A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 2

A Treatise Concerning Antichrist · Book 2 · Chapter 2

p. 5The second Chapter: maintaining that Antichrist is not one definite and singuler person.

1. THe second argument which Bellarmine vseth, to prooue, that the Pope is not Antichrist, is drawne from the person of Antichrist, namelie, that Antichrist is one certaine man, wheras the Popes hauehave beene many. His reason is thus framed: Antichrist is but one singuler person.

The Pope (meaning the order or succession of Popes) is not one singuler person.

Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist.

To the proposition I answere, that as the Pope is one, so is Antichrist. The Pope is one person not in number and nature, as one certaine and singuler man, but one at once by lawe and institution, though successiuely so many as hauehave enjoyed the Papacie. For euen as the Papists when they say, that the Pope hath beene the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ these 1500. yeares, doe not meane See lib. 1. cap. 1. …. 4.any one Pope, but the order and succession: so we when we say, that the Pope hath beene Antichrist almost these thousand yeeres, wee meane not any one Pope onelyonly, but the whole rowe or rabble of them since the yeere 607. And thus Antichrist, that is, the head of the Antichristian body, which was reuealed after the taking away of the Romane Empire, & is to continue after a sort, vntill the end of the world, is one person: one I say at once ordinarily, but continued in a succession of many. The proposition thus denied by vsus, Bellarmine laboureth to confirme by authoritie of the Scriptures, and testimonies of the Fathers. Out of the Scriptures he produceth fiue testimonies. The first out of the Gospell of Iohn, chapter 5. verse 43. I am Iohn. 5. 43.John 5:43come in my Fathers name, and you receiue mee not: if another shall come in his owne name, him will you receiue…. In which wordes Bellarmine vnderstandeth Christ to speake of Antichrist, as of p. 8one singuler person: And that he would prooue by testimonies of the Fathers, and foure reasons. But Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists, which make this collection out of this place, either ignorantly mistake, or wilfully depraue this text. For first, whereas our Sauiour Christ speaketh indefinitely, of any false teacher which should come vntounto them in his owne name, that is, not sent of God, they expound him, as if he had spoken definitely of one singuler Antichrist. Secondly, whereas Christ speaketh not onelyonly indefinitely, but also conditionally, If another come, they expound him, as if in a simple and proper axiome or proposition he had prophecied of the comming of Antichrist: as if he had said, that other counterfeit Messias, that is to say, that singuler Antichrist, sha'l come in his owne name, and him you will receiue. And thirdly, whereas Christ speaketh of those Iewes to whom he speaketh, they vnderstand him to speake of those which shalbe in the end of the world. But let vsus consider his proofes. The Fathers, saith he, doe testifie that these words are spoken, de vno Antichristo, of one Antichrist. First I answer, that although diuers of the Fathers expound these words of Antichrist, yet none of them hath that word Vno, one: and therefore the Iesuites collection is absurde. The Fathers vnderstand this place of Antichrist, therefore Antichrist is one singuler person. For the Fathers also vnderstand that place Mat. 24. 24. of Antichrist, where our Sauiour Christ speaketh in the plurall number, of false Christs, and false Prophets which should arise; and confer that place with this. And therefore they may seeme to vnderstand this speech of our Sauiour, as if he had said: If another come Mat. 24. 5. 24.Matt 24:5Matt 24:24in his owne name (as many indeed shall come) such will you receiue. And sure it is, that the Iewes hauehave receiued more then one of such as hauehave come in their owne name. And secondly I answer, that the Fathers had no reason to restraine these words vntounto Antichrist alone, as though Christ had prophecied of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist for their Messias, seeing his speech is neither simple nor definite, but conditionall and indefinite. Whereby our Sauiour Christ would shew the vntoward disposition of the Iewes, who as they rejected him who was sent of God, so they would be ready to receiue any other that should come in his owne name, not sent of God. And so Nonnus in his Paraphrase vponupon this place, expoundeth these words. Ei foreign, &c. But if any other come, &c. And lastly, if these answers p. 9will not suffice, let the aduersary conclude his argument drawne from the authoritie of the fathers in a Syllogisme, and when he hath so done, let him prooue the proposition, which must be this: whatsoeuer those fathers write concerning Antichrist is true: and then the assumptiō, which is to this effect, but this those fathers write that Christ speaketh those words, de vno Antichristo, of one singuler Antichrist, & then (which will neuer be) I will yeeld to the conclusion.

2. But omitting his testimonies, let vsus come to those arguments which he draweth out of the text, to proue that Christ in these words speaketh of one singuler Antichrist. First saith he, Christ opposeth vntounto himselfe another man, that is, person to person, as appeareth by these words, I, another, &c. His reason is thus to be framed, where these two words, I, and another, are opposed one to the other, we are to vnderstand that as I signifieth one singuler person, so also another: but in this place, I, and another are opposed: therfore &c. I answere, where the other is taken definitely for that other, as foreign, is vsed Iohn 18. 16. and 20. 2. 3. 4. there the proposition may be true. But where it is vsed indefinitely, as foreign, another, in this place, it is most false: for in such speeches, to a certaine and definite person, is opposed an indefinite and vncertaine. As for example Iob. 31. 8. What I sow…, let another reape, meaning any other. 1 Cor. 3. 10. I hauehave laide the foundation & another buildeth thereon, but let eueryevery one take heed how he buildeth thereon. Such examples are ordinary. As if I shoud say, this argument I call a childish reason, another would call it a dotage, and so I let it passe. His second reason is this: Whom the Iewes shall receiue for their Messias, he is but one particular man: Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, as Christ here saith: therefore Antichrist is but one singuler man. Answer. Christ dooth not here foretell that Antichrist shalbe receiued of the Iewes for their Mesias. For first, his speech is conditional, therefore not a prophecie. Neither doth he foretel what they were to do, but sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe, if any false teacher should obtrude himselfe vntounto them. Secondly, it is indefinite, and therfore not to be restrained to a certaine person. Thirdly, he doth not say, that they shall receiue another for their Messias cōming in his owne name, but onelyonly that they shall receiue him. Fourthly, those Iewes to whom & of whom our Sauior speaketh, were not to be aliue p. 10at the comming of the great Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Papists themselues, therefore our Sauiour speaketh not of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist, & much lesse of Antichrist as one particular person. Thirdly (saith he) all false prophets come in the name of another, not in their owne name. But Christ here speaketh of one that should come in his owne name, therefore he speaketh not of false prophets. He might as well hauehave concluded against the Scriptures, that Antichrist is not a false prophet. For false prophets, saith Bellarmine, come not in their owne name, Antichrist commeth in his owne name: therefore if Bellarmines argument be good, Antichrist is not a false Prophet. But I answere, that Antichrist and all other false Prophets may be said to come both in their owne name, and also in the name of God. In their owne name because they are not sent of God, in which sense our Sauiour Christ here speaketh, I am come, saith he, in my fathers name, sent from the bosome of my father who hath sealed and sent me to this worke of mediation, and you receiue me not: If another shall come in his owne name, not sent from God, or as Lyra expoundeth those words, in nomine suo, in his owne name, that is, not hauing the aforesaid testimonies from God, whereby to warrant his calling from him, such will you receiue. They are said also to come in the name of God and of Christ, because they pretend (although falsely) a calling and commission from God. Ierem. 14. 14. 15. Mat. 24. 5. For whereas Bellarmine expoundeth these words thus, in his owne name, that is, shall not acknowledge any God, but aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God, and assigneth such a comming to the expected Messias of the Iewes, it is absurde. For the Iewes expect a Messias to be sent them from God. And therefore if any shall take vponupon him to be their Messias, and be receiued of them, he will without doubt professe himselfe to be sent of God. And such a one may be said to come in his owne name, because he is not sent of God, and in Gods name, because he pretendeth a calling and commission from him. Fourthly (saith he) if Christ had spoken of false Prophets, whereof many were to come, he would not hauehave said, if another come, but many come: but the second is false, therefore the first. I answere, if Christ had spoken simply and definitely, one other shall come, there had beene some shew of reason in the argumentation of the aduersary. But seeing he doth not so p. 11speake as Bellarmine dreameth; but conditionally and indefinitely, if another shall come, there is not so much as any shew of reason in this argument.

