A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 2
Chap. 2. That Antichrist shal not be any one certayn man.
THE ſecond chapter maketh Quaere, whither Antichriſt properly ſo caled, be one certayn man: or a ſingular throne, and tyrannical Kingdome. The Papiſts al doo think, he shalbe one certayn man. But thoſe cōmon argumēts, which we ſet down in the beginning of this diſputation, doo evince the contrary. For if Antichriſt have reigned from about the 300 yere of our Lord, unto this day, as is ſufficiently shewed; then is he no one ſingular perſon. Moreover, if any wil but mind thoſe ſtreights of time, the amplitude of this dominion, the multitude of things that are to be done, togither with the greatnes, which the Papiſts doo in their fiction apply to Antichriſt: he wil wonder that men can ſo dote, as to thinke that all theſe things are to be found in one perſon. But beſides, a part of his reigne is a thouſand yeres, as shal after be shewed, chap. 20.4.5. Let us ſee therfore, with what reaſons you confirme your opinion.
You alledge for this purpoſe, Scriptures and Fathers. The Scriptures are five; the firſt out of the Goſpel of Iohn, 5.43. J am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if an other come in his owne name, him ye wil receive. Theſe words, you ſay, are to be underſtood of the true Antichriſt, and that both by the teſtimony of certain Fathers, and by the propriety of the words themſelves. I anſwer; as touching the Fathers, I like not to diſcuſſe their opinions. It would be long, and not much to the purpoſe: for al men doo confeſſe, which are not wilfully blind, that in this matter of Antichriſt, they erred much, through darknes of the times. Let us inſiſt upon the ſure way of finding out the trueth by the Scriptures, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived. What therfore is that force of the words, which requireth to have him one ſingular perſon? This you endevour to shew fowr wayes. Firſt, becauſe our Lord oppoſeth to himſelfe, an other man; that is, perſon to perſon; as appeareth by his words, J, an other; in my name, in his owne name; me, him. As therfore Chriſt was one ſingular man: ſo ſhal Antichriſt bee. I anſwer; the force of this Argument lyeth in three oppoſite words, an other, in his owne name, him: of which the two laſt depend on the firſt: for what reſpect this hath, the ſame the other wil have, ſeing al are referreth to the ſame thing. But an other, denoteth not one ſingular perſon, as Grammarians teach, which give this rule, that foreign the other is ſpoken of twayn: but foreign an other, of more then twayn. Ammonius de ſimil. & differ. vocabulis. Therfore frō this certayn and true rule it neceſſarily foloweth; that one certayn man is not here meant. Neither is this a decree of Grammarians onelyonly: but the cuſtome of ſpeaking in the Scriptures dooth alſo confirme it, to omitt infinite other examples: as One ſoweth, and an other reapeth, Is here meant one ſower, one reaper? Nay, Chriſt ſayth, J have ſent you to re…p… that, wherin yee laboured not: others have laboured, and yee ar entred into their labours: Iohn 4.37, 38. So, to one is given the word of knowledge, to an other faith, to an other the gift of healing, to an other power to doo great works, to an other Propheſie, &c. 1 Cor. 12.8.9.10. You wil not ſay, I trow, that theſe gifts were proper to ſingular men, but common to many. In like ſort Paul ſayth, Jf anie other ſeemeth to have wherof he may truſt in the fleſh, much more J. Phil. 3.4. He compareth not himſelfe with a ſingular man, but with any one of many. You provide very evil for your cauſe, to fetch confirmation from thence, whēce it is moſt overthrown.
Secondly you ſay, Chriſt here ſaith, that Antichriſt ſhalbe received of the Iewes: and it is evident, that the Iewes doo exſpect one certayn and ſingular man. I anſwer, ther is nothing at al ſound in this reaſon. For neyther is this great Antichriſt, whom the Apocalypſe ſpeaketh of, and of whom we intreat; he whom the Iewes shal receive; as is playn by the things ſpoken before, and shalbe mor largely declared hereafter: neither is the Antichriſt of the Iewes, one certayn and ſingular man: for manie ſhal come, ſaith Chriſt, in my name, ſaying I am Chriſt: where he ſpeaketh chiefly of them that ſhould riſe among the Iewes, Mat. 24.5. Alſo their own Hiſtory ſheweth, that more than one, have been counted for the Chriſt, which have ſacrilegiouſly chalenged the name of the Meſſias to themſelves. And as touching their exſpectation, this dooth no more prove one ſingular perſon, then the Papiſts exſpectation proveth him to be one certayn man. We doo exſpect, that you ſhould bring forth ſome thing more firm, than your fooliſh exſpectations.
