A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 10
The 10. Chapter: Concerning the name of Antichrist.
1. NOw followeth his fourth disputation concerning the name & marke of Antichrist. From the name he fetcheth this vnanswerable argument, as he calleth it. If the Insolubile argumentum.name of Antichrist spoken of Apoc. 13. be yet vnknowne, then is not Antichrist as yet come; and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist: But Antichrists name spoken of Apoc. 13. is yet vnknowne: therefore Antichrist is not yet come, &c. Of this vnanswerable argument, there is no part sound, as shall appeare. The proposition he proueth, because when Antichrist is once come, his name shalbe c…only knowne. Which he prooueth first by a similitude: As Notissimū.Christs name before his comming was vnknowne, although the Prophets had foretold many things concerning Christ, and Sibylla had prophecied that his name should conteine 888. but after he was once come, all men know that his name is Iesus: so although before Antichrists comming his name be vnknowne, yet after he is once come there will be no more question what his name is, then of the name of Christ, which all euen Turks and Iewes and Pagans know to be Iesus. Secondly, from a common adiunct of all prophecies, to be doubtfull and obscure, vntill they be fulfilled, as Irenaeus teacheth and prooueth, Lib. 4 Chap. 43. For answer, first I deny the proposition, and the Hypothesis whereupon it is grounded, & contrariwise affirme that the name of Antichrist, meaning the name which Antichrist shall impose vponupon men, spoken of Apoc. 13. might be vnknowne for a time, yea was to be vnknowne for a long time after his comming. For the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne as the name of Antichrist, vntill Antichrist himselfe be knowne and acknowleged. But Antichrist himselfe was not commonly to be knowne & acknowleged at his first comming: For then he could not be able to seduce many, few or none being so desperately madde as to follow him whom they know to be Antichrist. First therefore the mysterie of iniquity was to worke secretly to the seducing of many: afterwards, Antichrist was to be reuealed, first, by his manifest appearing and shewing himselfe more plainely and openly; after by his acknowledgement: whereof also there are degrees; first by some particularly; secondly, by whole Churches generally; and yet neuer in this world to be acknowleged of those, that receiue and retaine his marke. Againe, the name of Antichrist is a mysterie, & Antichristianisme is a mysterie of iniquity, In the whore of Babylons forehead In Apoc. 17 5.is written a mysterie. And so far is it frō the vnderstanding of all to tell the name of the beast, that the holy Ghost speaking of this name, saith, Here is wisdō, he that hath vnderstāding, let him reckon the number of the beast, meaning the number of his name.Apoc. 13. 18.
2. In the similitude taken from Christ, there is no likene: howbeit Be…armine taketh great felicity in cōparing Christ with Antichrist. Christ as he was one particular man, so at the time of his circumcision a proper name was giuen vntounto him: Antichrist as he Luke. 2. 21.is not one particular person (as hath bin proued) but a state, could not hauehave a proper name giuē vntounto him. And accordingly it is said to be the name of the beast, which beast as hath bin shewed, signifieth not one particular man, but a whole state. Againe, Christ comming to saue, his name Iesus the name of the Sauiour was t… be made knowne, that he might the rather be embraced: Antichrist comming to deceiue & to destroy, was (according to his diuellish pollicie) to conceale that name whereby he should be known to be Antichrist, least being knowne he shold be forsaken of all. And as touching S…bylla, she did not only foretel that the name of Christ should cōtaine the nūber 888. as indeed the name foreign, Iesus doth: but also setteth downe certaine Acrostiches, that is, verses, the first letters whereof containe this sentence, foreign Lib. 8.foreign, Iesus Christ the sonne of God the Sauior, which are also cited by Augustine. But of antichrist she speaketh nothing De ciuit. dei. lib. 18. Chap. 23.so plainly. Howbeit she plainly calleth Rome Babylō, as Iohn doth and in the 8. booke describing antichrist, as som thinke, she saith,
foreign. &c. that is: There shalbe a Prince with many heads (which is to be vnderstood either by a metonymy for his triple crowne, or by a Synecdoche for the successiō of Popes) hauing a name neere to Pōti, that is, Pōtifex the Pope. But to returne to my purpose. By this which hath bin said, you plainly see that there is no similitude betwixt Christ and antichrist in this behalfe, Christ hauing a proper name; but Antichrist hauing none, & withal you hauehave heard reasōs why Christs name shold be wel known, wheras Antichrists was to be obscure and for a long time vnknown, or at the least not acknowledged.
