A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 14
Chap. 14. Concerning the doctrine of Antichrist.
OVr aduersaries seuenth disputation is concerning 1the doctrine of Antichrist. For whereas it is certaine, saith Bellarmine, that there are foure principall doctrines of Antichrist, none whereof is taught by the Pope; therefore it followeth necessarily, that the Pope is not Antichrist. I answere, that there are more doctrins of Antichrist that false prophet then foure, among which those two doctrines of diuels which are mentioned by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4. as notes of that Catholike Apostasie, whereof Antichrist is the head, are to bee numbred, forbidding marriage, and commaunding abstinence from meates. But yet not all these foure are the doctrines of Antichrist, and those which be, doe not vnfitly agree to the Pope: as shall appeare in the particulars, which wee are to examine in order. For from these foure doctrines Bellarmine fetcheth foure arguments. The first, Antichrist shall deny Iesus to be Christ, and consequently shall oppugne all the ordinances of our Sautour, as Baptisme, confirmation, &c. and shall teach that circumcision, the Sabboth, and other ceremonies of the old lawe are not yet ceassed: But the Pope doth not deny Iesus to be Christ, nor bring in circumcision instead of Baptisme, nor the Saboth in stead of the Lordes day, &c: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, and so also … assumption …ath two parts, the former concerning the deniall of Christ it selfe, the second concerning the consequents thereof. Of the former, I hauehave sufficiently spoken heretofore: prouing … …ntly … that as Antichrist was to deny Christ, so Li. 1. ca 4. § 6 7. 8.the Pope do… no… in deed onelyonly, but in word also and doctrine, although not openly directly & expresly (for Antichrist was not to be an open and professed enemy), yet couertly, indirectly, and by consequent. And of such denying of Christ, Bellarmine himself in this chapter vnderstandeth Iohn to speak in the place by him alledged for the proofe of his proposition.1. Ioh. 2. 22.
2. But …iuing that this exp…ion will not cleare me Pope … Antichristn …me he … …th that. Ancichrist is to … Christ … … openly, and … all meanes. Which bold assur…ion I hauehave her…of … …fficiently disproued, when I proued that AntiChristianisme is as the Apos… …eth it, a mystery of iniquities; an… that Antichrist is … …and disguised em…; who vnderunder the name and profession of …tianitie denieth, yea oppugneth Christ and his truth. Bu… … …s weigh his reasons. The first whereof hath all his w… … such assertions as we hauehave before prooued to … then vanitie it selfe: and it is thus concluded. He that … be in nation and religion a Iew, and shall be receiued of the Iewes f… their Me… shall …ugne Christ, and teach that our Christ is not the Me… But Antichrist shall be in nation and re… … and shall be re…iued of the Iewes for their Messias … befor… …th bene shewed; therefore he shall oppugne Christ openly, &c. I … …ere first to the proposition and assumption ioyntly, that the…e is no necessitie nor yet likelyhood that there should come to the Iewes such a one as they expect; and yet Bellarmine every where taketh this for granted. But the assumption I hauehave proued heretofore to be a new fable, and therfore further answere is superfluous.Chap. 12.
3 The second argument is gathered out of 1. Iohn. 2. 22. Who is a lyer, but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ, and this is Antichrist. For all heretikes (saith he) are called Antichrists, which any way deny Iesus to be Christ. Therfore the true antichrist himself shal simply & by all meanes deny Iesus to be Christ. And this is proued, because by the heretikes the diuell is said to worke the mystery of iniquitie, because they deny Christ couertly, but the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation, because he shall openly deny Christ. I answere first, that Iohn in that place speaketh neither of the body of Antichrist in general (as else-where in his Epistles the word foreign is vsed) nor of the head of that body in particular, who is most worthily called foreign the Antichrist; but of some other members of that body, that is to say, of those Antichrists or heretikes of that time, as Cerinthus and others, which denied the diuinitie of Christ; and denying the sonne, did consequently also denie the Father, for hee is the Father of the Sonne, as appeareth plainely by that which followeth in the text foreign, This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Sonne. Secondly, the difference betwixt the petite Antichrists & the graund Antichrist, is not in respect of the couert and open deniall of Christ; or if there be a difference to be made in this behalfe, it is in this, that diuers heretikes and petite Antichrists, such as Simon Magus & some others, hauehave denied Iesus to be Christ more plain…y and directly, which the graund Antichrist according to his greater cunning and efficacie of deceit (comming as the Apostle saith, foreign in all deceiueablenesse of iniquitie 2. Thess. 2. 10.) was to denie more cunningly and couertly. But the difference is both in respect of the Apostasie & oppositiō against Christ, and also in regard of the ambition and aduancing of themselues. The Apostasie and opposition may be considered either in respect of the parts and points wherin it consisteth, or in respect of the parties which make it. In both respects the Apostasie & opposition of the petite Antichrists is but particular, that is, of fewe men in fewe things: but the Apostasie and opposition of the graund Antichrist is more eatholike and generall, that is, in the most parts of Christianitie, and of the greatest part of Christendome. Likewise, the ambition of petite Antichrists is to seeke preheminence with Diotrephes in particular 3. Iohn. 9. foreign.churches, and ouer some other men: But the graund Antichrist claimeth an vniuersall soueraigntie ouer all men, and a double Monarchy ouer al the world: and not contented to aduance himself aboue all other men, euen Kings and Emperors, and that by many degrees; but in many things also matcheth himselfe with Christ the King of Kings, & in some things aduanceth himself aboue him. Yea, but this difference betwixt the smal Antichrists & the great Antichrist is proued, because by the small Antichrists or heretikes, Sathan is said to worke the mystery of iniquitie, wheras the cōming of Antichrist is called a reuelation. The mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7. is Antichristianisme, or that Antichristian Apostasie frō Christ mentioned Ver. 3. which is therfore called a mystery of iniquity, because it being a diuellish oppositiō vntounto Christ, is cunningly cloaked vnderunder the professiō of Christ. This mystery as it was a working in the Apostles time in the heretikes & petite Antichrists by degrees: so was it more fully wrought & accomplished in Antichrist himself, the head of the catholike Apostasie: vnderunder whō it deserueth so much the more to be called the mysterie of iniquitie, as it masketh vnderunder more glorious shewes and visards of outward profession, and shrowdeth it selfe vnderunder the name and title of the catholike and onelyonly true visible church. The mysterie therefore of iniquitie, which in the former part of this Antithesis is appropriated vntounto heretikes, doth indeed most truly belong to Antichrist himselfe; and therefore if it be called a mystery because it is a couert and cunning deniall of Christ, then vnderunder the graund Antichrist Christ shall be most cunningly denied, when he is most gloriously professed. Now Antichrist is said to be reuealed, when the head of the Antichristian body is manifested, and of this reuelation there be degrees; the first his shewing of himself in his colours, by challenging & vsurping an vniuersall supremacie & soueraigntie ouer all the world; and secondly his acknowledgemēt after he was come to his full growth, of which we hauehave heretofore spoken. It appeareth therefore that Antichrist was not to denie Christ plainly and openly; and consequently, that the first part of his proposition (wherevpon the latter is inferred) is false.
