A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 6
Chapt. 6. Against the third Demonstration, from the coming of Henoch and Elias.
HITHERTO of the ſignes going before: now of them that accompany him: and firſt of the coming of Henoch and Elias, who are yet, you ſay, alive; and doo live for this, that they may ſet themſelves againſt Antichriſt when he cometh, and keepe the elect in the faith of Chriſt, and at length convert the Jewes: which notwithſtanding it is certain is not yet fulfilled. In this cauſe you deal by three arguments, firſt from the Scriptures; ſecondly from Fathers thirdly from reaſon. The ſcriptures you bring are four, Malach. 4.5.6. Eccleſiaſticus 48.9.10. and chap. 44.16. Mat. 17.11. Apoc. 17.11. As touching Malachy, his words are; Behold I wil ſend you Elias the Prophet, before that great day of the Lord ſhal come, and he ſhal turne the harts of the Fathers unto the children, and the harts of the children unto their Fathers, which cannot, you ſay, be underſtood of anie Doctors whoſoever, as of Luther, Zwinglius, & the like. For Malachie ſayth that the Jewes ſhalbe converted by Elias, and for the Jewes he ſhal chiefly be ſent, as appeareth by thoſe words, I wil ſend to you, and in Eccleſiaſticus, to reſtore the Tribes of Jakob: but Luther and Zwinglius, converted none of the Jewes. And neither can they be underſtood of Iohn Babptiſt literally, but onelyonly of Elias.
I anſwer, firſt, here is no word of Henoch, whoſe conioyned coming was propounded alſo. Secondly, no mention neither is here of Antichriſt; but that he ſhal come togither with him, that wholly dependeth on a falſe ſuppoſition, of which we wil ſpeake in due place. This therfore is a notable Demonſtration, that propounding to it ſelf the coming of three, is altogither ſilent of two of them. But let us diſcuſſe him whom it ſpeaketh of. The Propheſie, you ſay, can not be underſtood of Luther, and Zwinglius and the other Miniſters of the Gentiles Church: which I alſo readily acknowledge. For I doo not thinke it to perteyn unto us which are Gentiles.
But why may it not be expounded of the Iewes? becauſe it agrees not, you ſay, unto Iohn the Baptiſt: which is as if you should ſay, eyther it is to be expounded of the Baptiſt, or of none: which maymed and unneceſſary diſiunction, no adverſarie can grant unto you. But to pardon you alſo this third treſpaſſe, why perteyns it not, I pray you, unto the Baptiſt? Becauſe, ſay you, Malachie ſpeaketh of our Lords ſecond coming, which ſhalbe for to iudge. I anſwer; if we granted that he ſpeaks of the ſecond coming, may he not withall ſpeake alſo of the firſt? Moſt certayn verily it is, that Malachie dooth ſo: for he ſpeaks generally of the Lords coming; which comprehē deth as wel the firſt, as the ſecond. And wheras your ſelfe confeſſe it of the ſecond, neyther doo I deny it: of the firſt we have Chriſt interpreting the words of the Propheſie, where he ſpeaketh of the Baptiſt, this is Elias that ſhould come, Mat. 11.14. Seing therfore the words are ſo; behold now, how I fetch from hence a true interpretation, againſt that literal of Elias. He that ſpeaketh in the ſame words, of two times: he as he is to be underſtood of the one time, ſo is he to be underſtood of the other: But Malachy ſpeaketh of a twofold coming of the Lord; and of the firſt, he is to be underſtood figuratively, for ſo Chriſt interpreteth it, ſaying, that the Baptiſt is the Elias that was to come. Therfore he is to be underſtood alſo figuratively of the ſecond; and ſuch an Elias is to be looked for, as the Baptiſt was before the firſt coming. But whither he shalbe one ſingular man or no, is not ſo evident: it may be ther shalbe one chief, and excelling amōg the reſt; although the whole company of Prophets, when it shal pleaſe God, to gather his reiected