3 His other proofe touching the obscurity of prophecies before they are fulfilled, proueth nothing for him, vnlesse he ad, that as before their fulfilling they are very obscure, so also after their fulfilling they are very plaine: which after indeed he addeth in the end of the chapter, Siquidem omnia vaticin…a (saith he) cum implet… sunt, clarissima officiuntur, for all prophecies when th…y are fulfilled become most cleare. I answer, that although they become more cleare after then before, yet many times they remaine darke & obscure to very many. As appeareth in the prophecies of the scripture fulfilled in Christ, but not yet vnderstood of the Iewes, nor acknowledged to hauehave bin verified in Christ. And euen as the prophecies concerning Christ are by true Christians easily vnderstood; howbeit to Iewes & infidels they remaine darke & obscure, because the God of this world hath blinded their eyes, that they should not see the shining light of the Gospel: so also the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which already are fulfilled in the Papacy, howsoeuer many of them are plainly vnderstood of the true professours; yet to the followers of Antichrist, whō God hath giuen ouer to strong illusions, that they may beleeue lies, they seeme to be darke & obscure, and not as yet fulfilled. Notwithstanding the former part of his assertiō we do embrace: that prophecies vntill they be fulfilled are (for the most part) darke and ambiguous, and herein with Bellarmine we approue Irenaeus his iudgement. But hereupon we infer, that therfore the writings of the fathers, who liuing before the reuelatiō of Antichrist, & expounding the prophecies concerning Antichrist, were most vncertaine ghesses (as Sed nec isti patres voluerunt sententias illas suas, alio loco haberi, quam suspicionum & coniecturarum. Bellarmine. Lib. 5.Bellarmine euen in this chapter cōfesseth) the prophecies being to them darke and ambiguous, which now since the fulfilling therof hauehave bin more plaine and perspicuous: & therfore that it is no arrogancy in vsus which see the euent agreeing with the prophecy, to take vponupon vsus to expound diuers prophecies concerning Antichrist, the true vnderstanding whereof was hid from the fathers. For if God would hauehave had them plainly known before their fulfilling, surely he would hauehave made thē knowne by those his seruāts th'apostles by whō they were deliuered. And so Irenaeus saith, that he would not take vponupon him certainely to define what this name shold be, Scientes (saith he) quoniam si operteret manifeste praesenti tempore praeconari nomen eius, per ipsum vti que editū fuisset, quiet Apocalypsin viderat, Knowing that if this name ought in these times to be published, it should no doubt hauehave bin declared by him, to whō the reuelation was giuen. Likewise Andreas the Bishop of Caesarea, The exact account (saith he) and computation of the number, and likewise Apud. Aretham in Apocalpys.all other things which are written of Antichrist, opportunity of time and experience shall make manifest to them that are vigilant. For as some of the doctors say, if it were necessary that this name should manifestly be knowne before hand, it should hauehave beene reuealed by Iohn himselfe.
4. Now let vsus come to his assumption, where he affirmeth that Antichrists name is yet vnknowne. We confesse that in the Church of Rome this name is either not known as of the ignorāt, or not acknowledged as of the obstinat: But in the true Church of God, as Antichrist himselfe is known, so is this name acknowledged. But let vsus heare Bellarmines disputation prouing this assumption. Fatentur omnes (saith he in the beginning of the chapter) pertinere omninò ad Antichristum verba illa Ioannis, Apoc. 13. All men doe confesse that those words of Iohn Apoc. 13. doe wholy belong to Antichrist. And he shall make all both small and great, rich and Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18.poore, free and bond, to receiue from him a marke in their right hand or in their forehead; and that none should buy or sell, vnlesse he hauehave the marke or name of the beast or number of his name. Here is wisedome: he that hath vnderstanding let him reckon the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Now▪ concerning this number saith he, there are many opinions. The first of those who thinke that by this number is signified the time of Antichrists comming, &c. But this opinion we doe with Bellarmine reject, because it is called the number of his name, and not of the time; and also because Antichrist shall compell all sorts of men to take his name, and the number of his name; which cannot be vnderstood of the time. Thirdly, because Irenaeus reporteth from those who had seene Iohn face to face, that the name of the beast shall according to the computation of the Greekes by letters which are in it, containe 666. The second opinion is of those who thinke Antichrists name to be foreign or foreign, of which we will speake anone in his due place. The third opinion is of many Papists who thinke that his name shalbe foreign, thereby vnderstanding an aduersary, but that is not a name that he shall assume to himselfe, or impose vponupon others, but a name rather giuen him of his aduersaries. Neither is it the name of the beast here spoken of. The fourth of Rupertus, who imagined that by this threefold number 666. is signified, the threefold preuarication of Sathan: first in himselfe; secondly, in our first parents; thirdly in Antichrist. The fift of Beda, who supposeth that it is a number of perfection, which Antichrist shall chalenge vntounto himselfe. But these three opinions Bellarmine re…ecteth, and that worthily. For first, the holy Ghost saith it is the number of the name of the beast: and secondly, this name & nūber of it, Antichrist causeth men to take vponupon them. The sixt opinion, wherin he resteth as the most true, is theirs which confesse their ignorance, and professe that this name is not yet knowne.