4 The latter part of his proposition is, that Antichrist shal abolish all the ordinances of Christ, & in stead of them, bring in the ceremonies of the Iewes, as circumcision in stead of baptisme, & the Iewish Sabboth in stead of the Lords day. But how is this proued? because he shall openly deny Christ, and shall in nation and religion be a Iew. But as both these assertions hauehave bene proued false: so are we to thinke of this which is inferred vponupon them. For seeing he was to be a disguising hypocrite, and his religion a mysterie of iniquitie: it cannot be thought that he sitting in the Temple of God; and professing the name of Christ, should abolish all his ordinances; but rather that he would depriue & corrupt them, and take away the right vse thereof, by diuellish doctrines, by superstitious Idolatries, by mixture of Iewish and Heathenish ceremonies. But both the parts of his proposition he seeketh further to proue by testimonies of Fathers, and by reason. The testimonies of the Fathers in this question deserue no further credit, thē as they cōspire with the prophesies of scripture, and agree with the euent. But let vsus examine them seuerally. First Hillary is alledged as though he testified, that wheras the Arrians affirmed that Christ is not the sonne of God by nature, but onelyonly by adoption: the Antichrist shall teach that he is not so much as the adoptiue sonne of God. But if you read the place, Lib. 6 de trinit. fol. 102.you shal find that Hillary applieth the speech of Iohn, 1, Epist. 2. 22. to those heretikes who professing Christ to be their Sauiour, but denying him to be the natural son of God, & cōsequently denying him to be Christ, affirmed that he is the adoptiue son of God: & therfore inferreth out of that place of Iohn, that they cannot auoyd, but that they are Antichrist. Wherfore the Antichrist, of whō Hillary speaketh; confesseth the name of Christ; De cōsummat. mund….neither doth he denie him openly & directly, but indirectly & by consequent. The next authority of Hippolytus is counterfeit, and the testimony here alledged as currant, (that the marke of Antichrist shall be nego baptismum, nego signum crucis, I deny baptisme, I deny the signe of the Crosse) heretofore hath bene reiected by Bellarmine himselfe, and refuted as false. Chap. 11. Where he hath taught that there is but one marke of the beast, and that not a priuatiue (as this is) but a positiue marke, which is not yet knowne. Thirdly, he alledgeth Augustine, as though he affirmed De ciuit. Dei lib. 20 c. 8.that Antichrist should suffer none to be baptised. Yet Augustine speaketh not of Antichrist, but of the diuell, and affirmeth, that euen then when the diuell shall be loosed, many shall be added to the church: and that the diuell himselfe being loosed, shall not be able to hinder Baptisme, but surely so valiant shall be both the parents for the baptising of their children, and also those which shall then first beleeue, that they shall ouer come that strong one being vnbound. The speech of Ierome on the 11. of Daniel, if it deserue credit, it must be taken either as a prophesie it selfe, or else a true exposition of Daniels prophesie. Verse. 21. 22. But Ierome was no Prophet. And Daniels speech vndoubtedly is to bee vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom this exposition (if it were good) should literally agree. But Antiochus did not rise of the Iewes, neither did he faigne himselfe to be the Prince of the couenant. And for further answere, and better vnderstanding of the place, read Polan. on Polan. in Daniel. cap. 11. ver. 21. 22. in 2. Thess. 2.Daniel 11. If Sedulius affirme as Bellarmine citeth him, that Antichrist shall restore all the ceremonies of the Iewes, his speech is incredible, for many of them cannot be obserued but in the Temple, which shall neuer be reedified. If he speake of many, it may be verified of the Pope, and of some other heretickes, who notwithstanding hauehave not openly denied Christ. Gregorie in the same place which Bellarmine alledgeth, doth affirme Lib. 11. Epist. 3.that Antichrist shall hauehave in reuerence not onelyonly the Sabboth day, but also the Lords day; which cannot stand with such an open deniall of Christ as Bellarmine imagineth. His words be these. Qui veniens diem Sabbati atq dominicum ab omni faciet opere custoderi, Who when he commeth (speaking of Antichrist) shall cause the Sabboth day, and the Lords day, to be kept from all worke. And of this there may better reason be giuen, then of the other, because (as hath bene proued) Antichrist was to be a pretended Christian.