people, shalbe ſo furnished with the plentiful gifts of his Spirit, that for the notable godlines and zele wherwith every of them shalbe inflamed, Elias may wel ſeem to be alive agayn in every one. For theſe abiding watchmen on the walls of the Citie Ieruſalem, al the day and al the night continually shal not hold their peace; neither shal they that make mention of Iehovah, keepe ſilence, nor ſuffer ſilence to be of him, as ſaith Eſaias, chap. 62, 8.9. Surely theſe new preachers of the Goſpel, shal burn with ſo great a deſire of godlines, that as conſecrating themſelves wholly to the glory of God, and ſalvation of his people, they wil doo this one thing onelyonly, nothing at al eſteeming in reſpect hereof, even the neceſſarie regard of their body, by ſleep and reſt. And what a fervencie shal ther be in the Miniſters, when among the common people, a father & mother which hav begotten a ſon, shal ſtrike him through when he is found a falſe Prophet? Zach. 13.2.3. But whither this Elias shalbe one ſingular man, or more, he shal not be Elias properly, but ſo as the Baptiſt was, as we are taught by this neceſſarie reaſon which I have alleged. But you inſiſt and contend that this coming in Malachie, is the ſecōd onelyonly, (although the interpretation of our Lord ought to have ſtoped your mouth:) for ſo, ſay you, Malachie ſaith, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. For his firſt coming is not caled a great and terrible day; but an acceptable time, and day of ſalvation. Wherupon alſo ther is added, leaſt coming J ſmite the earth with curſing. But in his firſt coming our Lord came not to judge, but to be iudged, nor to deſtroy, but to ſave. I anſwer; you have brought nothing, which neceſſarily proveth it the ſecond coming onelyonly: the ſame things which you mention, the Iewes and Diſciples knew alſo, who nevertheleſſe did then look for Elias, before our Lords riſing from the dead. And hereunto perteyneth that queſtion, when the Lord had made mention of this matter, Why then ſay the Scribes that Elias muſt firſt come? Mat. 17.9. And as for the great and terrible day, why doth it not agree unto his firſt coming? Loe ſaith Malachy, the Lord ſhal come ſpeedily into his Temple. And who ſhal abide the day of his coming? and who ſhal endure when he appeareth? for he is like a Finers fyre, and like fullers ſope, Malach. 3.1.2. &c. And theſe things are ſpoken of his firſt coming. And is not that day terrible, wherin the axe is laid to the roote of the trees, and they that are unfruitful are cutt down, and caſt into the fyre? How fearful is it, to have among them, him whoſe fān is in his hand, who wil purge his floor, & gather his wheat into the barn, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fyre? Mat. 3.10.12. But he came not to iudge, but to be iudged? He came not indeed to iudge ſolemnly in a tribunal ſeat, as he shal doo at length in the laſt iudgment: yet in the meane while, the father hath given al iudgement to him, Iohn 5.22. which he both exerciſed of old, and dayly now exerciſeth upon al contemners of the truth, as we may ſee in the Iewes, that crucifyed him: upon whom even to this day abideth the longeſt and heavieſt puniſhmēt of al that ever were ſince the firſt mans fal, as it were a viſible document of eternal torment in hell. This time of grace is acceptable to the elect; but to the unbeleeving and diſobedient, ther is none more hurtful, whom the Son of God punisheth daily with blindnes of mind, and hardnes of hart, untill they have heaped up to themſelves the iuſt meaſure of wrath, in their laſt and never ending perdition, Heb. 10.28.29. Vherfore nothing hindereth, why the Prophets words may not be underſtood, both of the firſt coming, and of the ſecond: wherby that literal Elias faleth, whom you would gather from the ſame.
