A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 1
The first Chapter, answering Bellarmine his first argument concerning the name Antichrist.
HAuing in the former Booke sufficiently prooued by euident demonstration out of the worde of God, that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist: it remaineth that we should maintaine this our assertion against the arguments of the Papists. For as the force & euidence of our proofes may perswade vsus to embrace this truth; so the weakenesse and sophistry, which appeareth in the obiections of our aduersaries may confirme vsus in this perswasion. And the rather if we consider either the weight of this controuersie it selfe, or their will and skil to maintaine their part; or lastly the aduantage which they seeme to hauehave in this controuersie. For first the controuersie it selfe is of such consequence, as that if our assertion be true, then is all Popery ouerthrowne, and all controuersies betwixt vsus and them easily decided: then are all Papists limmes of Antichrist, and all their doctrines peculiar to them, errours of Antichrist. And if you respect their will, you neede not doubt, but that they, being wholy deuoted vntounto the Pope, hauehave done their best endeuour to free their head and Lord from all imputation of Antichristianisme. And for their skill, they beeing men of great learning and much reading, you may bee well assured that they hauehave scarcely omitted any thing, which may be said in so waighty a cause. And questionlesse, they hauehave no small aduantage in this controuersie being to prooue the negatiue part. For whereas we cannot prooue the affirmatiue but by the concurrence of those manifold properties and markes which the holy Ghost hath assigned vntounto Antichrist: they on the other side hauehave libertie to disprooue the same, and to prooue the negatiue, if they can but shew plainly & euidently, that any one seuerall and essentiall marke, ascribed vntounto Antichrist in the Scriptures, dooth not agree to their Lord God the Pope. For if the Scriptures foretell vsus as touching the place, that Antichrist shall hauehave his seat in Babylon, that is, Rome, which being situated on seauen hils, had in the Apostles time vnderunder the Emperour, and since vnderunder the Pope, dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, and that in Rome, professing her selfe the Church of God, because it is said, that Antichrist shall sitte in the Temple of God: as concerning the time, that he should sit in Rome, after the remoouing and taking away of the Emperours, whom hee was to succeed in the gouernement of Rome, as hath beene shewed out of these places, 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. Apoc. 13. and 17. and in respect of his conditions and qualities, that he should be for opposition an aduersary, although a disguised enemy; for pride and ambition, aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God: for his other vices, a man of sinne in generall, and more specially an horrible idolatour: in regard of his effects, that he and his followers should be workers of signes and wonders, in the sight of men, that he should compell all sorts of men to receiue the marke or name of the beast, or number of his name: and lastly, for that which he was to suster, that Christ shall consume him with the breath of his mouth, that is, the Ministerie of the Gospell; and that thereupon the ten hornes which first assisted him, shall afterwards assault him: It followeth therefore, that vntounto such as we affirme to be Antichrist, all these notes are to be applied, (as we hauehave applied them all to the Pope of Rome) whereas contrariwise the deniall of any one essentiall propertie, is an argument sufficient to prooue the negatiue. As for example, if any man will …ake vponupon him to prooue, that the Turke is Antichrist, because some of the markes seeme to fitte him, he shall neuer bee able to prooue it, because all the properties doe not agree vntounto him. For neither hath he his seat in Rome, neither dooth he sit in the Church of God, neither is he a couert and disguised, but an open and professed enemie: neither may he be matched with the true Antichrist, either in aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God, or in idolatrie, or in lying signes and wonders, &c. And from any of these we may reason thus. Antichrist was to hauehave his seat in Rome, which is mysticall Babylon: the Turke hath not his seat there: therefore he is not Antichrist. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God: the Turke dooth no…, &c. wherefore much more easie it were to prooue the negatiue, if it were true, then the affirmatiue. If therefore the Papists hauing bent all their forces, and imploied the vttermost of their skill, to prooue that which were most easie to prooue, if it were true, shall notwithstanding be found vnable to produce any one sound and sufficient argument, to cleare their Pope from Antichristianisme: hauehave not we just cause to confirme our selues in that truth, which before hath beene demonstrated, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist?