5 These were his authorities: now let vsus weigh his reason, which is thus concluded. In whose time the publike seruice of God, and diuine sacrifices shal cease by reason of the vehement persecutiō, he shall openly deny Christ, and shall abolish all his ordinances, and in stead of them, bring in Iewish ceremonies: But in Antichrists time, by reason of the vehement persecution, the publike seruice of God, and diuine sacrifices shall cease; therefore, &c. I answere by distinction: If by the seruice of God he meane the true worship of God, the proposition is vntrue. For in the Papacie the true publike worship of God, by reason of the vehemencie of persecution hath ceased, and yet the Pope doth not openly deny Christ and abolish his ordinances, although he do vilely depriue them, and mingle them not onelyonly with Iewish, but also Heathenish ceremonies. If by the publike seruice, and diuine sacrifices he meaneth generally any seruice of God, although superstitious, any sacrifices although idolatrous (such as is the sacrifice, of the Masse) then the assumption is false: for such superstitions and will-worshippes do best beseeme Antichrist. But of this argument concerning the persecution of Antichrist, we hauehave spoken before, chap. 7.
6 This may suffice for answere to his proposition and the proofes thereof. Whereas therefore he assumeth, that the Pope doth not deny Christ, &c. I answere: if he meaneth a direct deniall in open profession, that the Pope may be Antichrist, although he do not so denie Christ: If he meaneth a deniall of Christ in deed and in truth, although couertly, indirectly, and by consequent, I hauehave heretofore proued that he doth so denie Christ, not onelyonly in word and doctrine, as he is a false Prophet, but also in deed and fact, as he is a man of sinne, denying him in his life, and as he is an aduersary, not onelyonly denying, but also oppugning Christ and his truth. See the first Booke. chap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8.
7 The second doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine, is to affirme himselfe to be the true Christ. From whence he gathereth his second argument. Antichrist shal affirme himselfe to be Christ. The Pope doth not affirme himselfe to be Christ, therfore the Pope i… not Antichrist. That Antichrist being hostis & amulus Christi, (that is, an enemy of Christ opposed vntounto him, in emulation of like honour) shall indeed challenge vntounto himselfe those offices, prerogatiues and authoritie which properly belong to Christ (which in effect is as much as if he should say, I am Christ) we denie not: and withall auouch that the Pope of Rome doth so affirme himselfe to be Christ. But that Antichrist shall openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world, that we deny to be agreeable to that Antichrist, who is described in the word of God. For Antichrist was to be a dissembling hypocrite, as hath bene proued, and his religion is a mysterie of iniquitie cloaked vnderunder the profession of Christianity. Neither could he seduce so many Christians, if hee should plainely and openly professe himselfe to be the true Christ. But let vsus see how Bellarmine proueth that Antichrist shall openly and expresly name himselfe Christ. Forsooth out of Ioh 5. 43. If an other come in his owne name, him will you receiue: Where saith he, our Lord seemeth of purpose to hauehave added these words (in his owne name) foreseeing that the Lutherans and Caluinists would say, that Antichrist shall not come in his owne name, but in the name of Christ as being his Vicar. But I hauehave heretofore proued, that Christ in this place doth not speake absolutely an other shall come, but conditionally, if an other shall come, nor definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitely of any false Prophet that should come in his owne name, not sent of God. Neither doth it follow, that if Antichrist shal come in his owne name, that therefore he will professe himselfe to be Christ. For all false Prophets come in their owne name, because they are not sent of God, and yet the most of them hauehave not professed themselues to be Christ. And it is plaine that our Sauiour Christ in this place maketh an opposition betwixt himselfe and eueryevery false Prophet in this respect, that he came vntounto them in the name of his Father, that is, not taking vponupon himselfe this honour to be our Prophet and Priest, without authoritie and commission from God, but sent from the bosome of his Father, and yet was not receiued of the Iewes: but if an other, meaning any other false Prophet, should come vntounto them not in the name of the Father, but in his owne name, that is, hauing no commission or authoritie from God, such a one should be embraced of them. And further we are to consider, that Christ professing himself to be the Messias, seemeth to deny that he came in his owne name, (for hee signifieth that false Prophets come in their owne name, but hee came in the name of the Father) therfore to come in his owne name, signifieth to come of himselfe, without any calling or commission frō God: And therfore our aduersaries cannot with any shewe of reason conclude out of this place, that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be Christ. And yet this is all the proofe which he can bring out of the scriptures. Yea, but though the scriptures teach no such matter, Yet some of the Fathers affirme, that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be Christ: yea, but Bellarmine hath told vsus, that we are not to giuegive credit to such coniectures of theirs as hauehave no ground in the word of God. For how could they, being no Prophets, certainly foretell such things of Antichrist without booke, that is to say, without warrant of the scriptures. And whereas he addeth, that these Fathers affirme, that he shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, and therfore shal professe himselfe to be the Messias, I answer, that in like sort a dozen of them affirmed that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, wherof notwithstanding there is no probabilitie.