3. The second place which Bellarmine produceth, is 2. Thes. 2. 3. 8. Where the Apostle intreating of Antichrist, speaketh of one certaine and particular person, as appeareth by the Greeke article, foreign, the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw. His reason is thus to be framed: VntoUnto whatsoeuer the Greeke article is prefixed, it is signified to be one certaine and singuler thing or person: vntounto the Antichrist that man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw, the Greeke article is profixed: therefore the Antichrist is but one certaine and singuler person. The proposition he prooueth by the authority of Epiphanius, who saith that the Greeke articles restraine the signification to one certaine thing, so Haeresi 9. q… est S maritanrum.that foreign signifieth man in general, but foreign one singuler man. And therefore Bellarmine maruelleth greatly that none of vsus who would seeme to hauehave skill in the tongues hath obserued so much. But it were more to bee maruelled that Bellarmine should in this waighty cause affirme that which he knoweth to be false, but that he hath Epiphanius vpō whom to the father this vntruth; and yet Epiphanius doth not say that the addition of the article doth alwaies restraine the signification to one certaine and singuler thing, but that it signifieth foreign, the discretiō or difference of the name. Howbeit that is not perpetual: For many times the article is added for ornament only and fulnesse of speech, when as in respect of the sense foreign, it is redundant or superstuous. And here of there be more examples then there be leaues euen in the new testament. And therefore both in the same and like sentences the article sometimes is vsed, sometimes omitted without any alteration of the sense. As Lu. 4. 4. foreign. But in Mathew 4. 4. where the same speech is recorded, foreign. And againe where the article is vsed for difference sake, it doth not alwayes point out one certaine and singuler thing, but onelyonly when it is vsed foreign, for a demonstratiue particle, as Iohn 1. 29. foreign, beholde the Lambe of God. Iohn, 4. 29. foreign; is not this that Christ? For more vsually it is vsed foreign, that is, for difference, when p. 12as it serueth not to signifie one speciall, but to distinguish the whole kinde. In which sense foreign, is all one, as Philosophers say. As Marke 2. 27. the Sabboth was made foreign, for the man, not the man for the Sabboth. Iohn. 2, 25. he needed not that any should beare witnesse foreign, of the man (meaning any man) for himselfe knew what was, foreign, in the man. So Num. 19. 11. (which is the law that Epiphanius misalledgeth) foreign: he that toucheth (that is, whosoeuer toucheth) the dead body (that is, any dead body) of any man, he shalbe vncleane seuen dayes. Whereas Epiphanius therefore alledgeth it thus, foreign: If any man touch the dead, he remaineth vncleane vntill the euening, and he shall be washed with water, and shall be clensed: and from the force of the article (which is not in the text as he alledgeth it, if there be not a fault in the print) prooueth that by the dead is to be meant not any dead man, but onelyonly Christ: it is euident that his memory failed him. For the law which pronounceth a man vncleane vntill the euening for touching a dead body, is vnderstood of the dead bodies of beasts: but that which speaketh of the Leuit. 11.Lev 11dead body of a man, pronounceth him vncleane seuen dayes, and is (as euen now you heard) vnderstood of the dead body of any man whatsoeuer. And the reason of this law is, first because a dead man is a spectacle both of our sinne, and of Gods curse for the same: and secondly, because the Lord would by the detestation of the bodily death teach the Israelites to abhorre the spirituall death of the soule in sinne. And there fore Epiphanius not vnworthily reprooueth the hypocrisie of the Samaritans, who vnderunder pretence of this law, abhorred the dead bodies of men, when as themselues were dead in sinne. So when we say, the Pope, the Emperour, the king, the priest, the minister, the eye, the hand, we meane not one particular, but the whole kinde, as 1. Pet. 2. 17. foreign, honour the king, not this king onelyonly, but any whosoeuer is king. 1. Tim. 3. 2. foreign, it behoou…th therefore the Bishop (not this or that Bishop, but eueryevery one that hath that calling) to be without reproofe. Mat. 6. 22. foreign. The light of the body is the eye. See 1. Cor. 12. 15. 16. Mat. 12. 34. &c. So when we say, the good man or the wicked man, we meane either generally al, or indefinitely p. 13any that be such, Mat. 1…. 35. foreign &c. The good man out of the good treasure of the hart, bringeth forth the goodthings; and the euill man, &c.