Thirdly you ſay, that Al falſe Prophets have come in the name of an other, not in their own name; Therfore Antichriſt, which ſhal come by a ſpecial manner in his owne name, is one ſingular perſon. I anſwer, Antichriſt shal come in no other manner, as touching his name, than al the other falſe Prophets. For name is not an appellation or title, but authority; as is manifeſt by the oppoſite branch therof, to weet, the name of the Father: J am come, ſayth Chriſt, in my Fathers name, that is, not with the Fathers appellation, as if I were the Father, but by the miſsion and authority of the Father. So, to come in his owne name, is not to boaſt of the proper title of his name, but to come in his own authority, no lawful power being given him of God. And thus doo al the falſe Prophets come both in the name of an other, & in their owne name. In the name of an other feighnedly and counterfeitly; in that they falſely boaſt of a ſending: but in their owne name, in very deed: becauſe they have none but their owne authority, and run when they are not bidden, as ſayth the Prophet. Wherfore there wil be no difference in this thing, between Antichriſt; and the other falſe Prophets his companions.
Fourthly you ſay, Our Lord would not have ſayd, If an other come; but many come; if he would have ſpoken of falſe Prophets. I anſwer, Chriſt by this word an other, ſignifyeth that many shal come: for it is a nown partitive of multitude, as we have shewed. Neither could that ſwarm of Falſe-Chriſts, which he mentioneth in Mathew, be intimated more breifly and ſignificantly, than in this maner. But as you, by your ſuppoſed ſilence, (which yet perhaps you now perceive is lowder uttered than you would,) doo endevour to eſtabliſh one ſingular perſon: ſo give me leave, I pray you, by Chriſts true ſilence, to overthrow moſt certainly, the ſame ſingular perſon. For doo you think, that Chriſt in Mat. 24. inſtructing his Diſciples ſo diligently of future evils, even until his coming, and ſpecially of Falſe Prophets, from whom much danger should ariſe: would not ſo much as one word make mention of this one ſingular man, ſo cruel a plague, of whom it behooved them moſt of al to beware? It is certayn therfore that this whole dream of one ſingular Antichriſt was an errour in the ancient writers, and is madnes in you, that wil perſevere in the errour.
Hitherto of the firſt Scripture. The ſecond is that of Paul, 2 Theſ. 2.3. Except ther come a departing firſt, and that that man of ſin be diſcloſed, even the ſon of perdition &c. and afterward ver. 8. and then ſhal the wicked man be reveiled, whom the Lord &c. where, you ſay, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of a certayn & particular perſon, as appeareth by the Greek articles foreign. For the Greek articles draw the ſignification unto one certain thing: and therfore you marvel that our men, which boaſt of skil in the tongues, perceived not this. I anſwer; it is true in deed, the Greek article hath his force, to recal & reſtrein ſo unmeaſured & uncertain a motion, unto ſome certayn thing: but this certayn thing, is as wel a certayn genus, as a certain individuum or ſingular, according to the nature of the thing in hand. Wherupon we novices doo think this new and unheard of, that the Greek article should alwayes ſignify ſome ſingular individuum. Shal foreign be one ſingular ſower, one ſingular reaper? Iohn 4.37. or foreign one particular ſin entring into the world; and foreign one ſingular death? Rom. 5.12. or foreign one theef? Ioh. 10.10. We are furnished now by maſter Ieſuite with a new rule; which no Grecian, I think, did ever ſo much as dream of. Our dull men obſerved not this thing: doubtleſſe this garlond was reſerved for you, whoſe name is worthy, for this notable obſervation, to be regiſtred in the next edition among the Jnventors of things. But, you ſay, Epiphanius teacheth this ſame, Her. 9. which is of the Samaritans, ſaying, that foreign ſignifieth a man in common: but foreign, a ſingular man. I anſwer, this iniury of yours is not to be ſuffred, that you doo to the learned man, whom you would blemiſh with ſo notorious ignorāce. Epiphanius teacheth no otherwiſe in this thing than al other learned men. foreign &c. Where the article, ſaith he, is adioined to anie one definite and moſt evident thing, there is verilie a certayn Emphaſis, or force, for the article: but without the article, the word is to be taken indefinitely of any cōmon thing. Even as, if we ſhould ſay foreign King: we expreſſe the name, but doo not cleerly ſhew anie definite one. For we ſay King of the Perſians, and of the Medes, and of the Elamites. But if with appoſition of the article, we ſay foreign the King: it is out of doubt what is ſignified. For by the article is intimated that King of whom the queſtion, or ſpeech was, or which is known, or which ruleth in any country. In like manner foreign God, and foreign the God: foreign man, and foreign the man, foreign dead, and foreign the dead, and ſo in the reſt. Epiphanius