8 To the proposition therfore I answer, that Antichrist was not plainely and openly to professe himselfe to be Christ, but to challenge the office and authoritie of Christ, which is in effect although indirectly & by consequent, as much as if he said I am Christ. To the assumption I answere, that although the Pope doth not plainly & directly say, I am Christ, but forbeareth the name of Christ, as Caesar did the name of a King: yet notwithstanding, in that he challengeth the office & authoritie of Christ, it is as much in deed and in truth, although indirectly and by consequent, as if he made himself Christ, Christ being a name of office. For certainly whosoeuer professeth himselfe to be ye foundatiō, the head, the husband, & Lord, &c. of ye vniuersal church, he maketh himself Christ, althogh he do abstain frō the name. For who is the head and Lord, &c. of the vniuersall church, but Christ? who hath authoritie to ordain sacramēts, to prescribe lawes to the conscience, to deliuer doctrines and articles of faith as necessary to saluation, to forgiue the sinnes of the quicke and the dead? who is the Prince of Priests, the great Priest after the order of Melchizedec, the Pastor of Pastors, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whom Kings and Emperours do raigne, who hath authoritie to commaund the Angels, to bestow the kingdome of heauen on whom he pleaseth. Finally, vntounto whom is all power giuen in heauen and in earth, but onelyonly to Christ? But the Pope doth challenge al this to himselfe, and much more, as hath bene shewed. He forsooth is the foundation, the head, husband and Lord of the vniuersall Lib. 1. cap. 5.Church, &c. And to conclude, if you respect his nature, Atquè ac Christus Deus est ens secundae intentionis, compositum ex Deo & homine, As well as Christ he is God, an essence of the second intention, compounded of God and man: if his office, vnctione Christus est, he is by annointment Christ, hauing the very same office which Christ had when he was vponupon the earth. And therfore Bellarm. de pontif. Rom. lib. 5. cap. 4.if this be a propertie of Antichrist to leaue vntounto our Sauiour the name and title of Christ, & to take to himselfe the dignitie, office, and authoritie of Christ: it cannot be auoyded but that the Pope is Antichrist.
9 The third doctrine of Antichrist (saith Bellarmine) is this: He shall affirme himselfe to be God, and will require that hee may be worshipped as God. From whence he reasoneth thus: Antichrist will affirme that he is God, and will be worshipped for God: The Pope of Rome doth not affirme himselfe to be God, neither would be worshipped as God, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is proued out of 2. Thess. 2. 4. So that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as though he were God. Answ. The meaning of the Apostles words is thus much, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, as God, that is, he shall rule and raigne in the church of God, as if he were a God vponupon earth, shewing himselfe not so much by words as by deedes, that hee is a God. Or as the vulgar Latine edition and English translation of the Rhemists doe reade, tanquam sit Deus; as though he were God. And thus Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, expounde this place, foreign, (saith Chrysostome) foreign, he saith shewing himself, he said not, saying, but endeuouring to shewe, for he shall worke great workes, and shall shewe forth wonderfull signes: and the word foreign shewing, as Beza obserueth, is answerable to the Hebrew Moreh, faciens se apparere, prae se ferens, or as we say, taking vponupon him as if he were a God.
It is not therefore necessary that Antichrist should in worde plainly & openly professe himselfe to be God: it is sufficient, if in deed and behauiour hee taketh vponupon him as if hee were … God. As for example, if he shalbe content to be acknowledged, saluted and called God. If he shall cause, nay if he shal but willingly suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God, if he shall challenge vntounto himselfe those titles, attributes, and workes which are proper & peculiar to the Lord. But Bellarmine perceiuing that this place in this sense may fitly be applied to the pope: therefore he contendeth that it is not sufficient that Antichrist should indeed shew himselfe to be God (as the Pope doth) but that he shall openly name himselfe God: and that he shall vsurpe, not only some authoritie of God (as the Pope doth) but also the very name of God. And that he saith is prooued out of these words of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. in so much that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himselfe tanquā sit Deus, as though he were God. Where saith he Paul doth not onelyonly affirme that Antichrist shall sit in the temple, (for we also sit in temples, and yet are no Antichrists) but also expoundeth his maner of sitting, namely that he shall sit as God: to whō alone a tēple is properly erected. And this hesaith is more cleerly set down in the Greek text: for it is not said foreign as God, but foreign that hee is God. But in this cauill are contained diuers errours: 1. by temple, which as we hauehave proued, signifieth the church of God, he vnderstandeth a materiall temple, which should be built at Ierusalem. 2. by sitting in the temple, which signifieth his raigning in the church, he vnderstandeth the corporall gesture of sitting in that materiall temple. 3. by his sitting in the temple of God as God, which signifieth his ruling ouer the church as if he were God, hee vnderstandeth thus much, that the materiall temple should be erected and consecrated duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page to his honor, as if he were God. As though that temple which should be erected to his honour, as if he and no other were the true God, were called of the Apostle the temple of God: or as though he pretending himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes sent from God, would not also pretend the building of that temple to the honour of God. 4. Whereas he saith that the Greek text hath not foreign but foreign, it is plaine that the text hath both. In so much that he sitteth in the temple of God foreign as God, shewing himselfe foreign, that he is God. Now Antichrist may sit in the temple of God as God, and by his deedes and demeanour beare the world in hand that he is a God vponupon earth, and yet not professe himselfe openly and plainely to be God.