4. Sometimes againe the article is vsed foreign, to signifie that which is most notable in that kinde, and therefore most worthily (or as we say foreign) deserueth that name. And of this vse is Epiphanius his rule to be vnderstood, foreign, Where the article is added vntounto some definite and notable thing, there is alwayes confirmation by the article, namely, that the word is not to be vnderstood indefinitly or indifferently of any: foreign, but without the article it is to be takē of any one indefinitely. Which latter part of the rule, if it be true, prooueth that the speech of our Sauiour, Iohn. 5. foreign, if any other come is indefinit. But neither doth the article vsed foreign, alwayes point out a certaine and singuler thing, though sometimes it doe. As foreign in a Christians mouth signifieth the true God onelyonly, as Epiphanius saith. So when we say, the Apostle meaning Paul, the Poet meaning among the Greekes Homer, among the Latines Virgil; the Oratour, Demosthenes or Tullie; the wiseman, Salomon. But when we say, foreign (which is another of Epiphanius his examples) and meane therby not indifferently any king but by an Emphasis that Prince to whom we are subiect, we doe not alwayes nor for the most part vnderstand one certaine king, but all or any to whom the soueraignty of our conutrey doth appertaine, whether he be king or Queene. As when we say, the king supreme gouernour of the church, no time prescribeth against the king, the kings high-way, the Princes lawes, &c. In like manner whē we say, foreign (which is Epiphanius his third example) or as the Apostle more distinctly speaketh, foreign, the man of God: For although by this Emphasis not any man is meant but the minister of 2. Tim. 3. 17.2 Tim 3:17God, yet it signifieth not one certaine minister, but any one of that function called thereunto of God. And in this sense is the Pope called the Antichrist: & the Antichrist in the same sense is called the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw. But this prooueth not, that therefore the Antichrist is but one certaine and singuler man. For euen as the diuel, foreign, the vncleane spirit, although there p. 14Luk. 11. 24Luke 11:24be many wicked ones is called, foreign, the euill, and yet there be many diuels, and as the Bishop of Rome since the ti me of Boniface the third, is called the Pope (whereas before, the name Pope was attributed to other Bishops) and yet there hauehave beene many Popes: so although al heretickes deserue to be called Antichrists; al profane men, men of sinne; all reprobates, sonnes of perdition; all sonnes of Belial, 1. Ioh. 2. 181 John 2:18foreign, or outlawes: yet not withstanding the Pope of Rome since the time of Boniface the third, deserueth to be called foreign the Antichrist, the man of sinne, the sonne of perdition, the outlaw. Which as it doth not prooue that the Pope signifieth but one singuler person, so See Lib. 1. c. 6.neither doth it euince that the Antichrist signifieth one certaine man. For looke what they can say, of the Antichrist in this case; the same may be said of the Pope.

5. The third place is like to the second, and therefore a short answer may serue. 1. Iohn 2. 18. foreign, You hauehave heard that the Antichrist commeth, and euen now there are many Antichrists: where the article is prefixed before Antichrist so properly called; but the name of Antichrist generally taken is vttered without an article, which most plainely sheweth that Antichrist properly taken is but one man, but generally taken it signifieth all heretickes. As if he had said, foreign, signifieth but one certaine man, because the article is prefixed.

The Antichrist so properly called is foreign, therefore the Antichrist so properly called, is but one certaine man.

The prosyllogisme or proofe of the proposition I hauehave already prooued to be most false, when as I shewed that whereas there are foure vses of the article at the least, Bellarmines obseruation holdeth onelyonly in one, and that the least vsuall: namely, when the article is vsed foreign, that is, for a demonstratiue particle. And that the article added to a word doth not alwaies signifie one certaine and singuler thing, I will shew by some other examples, which will sit neerer the Papists. In 2. Thes. 2. 7. foreign, he that hindreth, is expounded by the fathers, and acknowledged by the Papists, to signifie the Emperour 2. Thes. 2. 72 Thess 2:7of Rome, not any one particular, but the state and succession of Emperours. Againe Mat. 16. 18. where there is not onelyonly the article, but also the pronounce demonstratiue, foreign, vponupon this rocke, the Papists would hauehave vnderstood by that rocke, which P… ter p. 15confessed, which is Christ, or faith in him; not onelyonly Peter himselfe, but also (although most falsely) the whole succession of Popes. And therefore by their owne doctrine, the article doth not alwayes, no not when it is ioyned with a demonstratiue particle, signifie one certaine and particular thing or person. Thirdly, in the place before alledged, foreign, the man of sinne, the son of perdition, is vnderstood by some to signifie not onelyonly the head of the Antichristiā 2. Thes. 2. 32 Thess 2:3body, but the whole multitude of those who ioyne with Antichrist. Augustine reciteth this opinion, and is so farre from misliking it, that Bellarmine alledgeth it as Augustines. Neither are we to thinke this interpretation to be dissonant from the manner of speech vsed in the Scriptures: seeing foreign, the woman, Apoc. 12. 6. signifieth the Church of Christ; and foreign, the harlot, and foreign, the woman Apoc. 17. 1. 18. the city & Church of Antichrist. And that I may come to the proposition it selfe, and omit other examples, foreign, sometimes signifieth the Antichristian body or company of Antichristian heretikes.