2. Let vsus therefore consider their arguments, and conceits whereupon their arguments are grounded: not as they are propounded by the elder Papists, which liued in the daies of our forefathers (for their conceits concerning Antichrist were meere dotages) but as they are deliuered by the refiners of Poperie the Jesuits, and namely by Bellarmine, whose bookes are as it were a shot whereunto many of them, as it seemeth, hauehave contributed. Bellarmine therefore in his third booke De pontifice Romano, reduceth all his arguments to nine heads. 1. Concerning the name Antichrist. 2. Concerning his person, whether he be but one man, or a state and succession of men. 3. Concerning the time of his comming, and death. 4. Of his proper name. 5. Of his nation & followers. 6 Of his seat. 7. Of his doctrine and maners. 8. Of his miracles. 9. Of his reigne & battels. From all which he hopeth (although in vaine) to prooue, that the Pope is not Antichrist.
3. And first from the name he argueth thus: Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi, that is, such an enemy as is opposed vntounto Christ in emulation of like honour: The Pope is not an enemy, nor opposed vntounto Christ in emulation of like honour: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition which we not onelyonly graunt, but also take to be the groūd of some of our proofes, that he laboureth to prooue, & in that proofe spendeth almost the whole first chapter. But the àssumption, wherein is all the controuersie betwixt vsus and them, that in a manner he See lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 1.taketh for graunted. In both playing the part of a right sophister. For which of our writers euer denied, that foreign signifieth hostem et aemulum Christi? what though Musculus also saith, that Antichrist Loc. Comm. cap. de potestate Ministrorum.is he, who being an enimy vntounto Christ, professeth himselfe to be his vicar, and saith that the word may signifie so much; yet he denieth not the former signification, but retaineth the same with this addition: That Antichrist is such as one as challengeth vntounto himselfe the office and authoritie of Christ himselfe, and being indeed an enemie, & a counter-Christ, professeth himselfe to be the Vicar or Vicegerent of Christ vponupon earth. And this may be prooued by the signification of the name. For foreign in composition, commonly signifieth three things; opposition, equality, substitution. Opposition, as in the word foreign: equality, as foreign: substitutiō, as foreign, Preconsul, foreign, Propraetor or Legatus Praetoris; foreign, the putting of one case for another: and in this sense the sacraments of the new Testament, substituted and ordained insteed of the old, are called the foreign of them. And all these significations sometimes 1. Pet. 3. 21are incident to one and the same worde. As foreign, signifieth sometimes, contrariae partis ducem, the chieftaine of the contrarie part: sometime propraetorem, that is, one who in the prouince hath the same authoritie which the Praetor hath in the city: sometimes also him qui est vice praetoris, as the Lieutenant or deputie. In like sort, all these significations may be applied to the word foreign, and it in them all most fitly agreeth to the Pope. Who being indeed an enimy vntounto Christ, and challenging vntounto himselfe the office and authoritie of Christ, as if he were a counter-Christ, doth also professe himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ.