10 And in this sense (to come to his assumption) doth this place properly agree to the Pope of Rome, who sitteth in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of God as if he were a God vponupon earth: and in his behauiour and course of life, taketh vponupon him as if he were a God and so would be reputed of others. For first in their owne lawe the Pope is not Dist. 96. c. satis euidenter.obscurely called God. The Canonists call him Dominū Deum nostrum Papam, Our Lord God the Pope. But for further proofe of this point, I referre you to the former booke, chap. 5 §. 6. &c. where I intreated of the Antichristian pride of the Pope. To which former testimonies I will adde one practise of the Pope in his great yeare of Iubile, when as in solemne procession he is carried in a seate of gold vponupon noble mens shoulders (his god of bread being carried before him vponupon an backeney as his attendant) and at length commeth to the gates of Paradise which hee beateth open with a golden hammer, at which time he is worshipped of all sorts present as a God, from whō they expect indulgence, remission of sinnes and eternal life, according to his large promises made to all those which shall come to Rome to celebrate the Iubiley. In a word, he is numen quoddam visibilem quendam Deum pre…se ferens, a certaine diuine maiestie shewing himselfe to be a certaine visible God. The premisses therefore considered, together with my allegations in the place before named, this argument may be returned vponupon our aduersary after this manner: whosoeuer sitteth Lib. 1. ca. 5 §. 6. 7.in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth and raigneth ouer the church as if he were a God vponupon earth, and declareth himselfe either by word or deed that he is God: for example, if he shall challenge vntounto himselfe those titles, attributes and workes which are proper vntounto God, and shall be willing to be saluted, acknowledged and adored as God, he vndoubtedly is Antichrist. But the Pope of Rome ruleth ouer the church as if he were a God vponupon earth, and declareth himselfe both by word and deed that he is God, challenging vntounto himself those titles, attributes and workes which are peculiar vntounto the Lord, &c. as hath bene proued, therefore the Pope is Antichrist: yea but the Pope saith Bellarmine, doth not declare himselfe to be God, for he acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of the Lord. Hee might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe regem regūterrae, ac Dominū Dominorum, the king of the kings of the earth, and Lord of Lordes, because he acknowledgeth himself seruū seruorū Dei, the seruant of gods seruants. Neither doth his verball professiō ouersway his reall practise. But he should hauehave remembred that the second beast which is Antichrist, Apoc. 13. 11. as hee speaketh like the dragon belching out blasphemies against God: so hee hath two hornes like the lambe, & as a dissembling hypocrite imitateth in some things the humilitie of Christ. And therefore that the Pope could not be such an Antichrist as is described in the scriptures, vnlesse he were an hypocrite, who doth by open profession pretend himselfe to be the seruant of God, when as in truth he aduanceth himselfe against him. And yet this is all that our aduersary alledgeth to proue his assumption, that the Pope doth not shewe himselfe to be God.
11 The fourth and last doctrine saith the Iesuite is this, he shall not onelyonly affirme that he is God, but that he onelyonly is God, and shall oppugne all other Gods both true and false, and shall suffer no Idols. But this absurd conceit of the papists, is not onelyonly repugnant vntounto the truth, but also contradictory to their owne doctrines cōcerning Antichrist. For is it credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God, and none but he: or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Christians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledge and worship him as the onelyonly true God? Againe, the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon, which because of her owne idolatrie is called a whore, and because she infecteth all nations that adhere vntounto her with her idolatries Apoc. 17. 2. 5.and superstitions, she is said to make them drunke with the cup of her fornications, and also to be the mother of all the fornications, that is, idolatries of the earth. Yea, & the Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes is described as an Idolater, as properly spoken of Antichrist. And do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes, and consequently that he is sent and annointed of God? Now if he shall professe himselfe sent from God, shall we thinke that he wil say there is no God besides himselfe? Or if hee being but a mortall man, shall say there is no God besides himselfe, may we not well thinke that either they will hisse at him as a foole, or stone him to death as a blasphemer? Nay, do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion a Iew, an obseruer of the Sabboth, and other Iewish ceremonies? And do they not alledge Ierome to proue, that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the couenant, and a In Dan. 11chiefe maintainer of the lawe and testament of God? And are not his two hornes like the Lambe expounded by some approued In Apo. 13Authors among them, of the two testaments which hee shall seeme to professe?
12 But let vsus see how this wise conceit is proued: Forsooth by testimonies of the scriptures and the Fathers. Out of the scripture hee alledgeth two places, the former 2. Thess. 2. 4. Who is extolled aboue all that is called God, or worshipped. As if hee should say, Antichrist shall bee aduanced aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, therefore hee shall auouch that hee alone is God, and will suffer no other God either true or false to bee worshipped besides himselfe. I denie the consequence. For first Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, and yet suffer, yea require them to bee worshipped. Iupiter was supposed among the Heathen to aduance himself aboue all other Gods, and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods. Antichrist the second beast, aduanceth himselfe aboue the Image of the Apoc. 13.former beast, which is the Empire renewed, whereon he sitteth as the rider death vponupon a beast, and yet requireth the same to be worshipped. The Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue Angels, Apoc. 17.Kings, and Princes, who are called Gods; aboue the Saints, the Host, the Crosse, and whatsoeuer foreign is in the church of Rome, and yet requireth them all to be worshipped. Secondly, Antichrist may aduance himself aboue or against al that is called God, or is worshipped, and yet not professe himselfe to be the only God. For so Antiochus Epiphanes aduanced himselfe against eueryevery God, yea, against the God of Gods, Dan. 11. 36. and yet he was neuer so mad as to professe himselfe the only God. Thirdly, seeing Antichristianisme is not open Atheisme, but a mystery of iniquity; & Antichrist is described in the scriptures as an hypocrite & pretended Christiā: we may be assured that although in deed & in truth he shall aduance himselfe against God, & against Christ our Sauiour, & list vp himself aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped; yet he shall professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, and a worshipper of God. Fourthly, the words of the text do not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuit imagineth. For first he is called a man of sinne, & sonne of perdition, & therfore we are to conceiue of such an aduancement of himselfe, as is incident to a mortall & wretched man. Secōdly, he is said to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped. By all that is called God, we are to vnderstand all to whom the name of God is communicated, as to Angels in heauen, to kings and Princes on earth. And of this aduancing aboue Kings, we are the rather to vnderstand this place, because afterwards it is said, that the Romane Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe. And by foreign we are to vnderstand any thing which is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped: Such in the Church of Rome are the Host, the Crosse, the Saints, & their Images & reliques. Aboue al which a man may aduance himselfe (as the Pope doth) and yet may acknowledge some other God besides himselfe. Thirdly, the greatest height of pride that is incident to any creature whatsoeuer, is not to seeke to be aboue God, for that cannot be imagined, but to be as God. And indeed the height of Antichrist his pride and aduancing of himselfe, is noted in the words following, foreign in so much that he shall sit in the temple of God as God. Whosoeuer therefore being but a mortall man, shall aduance himself aboue all that is called God & worshipped, insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of Christ as if he were a God vponupon earth, he is to be deemed Antichrist (that is aemulus Christi, one that would faine be equall to Christ) although he neither professe himselfe to be the onelyonly God, who onelyonly is to be worshipped, neither yet abolish all other worship of God both true and false. And if in this sense this place do properly agree to the Pope, as indeed it doth, then can it not be auoided but that he is Antichrist.