6. For better proofe whereof let vsus consider the acceptation of the word: foreign, the Antichrist in the place alledged, and elsewhere 1. Ioh. 2. 181 John 2:18in the Epistles of Iohn, in which onelyonly it is vsed, and not elsewhere in the scriptures. In the place which Bellarmine citeth, th'apostle seemeth to reason thus. When the Antichrist is come, it is the last houre. Now Antichrists are come; therefore now is the last houre. 1. Ioh. 2. 281 John 2:28Where either the Antichrist and Antichrists signifie the same, or else there be foure termes in the Apostles argument, which Bellarmine dareth not auouch: And afterwards v. 22. he plainly sheweth, that eueryevery one that denieth Iesus to be the Christ (as many Antichrists 1. Ioh. 4. 3. 41 John 4:31 John 4:4or heretickes did, of which he spake verse 18.) is foreign, the Antichrist. In the same Epistle Chapter. 4. he biddeth them try the spirits, that is, their teachers, because many false prophets were come into the world, and giueth them this note whereby to try them: EueryEvery spirit (saith he) which confesseth Iesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is of God, and eueryevery spirit which doth not confesse that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was to come, and euen now 2. Iohn. 7.2 John 1:7already is in the world. Likewise in the second Epistle: Many dec…iuers are come into the world which d… not confesse that Iesus p. 16Christ is come in the flesh, this is the deceiuer and the Antichrist. By which testimonies it is euident, that foreign, doth not only signifie the head of the Antichristian body (which is not one singuler man, but is continued in a succession of many) but also sometimes any hereticke that oppugneth the natures or offices of Christ: and sometimes the whole body or company of heretickes opposed vntounto Christ. For Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. 22.1 John 2:22plainely affirmeth that those many heretickes and deceiuers of his time, are the Antichrist. And whereas Paul prophecieth of Antichrist that he should come into the world, and should be destroyed at the second comming of Christ, Iohn affirmeth that Antichrist, of whom they had heard that he should come, was then already come into the world. From which places I argue thus. If foreign the Antichrist in the Epistles of Iohn, and foreign, the man of sinne, foreign, the outlaw, in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians doe signifie one certaine and singuler man, as the Papists affirme; then it will follow necessarily, that one and the same man, who was come into the world in Saint Iohns time, shall be in the world at the second comming of Christ: for Iohn saith, that the Antichrist was come in his time, and Paul saith that the out-law shall be consumed with the spirit of Christs mouth, and destroyed at his glorious appearing. But the latter is incredible, for since the time of Saint Iohn there are already 1500. yeeres expired, and therefore the former (which is the assertion of the Papists) is absurde. foreign therefore signifieth sometimes the whole body of Heretickes from the ascension of Christ, vntill his second comming: sometimes any heretickes which are lims of that body: somtimes the graund antichrist, who is the head of that body, & is called foreign the Antichrist. Wherfore in respect of those heretickes and lims of Antichrist in the Apostles times; Antichrist is then said to hauehave entred, and as it were, to hauehave set his foote into the world. And accordingly the Apostle Paul saith, 2. Thes. 2. 72 Thess 2:7that euen in his time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme was working (namely by those which belonged to the body of Antichrist) although couertly and vnderhand, vntill the head of that body was reuealed as he was, after the Empire in the West was dissolued, and the Emperour which hindred was done out of the way; according to the prophecie of the Apostle, 2. Thessalonians. 2. 7, 8. And thus you see what a slender argument this p. 17is taken from the article, although it be vsed as one of the principall demonstrations generally of all the Papists, that write of this argument, but more especially of Bellarmine, who thinking it too good to goe for one argument, hath deuided it into two.

7 His fourth testimonie is taken out of Daniel, chap. 7. 11. & 12. Where Antichrist is called a King, and not a Kingdome, who of the ten Kings which he shall finde in the worlde, shall take away three, and shall make the other seauen subject to himselfe. But I answer, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all, but of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore this allegation is impertinent. For the learned of our times hauehave made it euident, that the foure kingdomes whereof Daniel speaketh, were ended before the incarnation of Christ: and that the fourth kingdome which many hauehave taken to be the monarchie of the Romanes, was the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt, so farre forth as the people of Iewrie was subject thereunto, and is therefore described as the most terrible of all the foure, because it was most trouble some to the Iewes. And that the ten hornes were ten Kings of Syria and Egypt, which successiuely tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes; Antiochus Epiphanes being the tenth and the last of those Kings which tyrannized ouer Iewrie. But because in outragious cruelty and cursed hostility, not onelyonly against the people, but also against the religion of the Iewes, he surpassed all that went before him; of him therefore Daniel speaketh so plainely and distinctly, that he hath seemed to some rather to write an Historie of him, then a Prophesie; as shall hereafter more fully be shewed, when as Chap. 16.we shall also manifestly declare that this which Bellarmine addeth concerning Antichrists killing of three Kings, and subduing of the other seauen, is but a dreame, which is indeed so farre from all probability of truth, as that it cannot be verified of that party whom Daniel describeth. Daniel describeth him as the tenth: Bellarmine maketh him the eleuenth, as if it were a beast of eleuen hornes. Daniel speaketh of ten Kings, which successiuely ruled ouer the Iewes: Bellarmine maketh him speake of ten, who together with the eleuenth, should be at one time in the world. Of those ten Daniel saith, that three were pluckt vp before the tēth, & as it may seeme by his means, but of the other sixe, either all or the most were dead before he was borne: Bellarmine maketh him to kill three and subdue the other p. 18seauen, which indeed liued not in his time, as shall be shewed hereafter out of the eleuenth of Daniel, where the succession of these ten Kings, and the affaires of the tenth, who can be no other but Antiochus Epiphanes, are particularly and fully described. This argument drawne from the misconstruing of Daniel, Bellarmine although he knew it to be nothing worth, yet he was content to make a flourish with it, because he had some of the Fathers to father it vponupon. Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose, and saith, that Caluin, as some of the Fathers before him, to wit, Cyprian and Ierome, affirmeth, and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where, that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a type of Antichrist. Therefore leauing his former hold, he reasoneth thus: Such as is the type or figure, such is the thing figured: Antiochus the type was but one singular person, therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one. The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onelyonly in those things, in respect whereof the type is a figure, and not generally in all things. As for example, the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ, but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest, because Christ is one. The Papists holde that Melchisedec, who was but one, was a type of their Masse Priests, which are many. Iosuah, Dakid and Salomon, were types of Christ, but therefore not like vntounto him in all things. So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to hauehave beene a type of Antichrist; because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God: so he in falshood deceit, pride, idolatry, cruelty, and persecuting of the Church of God, resembled Antichrist the man of sinne, which is an enemie, and is listed vp about all that is called God, or that is worshipped. In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist, that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. & 11. to the Pope of Rome. If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally, it is false: if particularly, the whole argumentation is a fallacion.

8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. & 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist, as Irenaeus teacheth, and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn, &c. His reason is thus framed, If Daniel spake of one King, then also Iohn: but the former is true, therefore the later. The proposition, wherin there is indeed no coherence, p. 19he prooueth by the similitude of their words: First, because both make mention of ten Kings, which shalbe in the earth when Antichrist shall come. It is true that both make mention of ten hornes, but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse. Antiochus in Daniel, by whom Bellarmine would hauehave vsus to vnderstand Antichrist, is the last of the ten, & not one besides the ten; otherwise the fourth beast, were a beast of eleuē hornes: Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation, and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth. Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man, but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne, but the beast, whereby not one man, but a state is signified. The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another, in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes, before the cōming of the Messias: the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes, which receiue their kingdome together, not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire: So that in truth nothing is here alike, saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes. Secondly saith Bellarmine, both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe. But I answer, that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist. For first Daniel assigneth a time, and times, and parcell of time, that is, three yeers and ten daies, to the persecution vnderunder Antiochus, wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted, viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See. Chap. 16.1. Mac. 1. 57. vntounto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter. Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers & an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist: but to the beast with seuē heads & ten hornes, which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vntounto Christ, or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head, that is, the emperors, he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5.Rev 11:2Rev 11:7Rev 13:1months, which are not literally to be vnderstood. Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads, but one head of the seuē, & is described vnderunder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse, which in plaine terms is called another beast. For how can he be that beast, if he be another? Apoc. 13. 11.Rev 13:11And of this also, I shal hauehave better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter. Lastly, he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge; but neither do these fathers expresly say, that Antichrist shalbe See. Chap. 8.but one man: neither if they did, can any sound argument be drawne p. 20from their testimonies, vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue, that whatsoeuer these fathers hauehave written concerning Antichrist, is true. And againe diuers of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostome, Ierome, Ruffinus, Primasius, Augustine, expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one, as spoken of Antichrist, they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one. Yea but the Fathers say, that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell, that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily, euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally. But although this allegation were true (as I will not thereof dispute,) yet is it impertinent: for the Pope (meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes) may be a notable instrument of the diuell, &c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope: As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8.halfe, we are hereafter to intreate.