therfore meaneth that by the article ther is denoted ſomething ſpoken of before, famous, wel known, being in queſtiō or in ſpeech, but it never came into his mind, much leſſe did he ever write, that everie word is by this circumſcription of the article, alwayes tied to a ſingular perſon. An article, like a Ieſuite, can put on any habit, according to the variety of time and place. Wheras therfore you marvel that our mē which boaſt, as you ſay, of skill in the tongues, could not perceive this: I marvel rather that you, a man exerciſed in learning, famous in ſcholes, a profeſſor of controverſies, on whoſe mouth almoſt the whole popiſh nation dependeth: should ſo miſſe, in a childiſh rudiment. But deſire of getting victory, letted you from ſeing the truth. One way ther is to wipe out your reproch, if you wil be a mean to perſuade your men hereafter, to conclude any thing rather from theſe articles, than one ſingular perſon.
The third place is 1 Iohn 2.18. Yee have heard that the Antichriſt (foreign) ſhal come, and even now are there many Antichriſts: wher the article you ſay, is ſet before Antichriſt properly ſo caled: but none before him as he is cō monly taken: and therfore, that the firſt is one certayn perſon, but this later in general is al heretiks. I anſwer, the greateſt ſuccour of this cauſe ſeemeth to conſiſt in this new feigned force of the article; and therfore have wee the coleworts twiſe ſodden ſet againe before us. But we have ſufficiently refuted this your eyther ignorance or craftynes, in the argument nex before, with which this is altogither one and the ſame. Yet leaſt you ſhould complayn that you have no anſwer; Be it, that foreign the Antichriſt with an article, is ſome diverſe thing from foreign Antichriſts without an article; muſt it therfor by and by be one certayn perſō? I deny ſuch an ill coherent cōſequence. It may note out a ſingular kind of Antichriſts, of whō the Apoſtles taught the Church ſo diligently: even as foreign the wicked is often a kind of wicked mē, foreign the tempter; and ſo in other. In which the article reſpecteth not one ſingular, but ſome thing common, & egregious in his kinde. This might have bin manifeſt to you by Iohn himſelf, whiles he warneth that foreign the Antichriſt was in his time: For manie deceivers are entred in the world, ſaith he, which confeſſe not that Ieſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh, he that is ſuch a one is foreign the deceiver & the Antichriſt, 2 Iohn. 7. where yet he ſpeaks not of that chief Antichriſt which was to come, but of ſome ſuch like ſorte. By which it ſufficiently appeareth, that Antichriſt with an article, is not a ſingular perſon.
The fourth place is Daniel 7. and 11. and 12. Out of the 7. chapter, you take thoſe things which are ſpoken of the little horn, ver. 8. &c. which, you ſay, are to be expounded of Antichriſt, and that for two reaſons. Firſt from the authoritie of certain Fathers: then from the words of Daniel himſelfe. I anſwer; as touching the authority of the Fathers, I know many learned men doo interprete theſe words of Antichriſt: but this Apocalypſe diſpelleth the darknes, which taking away the ſight before, ſuffred not to behold the thing it ſelfe. For it teacheth that that little horne, differeth much frō this Antichriſt whom Iohn deſcribeth. For Antichriſt is one of the heads of the Beaſt, which is of many formes, both in Daniel and in Iohn: but a little horn, is onelyonly ſome addition ioyned to the head. Moreover, this ariſeth after the ten hornes: but Antichriſt riſeth togither and at one houre with al his. That, ſubdueth three horns under it; the other unſubdued, are eyther foes of the ſame, or at leaſt freinds of equal power: but Antichriſt is over al the 10. horns, which willingly ſerv him, until the appointed time. Finally, that is caled little: Antichriſt is not litle, who hath power over every tribe, tongue, and nation: Apoc. 13.7. who alſo beareth the whore, to whom peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues doo obey, and which reigneth over the Kings of the earth, Apoc. 17.15.18. But, you wil ſay, it may be it is caled litle in the beginning, not in the full age. I anſwer, the chiefeſt heighth of dignity, when he ſhal moſt flouriſh, ſhal lift it ſelf no higher, then over the 3. horns, which he shal depreſſe. Doubtles the Spirit would have made mention of moe, if he had had power over moe. That horn therfore is not this Antichriſt: but if we wil rightly conſider the thing, it is that Dragon of the ſixt vial of this Apocalypſe, chap. 16.13. namely the Turk; for of him and the other enemies that should oppreſſ the Iewes, doth Daniel onelyonly ſpeak, without any mention of the Weſtern Antichriſt; as it may be, occaſion wilbe given elſwhere, to declare more fully. This diſparitie therfore, wil by no means ſuffer theſe two to convene in one. Wherupon you may now ſee, that we ar not ſo much to look, either who or how many they be that ſay a thing: as with what reaſons, they ſo perſwade themſelves.