13 The second testimony which he alledgeth to prooue this fond conceit is Dan. 11. 37. neither shall he care for any of the Gods, but shall rise against all. I answere, Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, and he of whom he speaketh was an Idolater, and therefore this allegation is altogether impertinent. As touching the first, it is euident that Daniel from the 21. verse of that chapter to the end, doth most plainly & properly describe Antiochus Epiphanes. For howsoeuer in this place Bellarmine would proue by the authoritie of Ierome, that these words are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, & not of Antiochus: yet in another place when part of this verse is obiected Li. 3. ca. 21by some protestants as sitting the Pope, he telleth vsus plainly that Daniel speaketh ad literam…, literally of Antiochus, who was a figure of Antichrist. Secondly, hee of whom Daniel speaketh was an Idolater, and establisher of Idolatry. So farre was hee from professing himselfe to be the onelyonly true God, or suffering none to be worshipped besides himselfe. For if he speake of Antiochus Epiphanes, (as most certainly he doth) it may easily be proued both by Historie of the Machabees, and by other stories, that he was both an Idolater himselfe, and an inforcer of Idolatry vpō others. See I. Maccab. 1. 50. 2. Mac. cab. 6. 2. &c. Polybius also testifieth that in sacrifices & honouring the Graecian Gods, he surpassed other Kings which went before him, Apud Athenaeum.as might appeare by the Olympiaeum at Athens, and the Images about the altar at Delos. This Ierome also auoucheth, and Bellarmine confesseth. But of whomsoeuer Daniel speaketh, he doth plainly describe him in the next verse to be an Idolater. Ver. 38.And it is a world to see what silly shiftes the Iesuit maketh to auoyd this truth. For first he readeth the words thus: And he shall honor the God Maozim in his place: Secondly, he omitteth the words following (the God which his fathers knew not, he shall honour with golde, &c. which most plainly specifie his Idolatry who is here described) and busieth himselfe wholy in giuing a false interpretatiō to the god Maozim. The God Maozim saith he, signifieth either Antichrist himself, and then the meaning is he shall honor himselfe, that is, cause himselfe to be worshipped: or else it signifieth the diuel whom Antichrist being a sorcerer shall worship in secret, which interpretation he preferreth before the other. And therefore this place doth not proue that he which is here described shalbe an Idolater.
14 I answere first, that although either of his interpretations of the God Maozim were true (as neither is) yet the one hindreth not, and the other proueth that he which is heere described is an Idolater. For let the word Maozim signifie what it may, yet the words following plainly conuince the partie here described of Idolatry, the God which his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold. And if the God Maozim signifie any but the true God, and if also the words are so to be read as Bellarmine readeth them: And he shall honor the God Maozim, and the God whō his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold and siluer, &c. then by these words the Idolatry is encreased. For first it is said, that he shall worship the God Maozim according to Bellarmines reading, whereby is not meant as he saith the true God, nay he saith to make Christ the God Maozim, Li. 3. ca. 21it is intollerable blasphemy, O therefore first in these words is signified an Idolater: and secondly it is added, that the God also which his fathers knew not hee shall worship, where againe his Idolatry is most plainely noted.
2. But indeede Bellarmines interpretation is meerely false, and that which he inferreth therevpon, altogether absurd. The God Mahuzzim signifieth the God of fortitudes, that is, the most mightie or almightie God, which title as it is proper to the Lorde, as Ieremy calleth him foreign Iehouah, my Iere. 16. 19strength and fortitude: And likewise Dauid, Psal. 31. 5. so may it not be ascribed to any other. And therefore it is a sencelesse imagination, that Daniel by the God of fortitudes would signifie either Antichrist himselfe, a wicked and wretched man, or the father of Antichrist the Diuell. And further, as touching the former interpretation, it seemeth to be absurd, that when Daniel according to his reading saith, he shal worship the God Maozim, his meaning should be, that Antichrist should worship himselfe, as though he that worshippeth, and hee that is worshipped were one and the same. And thē in like sort in the latter clause, by the God which he shall worship, which his fathers knew not, we must absurdly vnderstand himselfe. For whereas he cauilleth at the word worship, and saith, wee must reade glofie, as though Daniels meaning were, that Antichrist should glorifie himselfe, and cause himselfe to be worshipped: it is certaine that the vulgar Latine (which hee preferreth before the Hebrew, and which by the Councell of Trent hee is bound to stand to) hath venerabitur, shall worship. & himselfe both in the second clause of the verse, hee readeth according to the vulgar colet, shall worship: and in his second interpretatiō, which he saith is the better, he doth so reade and vnderstand the word. His first interpretation therfore, that the God Maozim should signifie Antichrist himselfe, is sottish and absurd.