9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man, but a whole state and succession of men, it may appeare by these arguments. First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn; for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn. 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 181 John 4:32 John 1:71 John 2:18saith, that foreign, the Antichrist, of whom they had hard that he should come, was in his time. And of whom had they heard it, but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith, that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie, that is, Antichristianisme was working: noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come, although he were not reuealed, vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way. Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie, that the Antichrist was in their time; so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vntounto the second comming of Christ, 2. Thes. 2. 8. for although he should be wasted and consumed before by the spirit of Christs mouth (that is, the ministery of the word) yet he should not be vtterly destroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. From hence therefore we reason thus: If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and was to remaine vntill the second comming of Christ; then Antichrist is not one singuler man, but a succession of men; vnlesse they will say, that one and the same man may liue vponupon the earth from the Apostles time vntill the comming of Christ, of which time there be already aboue 1500. yeares expired. But Antichrist was in the Apostles times, and is to continue vntill the second comming of p. 21Christ, as the two Apostles Paul and Iohn do plainely testifie, therefore Antichrist is not one singuler man.

10. Of this syllogisme Bellarmine cannot deny either the proposition, or the assumption. OnelyOnly he distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption: viz. That Antichrist in the Apostles time was come indeede, but not in his owne person, but onelyonly in his forerunners. And this he would prooue; first, by a similitude, which he might hauehave knowne from Plato to be a most slippery argument. As foreign.Christ came in the beginning of the world not in his owne person, but in his forerunners the Patriarches and Prophets; so Antichrist came in the Apostles time not in his owne person, but in his forerunners, the heretickes & persecutors of the church. In which similitude there is no proportiō, vnlesse that which is in question betaken for granted, namely that Antichrist is but one particular person, as Christ is. For if Antichrist be a succession of heretiques, then might he be said to come in the first of the ranke; although the chiefe of that order, which principally is called Antichrist, was not yet come. And secondly, the protasis or propositiō of this similitude is vntrue. For although Christ might be said to be come from the beginning in respect both of the truth of the promise, and also of the efficacy of his merits, which is extended to all the faithfull from the beginning: yet we neuer reade, neither can it truely be said that he came in the Patriarches and Prophets: especially seeing the holy Ghost maketh a kinde of opposition betwixt Heb. 1. 1. Mat. 21. 37 Gal. 4. 4.Heb 1:1Matt 21:37Gal 4:4Gods sending of them, and the comming of Christ, who was not sent before the fulnesse of time came. Neither are the Prophets or Patriarches any where called the forerunners of Christ: For forerunners goe a little before, as Iohn Baptist did, who therefore is worthily called foreign, the forerunner. If any man obiect that as Christ 1. Pet. 3. 191 Pet 3:19spake in the Prophets; so Antichrist in the heretiques: I answer, that this latter is true not of Antichrist, but of the diuell, who is a lying spirit in the mouthes of all false Prophets. Thirdly, the reddition is contradictory to that which the Apostle Iohn deliuereth. For he saith plainely that the Antichrist with the article prefiexed, and that Antichrist whom they heard was to come, was already entred into the world, 1. Iohn. 4. 3. 2. Iohn. 7. and thence prooueth that therefore it is the last houre, because Antichrist was to come in the last houre, 1. Iohn. 2. 18. So that in this similitude nothing is sound, no proportion p. 22in the whole, no truth in the parts.

11. Wherefore by a new supply of arguments, he laboureth to make good this exposition. And as touching the place in Paul, he argueth first from the authority of the fathers & interpreters, wherof some vnderstand by the mystery of iniquitie, the persecution vnderunder Nero: others the heretiques of those times which secretly seduced many. The former had no reason to call the open persecution of Nero a mysterie: who also although he were an enimy, yet belonged not to the body of Antichrist, who is a disguised enimy and a pretended Christian. The latter exposition we doe embrace. For we holde Antichrist to be the whole body of heretiques in the last age of the world, who vnderunder the name and profession of Christ aduance themselues against Christ, first secretly, as in the Apostles times; afterwardes more openly, when that which hindred, was taken out of the way. Of this body as eueryevery member seuerally and all ioyntly is Antichrist (and therefore Iohn calleth the heretiques of his time Antichrists, and of them all saith that they are the Antichrist:) so especially the head of this body, which we hauehave prooued to be the Papacy, is foreign called Antichrist. Wherefore although Antichrist was after a sort come, and the mysterie of iniquity wrought in the Apostles time, yet Antichrist was not reuealed vntill the head of this body appeared, that is, vntill the Pope became Antichrist, who since the yeare of the Lord 606. hath shewed himselfe in his colours; first by vsurping supreame authority ouer the vniuersall Church, & afterwards by claiming soueraignty ouer kings and Emperors, as we hauehave heretofore shewed Seeing therfore the heretiques of whom the fathers speake, did belong to the body of Antichrist, it cannot be denied but that Antichrist, when they were in the world, was come in some of his members, and had as it were set his foote into the Church.