5. To these opinions many more might be added, but to make short worke: the last of these opinions is Bellarmines: the second is ours: therefore let vsus consider how he prooueth his owne opinion, and disprooueth ours. That this name is vnknowne, Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenaeus, as if he should hauehave said, This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time; therefore not in our time. I deny the consequence, Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie, as himselfe professeth & as the truth is: for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis, pene sub nostro saeculo. Iren. Lib. 5.yeeres agoe: and as himselfe saith, the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age. For it was giuen in the end of the first Century, and he liued in the second, and therefore it is more safe (saith he) to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie, then before hand to determine any thing. For if the Lord would hauehave had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time, he would hauehave made it knowne by Iohn himselfe, to whom the reuelation was giuen. But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie, he saith, this name was very obscure; so he signifieth, that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine. And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time, we may now define, time hauing reuealed that trueth, which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde: otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus, as Bellarmine doth, euen vntounto the end of the world. But may we then reason thus: this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time, therefore it shall neuer be knowne? to what end was this prophecie giuen, if it shall neuer be vnderstood? Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth, that this name could not be knowne in his time, to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time, he is ridiculous. There are many names, saith Irenaeus, that hauehave this number, therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name. Againe, if in Irenaeus his time God would hauehave this knowne, he would hauehave reuealed it by Iohn. 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name, for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth, and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him. All this we grant. But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous, as to conclude: In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast, therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell. God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time, therefore he will not hauehave it knowne now. It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie, to define what this name should be: therefore it is dangerous now, when the prophecie is expounded by the euent, to apply the one to the other? And what doth he inferre hereuppon? Therefore no doubt the Protestants, who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist, shalbe deceiued of the true Antichrist, when he commeth. But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vntounto vsus the true Antichrist, that knowing him we might auoyde him: whereas vponupon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions, that they may beleeue lyes, because they loued not the truth that they might be saued, 2. Thes. 2. 11.
6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne, because there is great controuersie about it, what it should be. But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne, because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie. Notwithstanding as in other controuersies, the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall, howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it: so I doubt not, but that the trueth in this matter is knowne, although some cannot, and others will not, as yet see it. For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne, it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne, especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other euident. The chiefe thing here to be considered is, what this beast is. For if the beast be knowne, it will not be hard to tell what his name is, especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast, as appeareth by the whole context, is, as I hauehave shewed, the former beast, which without doubt figureth the Romane or Latine state. The name of this beast is Romane or Latine. If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name, as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree, shall enforce men to take vponupon them; then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh: but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane. For foreign, in Hebrew (signifying Romane) foreign in Greeke, signifying Latine, and Romanus in Hebrew Characters, doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vponupon them, as hath beene shewed heretofore.See. Lib. 1. Chap. 8.
7. But let vsus see what Bellarmine obiecteth, against this truth. Of those many reasons which we doe vse, Bellarmine maketh choise of two, as being the easiest to answer, as his maner is; and against them he argueth, namely, the conjecture of Irenaeus, and the agreement of the number. But besides these, we produce three other arguments, as you hauehave heard, which together with Lib. 1. c. ….these make the matter euident. It is true indeede that Irenaeus besides Latinus, produceth two other names, foreign, & foreign, and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before foreign. But we build not vponupon Irenaeus his authority, but vponupon those reasons, whereon his conjecture is groūded, which are two: the one, because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnderunder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe: the other, because it containeth 666: his words be these. But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est, and it is very likely. For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome. For they are the Latines that now raigne. Which in effect is as much as if he had said, this name is very likely, because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast, spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum, that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome, that is the Latine or Roman state. Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine, which in Irenaeus his time was of some force, now it is nothing worth: for then the Latines bare the sway, now they doe not. For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex, … most mighty king; so without doubt he shal seize vponupon the most mighty kingdoms. Whereas therfore the kingdome of the Latines was in those times most mighty, but now otherwise; there was some likelyhood then, that he might by subduing them be called Latinus, but now there is no such probability. I answere, the name whereof Iohn speaketh is not the name of Antichrist properly the second beast, but the name of the former beast; which name of the former beast, Antichrist the second beast causeth men to take vponupon them. And so Latinus, is not the name of Antichrist properly, but of the beast, that is, the Latine or Romane state. Neither was it Irenaeus his meaning, that the name of the beast is foreign, because Antichrist was to subdue the Latines, but because the Latines then had Verissimum regnum, the most true and soueraigne kingdome: and therefore most truely were the beast described Apoc. 13. 7. If therefore the Latines then had the greatest kingdome, and were the beast whose authority the second beast, that is, Antichrist was to take vponupon him, Apoc. 13. 12. this coniecture that the name of the bea… foreign, which was probable before the prophecie was fulfilled, Apo. 13. 12is now more then probable, the prophecie being verified in the euent. And the decay or rather dissolution of the Latine or Romane Empire, before which Antichrist was not to be reuealed, is so farre from making this coniecture lesse probable, that it rather confirmeth it. Neither doe we read in the Scriptures that Antichrist should be a most mighty King, or should sease vponupon the most mighty kingdomes: only this we read, that he should exercise the power of the former beast, which most fitly agreeth to the Pope.