15 Let vsus therefore consider whether the second which he preferreth before the other, be any better. In the second place saith he, it may be said, which pleaseth me better, that Antichrist shall be a Magician or sorcerer, (such as very many Popes of Rome hauehave bene) and that according to the manner of other Magicians, he shall in secret worship the Diuell, (as diuers of the Popes hauehave done homage vntounto him) by whose helpe he shall worke wonders, and that he is called the God Maozim. Answ. Whereas Bellarmine preferreth this exposition before others, it seemeth hee hath forgotten the question which hee tooke vponupon him to defend, namely, that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater. For if he shall be a worshipper of the diuell, and also of a God whom his fathers knew not, I hope by this exposition he shall bee proued an Idolater. But let vsus see what hee further alledgeth to proue this exposition, which although it be false (for Daniel here neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor yet of the Diuell) yet it maketh against himselfe. Forsooth Maozim as hee supposeth is not the name of God, but of a certaine strong and secret place, in which shall be the chiefe treasures of Antichrist, and wherein he shall worship the diuell. For it followeth in Daniel, that he shall fortifie Maozim with a strange God whom hee knew, and surely foreign Mahoz signifieth as well fortitude as a tower or place of munition. His meaning then is, that the diuell is here called the God Maozim, because Antichrist shall worship him in a certaine tower, which if it were true, hee should rather bee called the God Maoz, but Daniel speaketh in the plurall number, the God of fortitudes or munitions, signifying according to the Hebrew phrase, the most mightie and strong God, Deum summiroboris, as Tremellius readeth.
And whereas hee saith it followeth, that hee shall fortifie Maozim with a straunge God, whom he hath knowne, I answere, that there is no such matter in the originall text, which word for word is thus: And he shall doo to the munitions of Mahuzzim with a straunge God, that is, hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, Ierusalem and the citties of Iewry to a straunge God. Yea, but faith Bellarmine, one of these interpretations (either that Antichrist is the God Maozim, or if he be any other (for he dare not now say it is the diuell) hee shall not be worshipped of Antichrist, but secretly and in a most hidden place) one saith hee, of these interpretations must be good, or else there will bee a repugnancie in Daniels words. For if he care for no God, how shall he publikely worship Idols? yea, rather if he care for no God, how shall he worship any priuately? For it is more like that he which is an Atheist, and careth for no God indeed, will in Machiuilian policie worship some God publikely, although priuately he careth for none. And it more fitteth the disposition of Antichrist to be secretly an Atheist, and openly an Idolater, then contrariwise although Bellarmine here doth hold the contrary.
16 But now perhaps you expect, that hauing freed this place of Daniel from Bellarmines corruptions and deprauations, I should open vntounto you the true meaning thereof, and shewe how this prophesie was fulfilled in Antiochus, who in many things was a type of Antichrist. And the King saith the Angell, Verse. 36. (or this King Hamelec, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom I hauehave all this while entreated, namely, from the 21. Verse) hee shall doo what hee will, his will shall be to him for a lawe; wherein hee might seeme to be a liuely figure of the Pope, of whom it is saide, Sic volo, sic iubeo, slat pro ratione voluntas: And againe, Iudicium que est pro lege suum. And this was the ground of all his actions, wilfully following in all things his owne will. Then more particularly the Angell describeth his actions, both in respect of religion and policie.
His actions tending to irreligion (of which onelyonly we are now to speake) are first summarily comprised, Verse. 36. and afterward more fully expressed. The summe is this, that hee should alter and abrogate all the religions of the Syrians, as well the false religions of the Idolaters, as the true religion of the Iewes. The abrogation of all the religions of the Syrians, is here called the magnifying himselfe, foreign aboue or against eueryevery god, whose worships he did put downe. The prophanation of the Iewish religion ordained by the true God, the God of Gods, is here signified by speaking foreign great & swelling 1. Mac. 1. 43. 46. 2. Mac. 6. 2.words against him, which wee are to vnderstande of his blasphemous edicts to abolish the whole religion of God: both which we see performed by Antiochus Epiphanes. 1. Macab. 1. 43. 46. &c. The same thinges are againe repeated, Verse. 37. & 38. First, as touching the goddes and religions of the Syrians in generall, whether true or false, he saith Verse 37. that vntounto the Gods of his fathers he shall not attend, neither will hee listen to the desires of women: that is, as some expound, his wiues, who entreated the continuance of those religions whervnto themselues were addicted: so that neither the reuerence of his fathers, nor the louelove of his wiues could stay him from following his owne will in abrogating their religions, neither will be regard any of the Gods, viz. of the Syrians, because hee will magnifie himselfe against all, in abrogating the religions of them all, whether true or false. And more particularly concerning the true religion of the true God, he saith Ver. 38. foreign. And as touching the God Mahuzzim, that is, the God almightie, and there he pauseth, in his place he will honour, euen a God whom his fathers knew not, will he honour with golde and with siluer, with precious stones and with Iewels; and (verse. 39.) hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, of the Almightie vntounto a strange God, that is, he shall deale so despightfully with the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, that hauing abrogated his worship and religion, he shall set vp in the temple of God the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius to be worshipped (as it is recorded 2. Mac. 6.) who was a God whom his fathers knew not, that is, acknowledged Strabo geograph. lib. 16.not, nor worshipped. For the Syrians worshipped Apollo and Diana. And the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, Ierusalem and other cities of Iewry, which had bene as it were the munitions and cities of God, hee committed them to the tuition of a strange God, namely, Iupiter Olympius. The same prophesie in effect was before deliuered, Dan. 7. 25. See Tremell. in Dan. 7. & 8.& 8. 11. by conference of which places with this in hand, it is manifest, that by the God Mahuzzim, is meant the true God.