Secondly you ſay from the words of Daniel, chap. 7.24. that this Antichriſt, (whom ancient writers wil have to be meant by the little horn;) is a ſingular perſon: for he is not caled one Kingdome, but one King: who of ten Kings that he ſhould find in the world, ſhould take three quite away, and ſubdue the other ſeven under him. I anſwer, firſt, theſe laſt words and ſhal ſubdue the other ſeven under him, is a very bold comment, ſeing no footſtep of them appeareth in Daniel. For he onelyonly ſayth, ver. 8. ſo that three of thoſe former horns were rooted out from before him: and againe ver. 24. and three Kings ſhal he depreſſe: but of the ſubduing of the other 7. he no where maketh mention. And how, I pray you, should he be a little horn, if he should deſtroy three, and have cō mand over al the reſt? Theſe things are unadviſedly brought in by ſome old writers, but worſe reteyned by you, for to darken the truth. But this is little to the purpoſe, for the force of the argument. Therfore, ſecondly I ſay, that it is falſe to affirme, becauſe he is caled one King, he is one perſon: for the Angel before ſpeaketh thus: Theſe great Beaſts which are fowr, are fowr Kings, that ſhal riſe out of the earth: ver. 17. which yet are not fowr ſingular perſons, but ſo many Kingdomes: as your ſelf can not deny.
The other place of Daniel is from chap. 11, ver. 21.— 36. where literally is treated of Antiochus Epiphanes: but allegorically (as Calvin, and Ciprian, and Jerom you ſay, doo interpret it,) of Antichriſt, whoſe figure Antiochus did bear. Therfore ſeing he was one certayn and ſingular perſon; Antichriſt alſo muſt be one certayn perſon. I anſwer; great in deede is the agreement of the wicked, and needs muſt many things in them be found alike, who are governed by one and the ſame Spirit; for which cauſe, thoſe learned men avouched him to be the type of Antichriſt, after a common ſort: but that the Spirit intended him for the type properly, as he is wont in the other ſcriptures, I ſee not how it can be rightly ſaid It hath not ſuch agreement with that which they make the truth therof, as is wont to be found in other types. For example: this Antiochus is the litle horn of the Goat, of whom it is ſaid ch. 8.14. that he should rage two thouſand and three hundred dayes. Shal this be the type of Antichriſt? Then shal he not reign onelyonly three yeres and a halfe, but ſix yeres and more then an halfe; and ſo an other Antichriſt is to be looked for, then yee yet feighn. Or if you wil have it, that al things are not ſo exactly anſwerable in the type and antitype: yet in a wiſe maſter-builder, this, I trow, muſt needs be required, that he make not the portch bigger then the houſe; that is, that the type reign not longer then the truth. I remember, that 390. dayes were given to Ezechiel for a ſigne of ſo many yeeres: but no where ſo many yeres to be given unto any for a ſigne of ſo many dayes. Secondly I anſwer, let Antiochus be the type, yet can not one perſon be from thence cōcluded: ſeing one ſingular type may as wel note out many perſons, as many perſons one; as we ſee in that row of Levitical Preiſts, who al had relation unto one Chriſt, as unto their propoſed end.