The ſecond place is out of Eccleſiaſticus, chap. 44.16. Henoch pleaſed God, and was taken away; an example of repentance to the generations. And cha. 48.9.10. which waſt taken up in a whirlewind of fyre, in a charret of fyrie horſes, which waſt appointed for reproofs in times, that thou mighteſt pacifie wrath before rage, and mighteſt turn the harts of the Fathers unto the children, and ſet up the tribes of Iakob. I anſwer, it was not to be expected of the Demōſtratour; that he should bring thoſe witneſſes, whom they againſt whom he uſeth them account not of ſufficient credit. But I wil not lay this blame upon you too ſeverely, ſeing the words conteyn nothing contrarie to the Scriptures. But ſay you, they agree not, ſave to thoſe particular perſons. In deed Henoch was taken away after a particular manner; but I doo not find the leaſt ſignification of his return. For as concerning that example of repentance to the generations, he is made this by his going away, not by coming agayn. His taking away cryeth opēly, & shal cry unto the end, how great good things doo in deede abide for them that repent.
It was alſo peculiar unto Elias, to be taken away in a fyrie whirlewind: but to turne the harts of the Fathers unto the children, dooth not ſo agree unto him, but it migh, as our Lord alſo taught, be applyed unto the Baptiſt; and afterwards unto the like Eliaes, that should come in the laſt time, ſuch as the Baptiſt was. Wherfore here is no one ſyllable, nor the leaſt title of his returne in his owne perſon. Which Janſon; one of your owne men, ſaw; at whom you marvel, that one of your ſelves durſt utter anie thing ſincerely. A rare liberty in deed it is among you, who are wont not to ſerch the truth out of the Scriptures, ſo much as the maintenance of your errour.
The third Scripture is from Mat. 17.11. Elias in deede ſhall come, and ſhall reſtore all things. Therfore, ſay you, the true Elias, not John: who was already come, and could not be ſaid that he was to come. I anſwer, The Diſciples in the former verſe, had made mētion of Elias to come; whoſe ſpeech Chriſt taking, ſo ſpeaketh as if he should ſay; true in deed it is which you ſay, Elias is to come. Are we wont to ſpeak otherweiſe, ſo oft as we relate the ſpeech of others concerning one to come? Further, let us ſuppoſe, that Chriſt ſpeaketh of ſome one to come; yet ſhal not he be anie other Elias then Iohn was; as the reaſon before rendred, dooth ſufficiently convince. But you would prove it by two arguments: Firſt, that the Diſciples moving the queſtion by occaſion of the transfiguration, did ſpeak of the true Elias: and therfore Chriſt anſwering, did ſpeak of the ſame particular Elias, I anſwer it may be, that the Apoſtles were not yet free from the Iewes common errour about Elias: notwithſtanding it is not neceſſarie that the anſwer should alwayes be made according to the mind of him that asketh the queſtion. Which is manifeſt even in this place, when after it is ſaid, the Diſciples underſtood, that he ſpake theſe things unto them of Iohn Baptiſt; ver. 13. How underſtood they it of Iohn; if our Lord did ſpeake of the true Elias? The ſecond argument is from thoſe words, and ſhal reſtore all things: that, ſay you, John did not. For to reſtore al things, is to cal againe unto the true faith, al Jewes, and Heretiks, and perhaps manie Catholiks deceived by Antichriſt. I anſwer, except this reſtoring of al things did in deed after a ſort belong unto Iohn: the Diſciples which ſaw no ſuch reſtoring, did miſunderſtand our Lord to ſpeak of Iohn. But a great reſtoring did he make, from whoſe dayes hitherto, ſayth the Lord. the Kingdome of heaven ſuffreth violence, and the violent take it by force, Mat. 11.12. unto whoſe Baptiſme, reſorted both al Jeruſalem, and al Judaea, and al the region round about Jordan, and many of the Phariſees and Sadducees; as Mat. 3.5.7. Although I wil not deny, but ther ſhal be yet a more ful reſtoring, and that of al things properly, that al Iſrael may be ſaved, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, of which, that reſtoring by Iohn, was as it were a shadow. But it is not neceſſary, that the Miniſter of this reſtoring, should be the true Elias; but one ſo caled by a ſimilitude, as is ſaid upon the place of Malachie. And this Elias what māner of one ſo ever he shal be, shal not accompany Antichriſt, but folow after him: and shal not shew himſelfe, before Antichriſt be aboliſhed, or his kingdom at leaſt be very much darkned; as this Apocalyps maketh plain. Wherfore we find no fooſtep in theſe words, of the true Elias properly ſo caled: much leſſe in thoſe, and if you wil receive it, this is Elias which was to come, Mat. 11.14. Wher even againſt your wil, you acknowledge that Iohn was the promiſed Elias, not literally, but allegorically. Which ſeing it is ſo, and that now by your owne confeſsion, we have our Lord him ſelfe interpreting thoſe words of Malachy allegorically: ſhew you I pray you, by what cōpetent author, they are to be underſtood literally: which until you doo, we wil reſt in that one allegorical expoſition, unto which we dare add no other, without ſome guide, againſt whom no exception can be taken.