12. Secondly from our owne confession he would seeme to driue vsus to great absurdity. For (saith he) if Antichrist were come in the Apostles times, and if Antichrist hath his seat in Rome, then it will follow that Peter & Paul were the true Antichrists, & Nero or Simon Magus the true Christ. For there were no other Bishops of Rome then, but Peter and Paul, with whom Nero and Simon Magus contended. I answere, that it cannot be prooued out of the Scripture, or by any sound argument that Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome: and p. 23although they were, it would not follow vponupon our assertion, that therefore they were Antichrists, and much lesse that Nero or Simon Magus was Christ. For when we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time, we speake of the body of Antichrist with S. Iohn. Whō we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome, we speake of the head of this body, who especially is called Antichrist: whom we do with Paul acknowledge not to hauehave beene reuealed, vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way, that is, vntill the Romane Empire in the West was dissolued: but afterwards by degrees he was aduanced in the Papacie, aboue all that is called God; sitting in the temple of God, as if he were God, that is, ruling and raigning in the Church, as if he were a God vponupon earth. And surely if the head of the Antichristian body was to be reuealed not long after the dissolution of the Romane Empire in the West, and was about the same time with the rulers of the Prouinces, to attaine vntounto his kingdome, as hath bin shewed; and lastly, if he shall continue in the world after he is reuealed, vntill the second comming of Christ: then it followeth necessarily that euen this head of the Antichristian body, cannot be any one singular man, but is continued by a succession of many from the time of his reuelation, vntill the end of the world: of which time there is almost a thousand yeares expired. But both in this argument, and in the former, Bellarmine sophistically beggeth the question. For in his arguments there is no consequence, vnlesse this be taken for granted, that Antichrist is but one man. Antichrist came in the Heretiques in the Apostles time, therfore he came not in his owne person. A good argument, if Antichrist were but one man, which is the question. If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and if Antichrist must sit at Rome, then he that was then Bishop of Rome, was Antichrist; a good argument if Antichrist were but one man, which is the question.

13. Now whereas S. Iohn saith, that Antichrist in his time was come, Bellarmine faineth him to speake of Antichrist, as he saith, Our Sauiour spake of Elias Mat. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come (namely in his own person) but I say vntounto you, Elias is already come in suo simili, in his like, that is, Iohn Baptist. So S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist, that he was indeed to come in his owne person, but now he was come in his type. You see to what silly shifts this worthy chāpion of the Pope is driuen. p. 24For first he fathereth vponupon Christ that Iewish fable, which with the Iewes the Papists holde against Christ himselfe. For whereas Malachie had prophecied of the comming of Elias before the day of the Malac. 4. 5Mal 4:5Lord, meaning the first comming of Christ: our Sauiour Christ plainlie anoucheth Mat. 11. 14. that Iohn Baptist was that Elias, who according to the Prophecie of Malachie was to come. Now Iohn Baptist was called Elias, because he came in the spirit and power of Elias, to turne the hearts of the fathers, &c. as the Angell also applyeth that prophesie, Luk. 1. 17. But suppose that Christ had spoken of Elias Malac. 4. 6.Mal 4:6according to Bellarmines conceit; yet how dooth it follow that Luke. 1. 17.Luke 1:17therefore Iohn speaketh of Antichrist after the same manner? No more then it followeth, that Dauid should long after his death be sent againe to gouerne the people of God: because it was prophesied by Ezechiel, that the Lord would raise vp a Pastor for his people, euen Dauid his seruant, &c. But as by the name of Dauid in Ezechiel Eze. 34. 23 24. & 37. 35.Ezek 34:23is meant not Dauid himselfe, but Christ of whom Dauid was a type: so by the name of Elias in Malachie, is not meant Elias himselfe, Iere. 30. 9.Jer 30:9but Iohn Baptist, who resembled Elias in spirit and power in reforming the Church of God.

14. Our second argument is this: That which in the Prophecies of the Scriptures, especially in the 7. and 11. of Daniel, and in Apoc. the 13. and 17. is described vnderunder the name and figure of a beast, is not one singuler thing or person, but a whole state or succession: Antichrist is described in the Apocatypse 13. vnderunder the name and figure of a Beast, therfore Antichrist is not one singuler person, but a whole state and succession. The proposition is prooued by induction of particular examples. As in the 7. of Daniel, by the Lion is figured the Kingdome of the Assyrians and Babylonians: by the Beare the Medes and Persians: by the Leopard the Greekes and Macedonians: by the beast with ten hornes the Seleucidae and Lagidae, and so Chapt. 8. In the 13. of the Apocalypse, there are two Beasts described, the former signifying the state of the Romane Emperours: the second signifying the state of Antichrist. Bellarmine answereth, that Daniel as sometimes by the beasts he signifieth whole kingdomes; so sometimes also particular persons. As in the eight Chapter, by the Ramme …he vnderstandeth Darius the last King of the Persians: by the Goate, Alexander the great. In which answer p. 25the vpright dealing of Bellarmine with the Scriptures appeareth. For in the 20. verse of the 8. Chapter, where that vision is expounded, Dan. 8. 20.Dan 8:20the Angels words are these: The Ramme which thou sawest, hauing two hornes are foreign the Kings of the Medes and Persians. And the Goate is the King of Iauan or Grecia (meaning as before the Kings or Kingly estate, as appeareth plainly by the words that follow, and not as Bellarmine saith, Alexander) and the great horne betweene his eyes is the first King, namely Alexander, which being broken, foure other stand vp in the steed thereof. As Daniel therefore by seuerall beasts Dan. 8. 22.Dan 8:22meaneth not so many particular men, but whole states and orders of men; and as Iohn in the 13. of the Apocalyps, by the former beasts meaneth not any one Emperour, but the whole state and succession of Emperours at the least: so the holy Ghost in the same Chapter by the second beast describing Antichrist, meaneth not any one particular Apo. 13. 11person, but the whole state and succession of Antichristian Popes, to whom (as heretofore hath beene shewed) that description wholy agreeth. And whereas Bellarmine addeth, that Paul when he entreateth of Antichrist, speaketh not of any one of the foure beasts in Daniel, but of the little horne mentioned in the 7. of Daniel, vers. 8 I answer, that the Apostle speaketh neither of the one nor of the other; and therefore the former part of Bellarmines speech is vaine, for no man saith so; and the latter is false. For the little horne is not Antichrist, but Antiochus Epiphanes, who liued aboue 200. yeares before the incarnation of Christ: who although he were but one man, might not vnsitly be called a type of Antichrist, who is a state or succession of men.