The third place of Daniel, is from chap. 12.11.12. wher the Angel ſaith, From the time that the dayly ſacrifice ſhalbe taken away, and the deſolating abominatiō ſet up, ther ſhalbe a thouſand two hundred ninetie dayes. Bleſſed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thouſand three hundred five and thirty dayes. Of this place you add nothing, but reſt in ſome mens interpretation, which have applied it unto Antichriſt. Theſe dayes you would have to be taken properly, and therfore that he is one ſingular perſon, whoſe reign is defined in ſo ſhort a time. I anſwer, this number perteyneth nothing at al unto Antichriſts reign for three yeres and an halfe, before the ſecond coming of our Lord. For Daniel asketh, when the end shalbe of theſe marvelous things? wil you have the anſwer to be this: After the end of 1290. dayes, or at moſt, of 1335. before the laſt end of al things? what would ſuch an anſwer teach? If one that is in a farr coūtry should ask which way he muſt goe to Rome; and an other should anſwer, when you come at the tenth ſtone from the city, you muſt turn this way or that, to the left hand or to the right: might not he wel think himſelf to be mocked? Or, if one ſhould ask of any climate, how long the day is in that country; and anſwer ſhould be made; about half an howr after ſun ſetting: would he think himſelf ſatiſfied? Even ſuch an anſwer doo yee attribute to the Angel, whiles ye iudge theſe to be common dayes, and to goe immediatly before the end of al things. Farr be it from us to think the holy Angel would ſo jeſtingly cloſe up this divine viſion, and ſpecially the whole Propheſie. In none of theſe places therfore doo we find Antichriſt ſo properly caled, much leſſe his ſingular perſon.
So much of the fourth Scripture. The fift and laſt is Apoc. 13. & 17. Which places, you ſay, are meant of Antichriſt, for ſo teacheth Jreneus lib. 5. and it is evident by the ſimilitude of Daniels w…rds and Iohns: who both of them make mention of ten Kings, which ſhalbe in the earth when Antichriſt reign ſhal dure three yeeres and an half. As Daniel therfore ſpeaketh of one certayn King: ſo dooth John in the Apocalypſe. I anſwer, Ireneus iudgeth rightly, that the Apocalypſe in the ſayd places dooth treat of Antichriſt: but you ar wrong, that would have ſuch an Antichriſt to be meant, as is in Daniel. I have shewed that theſe two doo differ many wayes, ſo as the one cannot be the other. Thoſe ten hornes in Daniel, are not this Beaſt. Anſwerable in deede they are to the Dragons hornes; but the Beaſt hath not horns common with the Dragon. Moreover, that time, times and part of time in Daniel, is not the ſame ſpace, with the like manner of ſpeaking in Iohn. There it agreeth to the litle horn; here, to the Beaſt: which being divers, as we have shewed; it is not neceſſary that one and the ſame ſpace should agree to them both. That deſignation of time in Daniel, anſwereth to that howr, momenth, & yere, Apoc. 9.15. al which ſpace, is but a little part of this time, times, and halfe a time in the Apocalypſe, as is ſufficiently proved before. VVheras you urge the ſimilitude of the words; it is even like as if one would conclude that the Pope is the Turk, becauſe both of them be men, and have dominion over many. Moreover, if I ſhould graunt that one thing is handled by them both: yet ſpeaketh not Daniel of one certayn King. You went about to prove ſuch a matter even now; but in vain, as we have ſeen: and the thing it ſelfe, openly proclayms the contrary. For if the litle horn were a ſingular perſon, ſuch as by your opinion the other ten muſt needs alſo be: what manner deſcription of the Roman Empire were this, which omitting ſo manie ages, should onelyonly touch the eſtate of the laſt three yeres? Nay not of one of the three yeres indeede; ſeing you wil have this Empire to be quite deſtroied, before Antichriſt come. Therfore the Scriptures afford you not one word, wherby you may with ſound reaſon conclude that Antichriſt ſhalbe a certain man: but we have by them moſt certenly ſhewed, that it is the apoſtatical ſeat of thoſe that wil dominier in the Church.
Your ſecond argument is from the Fathers; unto whom how should any give credit when they affirm him to be a certain and ſingular man: ſeing ſome of them knew not, whither he should be a mā at al, or no? Some wil have him to be the Divil; ſome, a Divil incarnate: ſome Nero; & others, I know not what. And think you that we muſt beleeve theſe men, if they ſay he shalbe a certain perſon? Moreover, ſeing by the ſcriptures, no ſuch thing, but the contrary dooth appear: what account should we make of the uncertain coniecture of men, who ar bidden not to be wiſe above that which is written? 1 Cor. 4.6.