4. Yea, but saith Bellarmine, Antichrist cannot by any meanes signifie the vicar of Christ: first because foreign properly signifieth opposition. I answer, Vllo modo.that foreign simply signifieth for; & in composition, as many times it signifieth against, so sometimes also equall or like, & sometimes for or in-steed, as Greeke writers & Lexicographers do teach, &c. Secondly, we must (saith he) vnderstand the word as it is vsed in the Scriptures. But in the Scriptures it is vsed to signifie an enemy of Christ, which we doe confesse: albeit his prooues are ridiculous, all eadging, 2. Thes. 2. Mat. 24. where the word foreign is not once vsed. Notwithstanding we accept his ground: that we are so to vnderstand the word Antichrist, as it is vsed in the Scriptures. Now it is vsed in the epistles of Iohn onelyonly, and there ascribed not to open and professed enemies, but to such as being enemies, notwithstanding professed the name of Christ, as the heretiques of those times. Thirdly, al those authors (saith he) which hauehave written of Antichrist, hauehave vnderunder that name vnderstood a notable false Christ, who shall affirme himselfe to be Christ. If they meane that Antichrist shall be such a false Christ, as shall plainly and directly affirme himselfe to be Christ the onelyonly Messias, that affirmation agreeth not with that Antichrist whom the Scriptures describe. If they hold that although in words he professe himselfe a follower and seruant of Christ, and yet indeed obtrudeth himselfe vponupon the Church, as if he were Christ, taking vponupon him the titles, attributes, offices and authoritie of Christ, which in effect is as much as if he should say; I am Christ (Christ being a name of office) we also confesse so much, and withall professe, that the name Antichrist in this signification, most fitly agreeth vntounto the Pope. Fourthly, he alleadgeth Henry Stephen: but neither he nor any approoued Author denieth, but that Antichristus may signifie him, who being an enemy of Christ, professeth himselfe to be his vicar. And therfore all these foure arguments are friuolous: for althogh Antichrist do signifie an enimy to Christ, yet that doth not hinder but that it may signifie him which is the Vicar of Christ; because he which in profession is the vicar of Christ, may indeed be the enemy of Christ. 2. Because the compositiō of the word importeth so much. 3, Because the beast which figureth Antichrist, is said to hauehave two hornes like the Lambe: for horne in the Scripture signifieth power, & the two hornes his two-fold soueraigne power: whosoeuer therefore challengeth this twofold power, as the Vicegerent of Christ he hath two hornes like the lambe: and the same person, as he is the Vicar of Christ in profession, so is he also that Antichrist, which is resembled by the two horned beast. The Scriptures therefore describe Antichrist, both as an enimy of Christ, and as the Vicar of Christ: an enemie indeed, and Vicar in profession.
5. And so much of his proposition, which we hold to be most true, that Antichrist according to the signification of the word, is host is & aemulus Christi, but withall we adde, that the word may signifie also such an aduersary as obtrudeth himselfe vntounto the Church, as a Prochristus, that is, as a vicar of Christ. Let vsus therfore come to his assumption, & consider how he proueth that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Christi, An enemy, & one that seeketh to match himselfe with Christ. Forsooth, because the Pope confesseth himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, and subiect vntounto him in all things: neither doth he by any meanes say, that he is Christ, nor make himselfe equall vntounto him. As if he should say, he that professeth himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, is not an enemy of Christ, and he that dooth not call himselfe Christ, nor make himselfe equall vntounto him, he is not aemulus Christi. As touching the former, I answer, that vnlesse the Pope did confesse himselfe to bee the seruant of Christ, he could not be such an aduersarie as Antichrist is described to be in the Scriptures, that is, a couert and disguised enemy, who vnderunder the name and profession of Christ, oppugneth Christ and his truth. And what though he professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ, dooth it therefore follow, that he is not an enemy to Christ? Surely no more then it followeth, he is Seruus seruorum Dei indeed, because he calleth himselfe so. Deceiuers, such as Antichrist is, pretend The seruant of Gods scr…ts.good names: false Prophets, such as Antichrist is, are Wolues in Sheepe skinnes: neither are any enimies so pernicious or dangerous, as those which make semblance of friendship. And that the Pope is aemulus Christi, that is, an aduersarie opposed vntounto Christ in emulation of like honour, we hauehave prooued heretofore at large, shewing how in many things he matcheth himselfe with Christ, and in somethings aduanceth himselfe aboue him. So that the former part of his speech dooth not prooue his assumption, as being inconsequent, the latter needeth proofe, as being vntrue. And yet this is all that he bringeth to prooue, that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Christi. But the vntruth of this assumption, we hauehave heretofore demonstrated at large, when as we concluded thus: He that is such an aduersarie as is described in the Scriptures, opposed vntounto Christ in emulation of like honour, he is Antichrist as the Papists confesse: But the Pope is such an aduersarie as is described in the Scriptures, opposed vntounto Christ in emulation of like honour, as we then prooued at large: therefore the Pope is Antichrist.Lib. 1. cap. 4. et. 5.