The fourth Scripture is Apocalyps Chapter 11. verſe 13. And I will give to my two Prophets, and they ſhall Propheſie one thouſand two hundred three ſcore dayes. Which are to he underſtood, you ſay, of the ſingular perſons of Henoch and Elias.
But in ſted of anſwer, I aske of you, whither alſo fire ſhal come out of their mouthes properly, which ſhal devoure their enemies? For ſo it is there ſayd, in the fift verſe of the chapter: and ther ſeemeth to be the ſame conſideration of this fyre, and of their perſons. Which if it be ſo, then Woe to ANTICHRIST, for whom ſuch companions are appointed and prepared.
One may wel marvel, how he ſhal fulfil the three yeeres and a half of his reign, and not rather be conſumed the very firſt day, by this devouring fyre. But if theſe things doo not ſatiſfy you, I have shewed upon that place, that the words can in no weiſe be underſtood of their ſingular perſons; wherof I wil yet give you now a more full confirmation. Theſe two Prophets doo come into the world, clothed in ſackcloth, ſtraightway after the Hethen Emperours: for theſe are clad with ſackcloth, and the Tē ple is meſured, both at a time. The meſured Temple, is the womans ſhelter in the wildernes, wherunto ſhe fled, at the riſing up of the Beaſt. The Beaſt the ſeventh Roman King, ſuccedeth next unto the ſixt, to weet that which reigned in Iohns time. Therfore when the Beaſt ſprung up ſtraight way after the Hethen Emperours, theſe ſackcloth-Prophets began their mornful office: and therfore they are not properly Henoch and Elias. Now ſee, if ther be any thing fooliſher then your dotage of theſe two to come in their owne perſons: your dotage, I ſay, for the ancient holy Fathers might miſse and be deceived; but you continuing in open errour, I ſee not what it differeth from madnes. But let us goe on to the other reaſons.
You prove that the Apocalyps ſpeaketh properly of Henoch & Elias, becauſe it is ſayd, they ſhould be killed of Antichriſt, and their bodies remayn three dayes in buried in the ſtreet of the great Citie: and that after three dayes they ſhould riſe agayn, and aſcend into heaven: which things, you ſay, have never as yet happened unto any. I anſwer, that I have made it playn, by the order of the time, and agreement of al things; that al theſe things are already performed; namely, when the Fathers of Trent, killed the Holy Scriptures, ſpoiling them of al authority, and tying the meaning of them unto the Pope. Thē that which Iohn ſaith of the death of theſe Prophets, affordeth a neceſſary argument againſt this literal ſenſe of thoſe ſingular perſons. For Henoch shal not dye otherweiſe then of old by his taking away; the Apoſtle ſaying, by faith Henoch was taken away that he ſhould not ſee death, and he was not found, becauſe God tooke him away: for before his taking away he had teſtimonie, that he had pleaſed God, Heb. 11.5. The like reaſon ther is alſo of Helias. For God is alwaies like himſelfe, and giveth like things to like perſōs, for like ends. Therfore they are not to be killed by Antichriſt. But Tertullian, you ſay, in his book De anima, chap. 28. ſaith, Henoch and Elias were taken away, neither is their death found, for it was deferred: but they are reſerved for to dye, that by their blood, they maie extinguiſh Antichriſt. I anſwer, Tertullian hath nothing ſave a geſſe, that theſe whom the Apocalyps mentioned, are Henoch and Elias: but the Apoſtle evidently & plainly teacheth that Henoch was taken away that he ſhould not ſee death. Now the choiſe is eaſy. whom we should rather beleev. It becomes not holy men, to avouch their blind opinions, againſt the open words of the Scriptures.