Theſe therfore I wil leave unmedled with; and very wel might I doo the like with your anſwers unto our men, ſeing they touch none of thoſe things which I have ſet down concerning this matter: yet that you maie perceive your ſelf to be no leſſe weak a fenſer, than you have been a foiner; I wil beſtow on you a little payns in the examining of your anſwers.
You propound three arguments of our men: two of Theod. Beza; the third, of Iohn Calvin. Firſt, Beza reaſoneth thus, that Antichriſt is not any one man, becauſe the myſterie of iniquity wrought even in Pauls time, and Antichriſt is to be killed at the coming of Chriſt. You anſwer, that Antichriſt began to range abroad in the Apoſtles time, not in his owne perſon, but in his forerunners, to weet, Simon Magus, Nero, and the like. VVherto I ſay, that Theod. Beza and al our men doo confeſſe the Antichriſt properlie ſo caled, was not in the Apoſtles time, but onelyonly his fore runners. For that which he ſayth, Let them ſhew me ſome one that continueth alive from Pauls time, unto the day of iudgement, is ſpoken after the common manner, as by way of large amplification; and is to be underſtood of ſome one that should come ſoon after, that age. And was not he to be born shortly after, whoſe forerunners made ſuch a tumult, while the Apoſtles lived? The Apocalypſe ſpeaking of Antichriſt, under that ſeventh head, ſaith, and the other is not yet come: cha. 17.10. which manner of words we are wont to uſe in things ſo neer as they may ſeem to be come, though as yet they are not come: and not of things that are to fal out fifteen hundred yeres after. Idle therfore are all thoſe things that you gather of Peter and Paul to be Antichriſts; and of Simon, and Nero to be Chriſts. Why prove you not, I pray you, that the riſing of Antichriſt was not then neer? Is not this ynough to refell his ſingular perſon, if he were to beginn a few ages after Paul? But you, like a rude fenſer, bear off with your bukler from the part which you ar not layd at; but where you are beaten even unto death, you leav your ſelf unfenſed and bare. The ſecond argument of Th. Beza is, that by the ſingular names of Beaſts, the Bear, the Lion, the Libbard in Daniel chap. 7. ar not meant ſingular Kings, but ſingular Kingdomes, wherof one did conteyn even many Kings. After the ſame manner therfore Paul 2 Theſ. 2. who marvelouſly agreeth with Daniel: by the man of ſyn, and ſon of perdition, meaneth not one ſingular perſon, but a certen body as it were of many tyrants.
You anſwer two things: Firſt denying that Daniel alwayes by ſingular Beaſts, dooth mean ſingular Kingdomes: for in the 8. chapter, by the Ram, he meaneth Darius the laſt King of the Perſians: by the Goat-buck Alexander the Great. Secondly, you deny the conſequence of the argument: becauſe Paul, by the man of ſin, meaneth not any of the 4. beaſts deſcribed by Daniel, but onelyonly that litle horn.
I anſwer to the firſt: It is falſe that which you ſay of the Ram and the Goat-Buck. For by the Ram is meant the whole Kingdome of the Medes & Perſians, and which ended in Darius: by the Goat-Buck, the Kingdome of the Greeks, which began by Alexander. For ſo, ſaith he, ver. 3. there ſtood b…fore the river one Ram with two hornes; and his two horns were high, but one was higher than an other, and the higheſt came up laſt. Theſe two hornes, at the two Kingdomes of the Medes and Perſians; of which that was firſt & ſmalleſt; this, laſt and largeſt. Have theſe things place in Darius onelyonly, or in the whole Kingdome? Then it foloweth in the next verſe; I ſaw the Ram puſhing againſt the Weſt, & againſt the North, & againſt the South: ſo that no Beaſts might ſtand before him, neyther did any deliver out of his hand, but he did what he liſted, and that very great things. What did Darius of theſe things; who in the ſecond yere of his reign, being provoked unto warr by Alexāder, wēt to ruine dayly? Laſt of al, explayning this viſion in the 20. verſe, he ſaith; The Ram which thou ſaweſt with two horns, are the Kings of Media and Perſia: he ſaith the Kings, not Darius onelyonly. So alſo the Goat-Buck is the Kingdome of the Greeks; not Alexander alone. He is caled in deed King of Graecia, ver. 21, but it is playn, that King there is taken collectively, as in other places, namely for Kingdome; as in the end of the verſe it is taken partitively, when he ſaith, the horn between his eyes, is the firſt King; namely Alexander; who ſeing he is the horn, he is not the whole Goat. Wherfore no where in Daniel is a ſingular perſon deſigned by a Beaſt, but a whole Kingdom. VntoUnto the ſecond I ſay. By the Man of Syn, is not meant the litle horn, but the Beaſt. For Antichriſt is the ſeventh head, which alſo is a Beaſt, as Apoc. 17.8.11. And although this Beaſt be none of thoſe that ar in Daniel; yet the argument from the like is firm. For by the ſame reaſon that it is a whole Kingdome in Daniel, it is ſo likeweiſe in the Apocalypſe.