2 As touching the agreement of the number 666. Bellarmine obiecteth, first, that the number agreeth not with the names propounded: and secondly, although it did, yet it followeth not, that any of these is the name of the beast. That the number agreeth not he sheweth, because foreign, if it be written with a simple Iota as it ought to be, it wanteth fiue of that number. I answere, that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce i long by ei diphthong; and the Graecians vsually expresse i long by ei. And it is to be obserued, that Irenaeus setting downe these two names foreign and foreign as containing the number 666, taketh it for granted, that foreign may so be writtē: wheras of foreign he saith, that it maketh that number, if it be written writh foreign diphthong. Against the name foreign, that is, Romane, he objecteth, that it is not masculine, vnlesse the last letter signifiyng 400. be taken away. I answere that collectiue names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either gender. And suppose the name were feminine, yet that hindereth not, but that it may be the name here spoken of. For the Holy-ghost speaketh of the name of the beast, that is, the Romane state, which else-where is called the whore of Babylon, and foemina, a woman: And therefore well may the name be feminine. But although the number agreed (saith Bellarmine) yet i… followeth not, that either Romane or Latine should be the name. First, because neither of them is his proper name, but commune. Neither ought it, seeing it is the name of the beast, which signifieth a whole state. Secondly, because many other …es make this number: And therefore it followeth not that any of these is the name here spoken of, because they containe the number 666. For diuers Authours hauehave noted diuers other names, as Hippolytus foreign (which indeed maketh not that number, but rather prooueth the authour (alledging foreign) to be counterfeit; neither is it a Nowne, and much lesse a name) Aretas, seauen others, foreign (which maketh not that number,) but foreign, (which is foreign barbarous) foreign: Primasius foreign, Rupertus and Haymo foreign and Pic…x. VntoUnto these he addeth out of lying Lindanus, Martin Lauer (for Luther) in Latin letters, taken (as they neuer were) for numbers, after the maner of the Greeke: out of G…ebrard Lithers name in Hebrew, viz Lultor: to which Bellarmine in his wisdome addeth, Dabid Chitreiu, for Dauid Chytreus, and foreign a Saxon, to signifie Luther: Which latter names shew the Papists to be fraught with malice and voide of judgement, forcing these mens names, as they might their owne, to this purpose. But we answer, that although there are many names which containe 666. yet notwithstanding, none can be the name here spoken of, vnlesse also it be the name of the beast, that is, the Latine or Romane state, and vnlesse it be such a name, as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree, causeth men to take vponupon them. Consider therefore with what conscience Bellarmine would perswade vsus, that any of these may bee the name here spoken of, as well as Latine or Romane: Seeing first, either of these is the name of the beast, whereas none of those is or can be. Secondly, seeing those are such names as Antichrist will not cause men to take vponupon them; whereas the Pope (whom we hauehave prooued to be Antichrist) inforceth either of these names vponupon men, suffering none to buy or sell, or to liue among them, vnlesse he professe himselfe to be a Romane or Latine in respect of his religion. And thirdly, whereas these names agree fitly to him, to whom all other markes of Antichrist agree, many of those doe not; and those which doe, as foreign, an euill guide, which foreign agreeth to the Pope, foreign, &c. yet cannot be this name, for the reasons before alledged. And thus I hope this Gordian knot is vntied, and this vnanswerable argument answered by this foreign. The name of the beast is not yet knowne, therefore (saith he) Antichrist is not yet come. I answer, although the name were vnknowne, yet might Antichrist become. But now the name of the beast is knowne: how farre then is Billarmine from proouing by this argument, that Antichrist is not yet come?