Hitherto hath been your firſt argument. The ſecond is from the conſent of the Fathers; unto all whom I oppoſe the conſent of the Scriptures, which had indeede been ynough for them, if through darknes of the times they could have perceived them. Ther is no need therfore to tary lōg in examining their opinions, which they themſelves, if they were now alive, would with their owne voices condemn.
Thirdly, you prove it, becauſe otherweiſe ther can no reaſon be rendred, why theſe two were taken away before death, and doo yet live in mortal fleſh, being one day for to dye. I anſwer, that theſe laſt words, being one day for to daye, doo contradict the Apoſtle, as we shewed even now: and then, that they convince the words next before, of falſhood. For if Henoch be not for to dye, it cannot be that he dooth yet live in a mortal body. For that is not mortal, which is not for to dye. But whither they yet live in the fleſh or no, is not ſo manifeſt, nor indeed neceſſarie to be known. If it be lawful ſoberly to inquire about this thing, they ſeem to be exempted from the common death of men, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of Henoch, that he should not ſee death; and not to live as yet in their bodies. For they live not on earth. For ſeing they are adorned of God, with more excellent good than the reſt: they cannot be inferiour unto other ſoules, in this thing. And the ſoules in heaven, have greater ioy and more ample felicitie than can be on earth. Neither could they togither with their bodies enter into heaven; the Apoſtle avouching that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor corruption inherit the nature uncorrupt, 1 Cor. 15.50. But againſt this may be obiected, that they had the ſame change, that thoſe which are aliv ſhal have at the coming of the Lord, according to that which is written, wee shal not al dye, but we shall al be changed, 1 Cor. 15.51. I grant that ther might have been this change, (though this would no way furder your cauſe,) if that ſaying of the Apoſtle hindred not, And theſe al through faith, obteyned goo report, and received not the promiſe, God providing a better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfit, Heb. 11.39, 40. For if they felt that change, how obteyned they not the promiſe, to weet glorification: which is the felicity of the ſoule ioyned togither with the body immortall? And if they obteyned the promiſe without us, that is, before us: what cauſe can ther be why alſo without us they are not made perfit? Theſe two things ſeem openly to be repugnant unto the Apoſtle. Thoſe two therfore being cutt off, namely their death to come, and their preſent mortal body, both which are manifeſtly falſe: and that being let paſſe which is not ſufficiently known, whither they be at al as yet in their bodies: if now you think ther is no other reaſon why theſe two were taken away before their death, ſave that they might come againe to fight with Antichriſt; you are willingly blind. The Apoſtle ſaith, that Henoch was taken away, becauſe he pleaſeth God, walking continually with him: Eccluſ. 44. that he might be an exē ple of repentance, that is, that he might ſtirr up men uto repentance, which look and think upon this notable example of Gods ſingular lov towards his. And doo you think it a light matter, that ther should be unto all ages of the world a moſt clear document of the immortality of the body, and of the aſcenſion therof at laſt into heaven? Before the Law and the floud, Henochs aſcenſion confirmed this faith to the men of that age. For unto men at leaſt weiſe he aſcended, for he was not found, as the Apoſtle ſayth, Heb. 11.5. VnderUnder the Law, Elias aſcended; of whom ther is the ſame reaſon. After the Law, Ieſus Chriſt, the firſt fruits of al that aſcend: by whoſe merit & power, both thoſe former, in what manner ſoever it was, did aſcend, and al the elect shal at length aſcend. OnelyOnly Antichriſt did ſo ſtick in your eyes, that you could ſee none of theſe things, or any ſuch like. But deceive your ſelf no longer, with vayn exſpectation of Henoch and Elias: looſe not your labour with the men of Iericho, ſeeking their bodies upon the earth; what ſay I? your labour? yea a greater loſſe hangeth over your head, namely, be not you found in the number of them, that folowing the Beaſt, have not their names written in the book of life. Ap. 17.8.