Our third argument is Io. Calvins; who thus gathered that Antichriſt is no ſingular perſon; becauſe, the head of the univerſal Apoſtaſie, which dureth moe yeres than can be fulfilled under one King, is not one certain man. and Antichriſt is the head of ſuch an Apoſtaſie.
You anſwer five waies, that Calvins impudencie, as you ſay, may the more appeare. Firſt, that by the Apoſtaſie, may rightly in Paul be underſtood the Antichriſt himſelfe. Secondly, that by the ſame may be meant the defection from the Roman Empire. Thirdly, that ther is no need it should be of many ages. Fourthly, that it requireth not one head. Fiftly, that it is yet a queſtion, who have departed from the faith and religion of Chriſt, whither the Papiſts or the Lutherans.
I anſwer to every of theſe: and firſt, where by the Apoſtaſie you unnerſtād by a metonymie Antichriſt himſelfe; you confirm the ſame thing that Calvin ſaith: ſo is your wont, to repreſſe his impudency. VntoUnto the ſecond, I ſay, that the Apoſtaſie is not a defection from the Roman Empire, but frō the true faith, to weet, from the love of the holy truth, as Paul openeth it, and as ſhalbe made playn after, chap. 5. and 14. VntoUnto the third, concerning the durance of the Apoſtaſie, we have already learned by the Apocalypſe, that it hath prevailed more than a thouſand two hundred & ſixtie yeres: and this more evidently, than that any of your ſubtil reaſonings cā elude the thing. VntoUnto the fourth, if you can find any other multitude beſides that of the whole earth, which foloweth the Beaſt: I wil not hinder you from ſetting up as many heads of the Apoſtaſie, as you wil, Apoc. 13.3.8. VntoUnto the fift, namely that the queſtion is not yet decided, as you ſay, whither Papiſts or Lutherans have made defection; we make this offer, let al holy men be iudges. With whom ther is found Idolatry, let them be condemned of defection, as the Scriptures every where teach. But if any credit be to be givē unto the moſt holy oracles of the Scriptures, al that your worship of Images, invocation of Saincts, adoration of the feighned body in the ſacrament, veneration of reliques, and many ſuch like things, is horrible Idolatry, and therfore Apoſtaſie. But Idolatry is ſpiritual whoredome: and therfore as the way of the whoriſh woman, which eateth, and then wipeth her mouth, and ſayth, I have doon no iniquity; Prov. 30.20. ſo is the way of Idolaters: by no means can they be brought to acknowledge their impiety. This, Bellarmine, shalbe the true trial, both of you and of us, before God & his holy Angels. The things that you propoūde, are ridiculous. You wil have it, that we have made defection, becauſe we have departed frō the ſuperſtition of our predeceſſours, both in doctrine, and rites ful of Idolatry: as though we were not bidden goe out of Babylon, and to have no communion with her at al. We have made defection from the whore, defection from Antichriſt, namely defection from your Pope of Rome: but thanks be to God, we have made defection unto the one true God; who of his infinite mercy wil crown our defection with eternal glory, and your conſtancie, if you ſpeedily repent not, with ſempiternal ignominie, among them which obey not the truth. Now therfore caſt up your accounts, and gather the ſumm; then ſee, foraſmuch as Antichriſt is an impious and Apoſtatical Kingdome, and the Popes of Rome have been principal Apoſtates, and many; whither Antichriſt be a ſingular perſon or no.