15. Our third argument is taken from that Apostasie, which the Apostle foretelleth 2. Thes. 2. For where he speaketh of a defection (whereof Antichrist is the head) without addition, we vnderstand a 2. Thes. 2. 3.2 Thess 2:3generall defection of the visible Church, which as it began to worke in the Apostles time; so was it to increase vntill the reuelation of Antichrist, and to continue more or lesse vntill his destruction. This Apostasie because it cannot be the worke of one man, or of a fewe 2. Thes. 2. 7.2 Thess 2:7yeares, euidently prooueth that Antichrist is not one singuler man, but rather a state and succession of men. To this Bellarmine for want of one good answer, maketh many. First (saith he) by that Apostasie wee may very well (nay he saith rectissimè) vnderstand p. 26Antichrist himselfe, as diuers of the fathers teach; and what will he inferre thereupon? that therefore Antichrist is but one man? Nay rather, the contrary is to be inferred. For if Apostasie be put by a metonymy of the adiunct for the subiect, or rather of the effect for the cause, that is, for the parties which doe reuolt: then it followeth, that Antichrist (who according to this interpretatiō is signified by Apostasie) doth not signifie one man, but the whole body and company of those that doe reuolt, that is, the whole body and kingdome of Antichrist, which we hauehave prooued to be the Apostaticall Church of Rome. And so Augustine whom Bellarmine alledgeth in the very same place which he citeth, reading in the concrete, nisi venerit refuga primum, vnlesse the Apostate first come, and expounding what is meant by De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19.the temple, not the temple at Ierusalem, but rather the Church of God, because the Apostle would not call the temple of the diuell, the temple of God, propoundeth the opinion of some which hee doth not mislike, Vnde nonnulli non ipsum principem, &c. Whereupon some vnderstand in this place not the Prince himselfe, but his whole body as it were, that is, the company of men pertaining vntounto him together with their Prince, to be Antichrist: and they thinke that it might more rightly be said in Latine as it is in the Greeke, that he sitteth (non in templo dei, sed in templum dei) not in the Temple of God, but as the Temple of God, as though he were the Temple of God which is the Church. Which as hath beene shewed, notably sitteth the Pope and Church of Rome. And here we are by the way to note, whereas Bellarmine saith that Antichrist shall be such a notable Apostate, as that he may be called the Apostasie it selfe, that seeing none can be an Apostate which hath not beene a Christian: by this assertion therefore of Bellarmine, Antichrist shall not be a Iew, but a backslyding and reuolted Christian.

16. Secondly (he saith) by Apostasie we may vnderstand a reuolt from the Romane Empire, as many of the Latin fathers doe expound. To omit the dissension of the fathers, which prooueth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures, we doe confesse that before the manifest reuelation of Antichrist, there was to go, no… onelyonly a defection from the faith, but also a reuolt from the Romane Empire. But as the reuolting from earthly kingdomes is neuer in the Scriptures termed Apostasie: so is it not here signified; but as p. 27the word elsewhere is vsed, and by the most and best writers here is foreign.expounded, foreign, signifieth a falling away from God, a defection or departure from the true faith, as heretofore I hauehave shewed. Augustme saith, quem refugam vocat, vtique a domino Deo, whom he calleth a Lib. 20. cap. 19. §. 2.runnagate, namely, from the Lord God. Neither can it be denied but that this Apostasie is that which afterward the Apostle calleth the mystery of iniquity, which was working in and by the heretiques of those times, whom also Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Antichrist, because they peruerted the faith, and therefore the defection caused by Antichrist is an Apostasie from the faith, according to the prophesies of the Apostle, that in these latter times diuers should make an Apostasie 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. Tim. 4. 4.1 Tim 4:12 Tim 4:4from the faith, and should turne away their hearing from the truth, and shalbe turned vntounto fables.

17. Thirdly, although we should grant (saith he) that by Apostasie is to be vnderstood a defection or reuolt from the true faith and religion of Christ, yet it is not necessary that it should be an Apostasie of many yeares. For it may be that the Apostle speaketh of one great Apostasie which shalbe onelyonly in that most short time of Antichrists raigne, that is, of three yeares and a halfe. But this bare ghesse of Bellarmine ought not to be of so great waight with vsus, as the plaine speech of the Apostle compared with the euent. And therefore it is but vaine to tell vsus what might be, seeing we hauehave seene the contrary to be, which the Apostle foretold should be. For as the Apostle tolde vsus that there should be an Apostasie: so he saith, that the mysterie of iniquity whereby many were seduced, did worke already euen in his time, and insinuateth that it should worke vntill the full reuelation of Antichrist. And the euent hath shewed how by degrees this Apostasie hath bin wrought euen from the primitiue Church, vntill it came to that height wherein it continued vntill Antichrist began to be acknowledged. And surely as this generall Apostasie could not grow at once, but by degrees: so can it not be abolished at once, but by degrees; and therefore was not like to be an Apostasie of three yeares and an halfe onelyonly. Neither is it credible that by one man the greatest part, not onelyonly of Christians, but also of the Iewes should be seduced in three yeares and an halfe: seeing Christ in the like space of time could not, as he was a man and minister of the circumcision, conuert many of the Iewes; notwithstanding that his doctrine was more effectuall, and his p. 28miracles more admirable then those of Antichrist can be; yea the Apostlès & some other of the disciples, who for so long time scarce went out of Iewry, were able to preuaile but with a few of the Iewes in coparison of those which reiected their doctrine: And shall wee thinke that Antichrist, who (as the Papists hold) shal be but one man, shall in three yeers & an halfe, seduce the remnant of the Iewes, and al the visible Church of God dispersed into so many parts of the world? And wheras he alledgeth Augustine as a fauourer of this ghesse, therein he abuseth the authority of that learned father, to seduce the ignorāt, who onelyonly deliuereth the Iudgement of others concerning the mysterie of iniquity, & that to this effect. That the mystery of iniquity worketh in De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19.euill men in the Church and counterseit Christians, when as they reuolt from the truth, and that vntounto this mystery belongeth the reuolting of those of whom S. Iohn speaketh, They went out from vsus, but 1. Ioh. 2. 191 John 2:19were not of vsus, &c. And that this mystery should stil worke, that is, that vnsound men in the Church should more and more reuolt vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist. But there is neuer a word of this defection caused either by one man, or in so short a time, but rather the contrary, as hath beene shewed.

