiſing Chriſt, from the time he was crucified unto this verie day: whoſe ſolution and deliverance at laſt, is conjowned with the extreme miſerie wherin they shalbe, at the time when this deliverance shal happen unto them. But if that Antichriſtian glorie, which you doo feyn, doo come between: how shal this bounteouſnes of God, finde them ſo miſerably afflicted? The ſecond is out of that excellent ſong of Moſes, Deut. 32.36. &c. When the Lord ſhal have judged his people, then wil he repent towards his ſervants, when he ſhal ſee that their power is gone, and that the ſhut up with the left abroad is nothing: and he wil ſay, wher are their Gods? the Rock in whom they truſted? There Moſes ſingeth of the ſame times, & t…cheth that they ſhalbe brought unto the loweſt ebb, when God ſhal ariſe to avenge his people. The third is that of Eſay, 49.14. And if Sion ſay, the Lord hath forſaken me &c. VntoUnto theſe ſhalbe adioyned Ier. 30.8. &c. Ezek. 37. Dan. 12.1. Hoſ. 3.4.5. Which few places may ſuffice to open the meaning of many. From which I conclude although the Bishop of Rome be neither at any time a Iew, nor by the Iewes received for the Meſsias, but rather be by them hated: yet this is no cauſe why he should not be the great Antichriſt; yea and unleſſe theſe things were, he should be farr from being the principal Antichriſt, as in their places we have declared.