17 This prophesie therefore being meant of Antiochus Epiphanes, & fulfilled in him, cannot properly belong to Antichrist or any other. Notwithstanding as in some other things, so in the premisses Antiochus may not vnsitly be thought to hauehave bene a type or figure of Antichrist. In so much that both the auncient Fathers hauehave vnderstood these prophesies of Antichrist, and many also of the late writers (besides the Iewes) hauehave applyed the same particularly to the Pope. For besides that it is most true of the Pope, that hee doth what he will, seeing Legi non subiac…t vlli.hee is subiect to no lawe, and no man may say to him, Sir why doo you so? The rest also after a sort may be verified of him, that both hee setteth himselfe against the Idols of the Gentiles, and also hath abrogated the true worship of God. And that in stead of Christ the Almightie God, he hath set vp in his churches, besides many other Idols, the abhominable Idoll of the Masse, a God which his fathers the first Bishops of Rome knew not, which notwithstāding he honoreth with gold and siluer, and precious stones, and hath committed the churches, cities, and countries of Christendome, to the tuition and patronage of diuers Saints, who as they are indeed, so are they called by Paulus Ionius a Popish Bishop, the tutelar Gods of the Papists.Hist. lib. 24. in fine.
18 And these were his testimonies of scripture. In the next place, for want of better proofes, he slyeth to the authoritie of the Fathers as his last refuge, as though they testified that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater, nor one that will suffer Idols. But I answer, that the Fathers do either speake of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles onelyonly, and in that sence their speeches are verified in this behalfe of the Pope, who neither honoreth nor suffereth the Idols of the Gentiles: or else if they speake of all Idols and Idolatry in generall, when they say Idola seponet as Ireneus, or adidololatriam non admittet as Hippolitus, or idola odio habebit, as Cyrill, or adidololatriā non adducet ille, as Chrysostome, they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalfe is better then the Pope. But indeed as the Pope is, so Antichrist in the scriptures is described to bee an Idolater, as hath bene shewed.
19 Hauing thus doughtily proued this Popish conceit, the Iesuit proceedeth to the disproofe of our assertiōs & expositions of some places of scripture, and especially that of 2. Thess, 2. Our assertion concerning the doctrine of Antichrist, hee saith is onelyonly built vponupon the scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses. In token whereof saith hee, they alledge not one Interpreter or Doctor for them. But this is a malicious slaunder, witnesse this place which he mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where we proue by the consent of many of the Fathers, that by the Temple is meant the church of God; and that in the church of God Antichrist was to be reuealed, after the Romane Empire, which hindered, was taken out of the way, &c. Our assertions concerning Antichrist, are groūded on the prophesies of scriptures expounded by the euent, which is the best expóunder of prophesies. And with our assertions the opinions of the Fathers agree, where they are consonant to the scripture and the euent. Contrariwise, the assertions of the Papists concerning Antichrist, as they are repugnant to the scriptures and the truth of the euent: so are they wholy grounded either vponupon the vncertaine (and many times misalledged) coniectures of the Fathers, who were no Prophets, and therefore being not able to foresee the euent, did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies: or else on the blinde conceits of Popish writers, who being deceiued with the efficacie of illusion, and made drunke with the whore Babylons cuppe of fornications, were giuen ouer to beleeue lyes. And whereas our writers expounding those wordes of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. 4. (who is lifted vp aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped) doo apply the same vntounto the Pope vponupon very good and sufficient proofes, and from thence do plainely conclude the Pope to be Antichrist, (for euidence whereof, I referre the Reader to the 5. chapter of my former booke.) He culleth out some stragling sentences out of some one of the vnsoundest writers of our side, (as their maner is) which he may best hope to answere. As though we had no more, nor no better arguments to proue, that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, then these two: First, because he professeth himselfe to bee the Vicar of Christ: And secondly, whereas Christ subiected himselfe willingly vntounto the scriptures, the Pope challengeth authoritie to dispense with the scripture. Howbeit the former of these two reasons hee depraueth, and the latter he is not able to satisfie. For Illyricus his reason to proue that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God, is not because he maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ, but this, because hee vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ, doth notwithstanding vsurpe greater authoritie, then the sonne of God claimed vntounto himselfe, of which, that which Bellarmine Catalog. test. pag. 3.alledgeth as a second reason, is by Illyricus added as a proofe: Wherevnto Bellarmine is no otherwise able to answer, then by impudent and shamelesse deniall, either that Christ subiected Contrary to Galat. 4. 4. Luke. 2. 51himselfe to the lawe and word of God, or that the Pope taketh vponupon him to dispense with the scriptures, or that any Catholike (meaning Popish) writer hath said, that he may dispense with diuine precepts; both which notwithstanding I hauehave heretofore proued by many instances and most euident allegations. See the first booke. chap. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. For that which hee addeth of Christs subiecting himselfe to the prophesies, and not to the precepts, as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition, and of the other in the assumption, it is partly false and partly ridiculous, and indeede not worth the answering.