18. Fourthly he answereth, that although it should be granted that this Apostasie is of many ages (which he saith cannot well be denied, seeing th'apostle saith it began to worke in his time) yet it is not necessary that it should appertaine to one body vnderunder one head, neither that it appertaineth to the kingdome of Antichrist, but rather is a disposition thereunto, happening in diuers dominions vponupon (undry occasions, &c. But this fourth answer is ouerthrowne by the first: wherein this Apostasie was made so proper to Antichrist, as that by it Bellarmine thought we might most fitly vnderstand Antichrist himselfe, or rather as we shewed the whole body and kingdome of Antichrist. And further we hauehave shewed heretofore that the whole body of Apostates and heretiques professing the name of Christ, is Antichrist, and after a more speciall maner the head of this body & Apostasie. And therfore it followeth, that all of this Apostasie professing the name of Christ, belong to this body and kingdome of Antichrist. And whereas hee saith, that this Apostasie is onelie a disposition so the kingdome of Antichrist, &c. I answere that all the degrees of this Apostasie going before the reuelation of Antichrist, were a disposition not p. 29to the being, but to the reuealing of Antichrist. For in the Apostasie Antichrist was as Iohn plainely sheweth, neither could he be reuealed vnlesse first he were Wherupon Theodoret saith, Defectionem appellat Antichristi praesentiam, he calleth Apostasie the presence or comming of Antichrist. But is it not very likely thinke you that there hath bene a disposition or preparation already of more then 1500. yeares in most parts of the world, for the raigne of one man three yeres and an halfe?

19. Fiftly and lastly, although we should grant (saith he) that a generall Apostasie from the faith hauing now continued many yeares, is the kingdome of Antichrist: yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope is Antichrist. For it is not yet decided who hauehave made this defection, they or we. And i… were more easie to proou… that they hauehave made this defection, for they hauehave reuolted from that Church and religion whereof their forefathers were, which we hauehave not done, &c. In the foure former answers Bellarmine turned backe vponupon vsus, hoping therby to repell the force of our argument, but those being spent, in this he turneth his backe vponupon vsus & betaketh himselfe to his feete: and leauing the defence of the question in hand, runneth to his chiefe hold. For whereas we proue that Antichrist is not one man, contrary to their assertion, by this argument among others, because that generall Apostacie of the visible Church continuing for many ages, whereof Antichrist is the head, cannot be the worke of one man or of a few yeares: Bellarmine answereth thus in effect, that although your argument be very good to prooue that Antichrist is not one man; yet notwithstanding here of it followeth not, that the Pope is Antichrist. Why, neuer any of vsus vsed this argument: Antichrist is not one man, therefore the Pope is Antichrist. But in this assertion of ours, we answere your chiefe demonstration whereby you would prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist, and where in especially you please your selues, reasoning as hath beene hard, after this manner: Antichrist is but one man, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. And after you hauehave prooued this by many worshipfull demonstrations, and stoutly denied our contrary arguments: now in the end you make this cowardes bragge: Although this should be granted which you say to prooue that Antichrist is not one man, yet it doth not follow that the Pope is Antichrist.

20. But let vsus pursue the Iesuite in his flight. Although this should be granted, saith he, &c. Yet it followeth not that therfore the Pope is p. 30Antichrist. For the question yet is, who hath made this Apostasie, we or you. Well then, let vsus ioyne in this issue. If the Apostasie be on our side, let vsus be thought to belong to Antichrist; if this Apostasie be in the Church of Rome, whereof the Pope is head; then let it be acknowledged, that the Pope is the head of this Apostasie, and consequently Antichrist. But you (saith the Iesuite) hauehave reuoltd from the Church and religion of your forefathers, that is, from the Church of Rome and Latin religion. And therefore when you read, vnlesse there come areuolt, &c. it is a wonder that you doe not apply that prophesie to your selues. The Apostasie whereof the Apostle speaketh, is not a separation from the Church of Rome that now is, nor a forsaking of Romish or Popish religion: but a reuolting from God, a departure from the true faith and religion of Christ, vntounto Antichristianisme and idolatry. We in forsaking the Church of Rome, hauehave come out of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4.Rev 18:4according to Gods commaundement, and in reuolting from the Pope hauehave returned to God: and therefore this Apostasie toucheth not vsus. But you, say I to the Papists, hauehave reuolted from the true faith and religion of Christ vntounto Antichristianisme and Idolatry: as besides the infinite particulars wherein your Apostasie doeth consist, may briefely appeare by these notes. First, the Apostle speaking of the same Apostasie in another place, hath these words. The spirit speaketh plaincly, that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith, attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of 1. Tim. 4. 1.1 Tim 4:1diuels, speaking lyes in hypocrisie and hauing their owne conscience seared. Now who these are that make this Apostasie, the Apostle further describeth by specifying two of those doctrines of diuels, as certaine notes whereby to know them. Forbidding to marry, and commaunding to abstain… from meates, which God hath created to be receiued with thankesgiuing, &c. But as I hauehave shewed heretofore these notes touch not vsus, and properly agree to the Papists, therefore Lib. 1. Chap. 4. 3.this Apostasie is among them. Secondlie, this Apostasie is among those who are fallen from the true religion and worship of God, into idolatry and superstition. For the Apostaticall Church is the Idolatrous Church signified by the whore of Babylon, the mother of fornications. But the Church of Roome is strangelie addicted to idolatry and superstition, and for the same deserueth p. 31to be called the whore of Babylon; where as we through the merciemercy of God are free from idolatry, and therefore the Apostásie is with them and not with vsus. For the Apostasie is of them that are made drunke with the cuppe of the whore of Babylous fornications, as the Papists are, and wee are not, who hauehave come out of Babylon. Thirdlie, the Apostasie is of those that receiue the name and marke of the beast as the Papists doe, and not of those that refuse it as wee doe. The fourth note or touchstone as it were, to trie who hauehave made this Apostasie, i… the word of God: For that is the true faith and the true religion which is contayned and prescribed in the written word of God. Now our desire is, that the Scriptures may be acknowledged the onelie rule of faith and manners: vntounto the Scriptures we appeale in all controuersies, and desire to be iudged by them: vntounto the reading of the Scriptúres we exhort our people, that they may be further edified and confirmed in that trueth which we doe teach and prosesse. The Papists contrarywise not daring to stand to the Scriptures, slie to their vnwritten verities, traditions, decretals, doctrines and authorities of men both besides and against the Scriptures: and in a word, that the prophecie of the Apostle foretelling this Apostasie, might be verified in them, they hauehave asserted their hearing from the 2. Tim. 4. 4.2 Tim 4:4trueth, and are conuertd vntounto fables. They cannot abide to heare that the Scripture should be the onelyonly rule of faith and maners: they cannot endure to see any of their people to read the Scriptures, and therefore desire to keepe it from them in an vnknowne language. The foundation of their trueth is the authoritie of their Church, and in the Church, of their Pope, who, they say, cannot erre. But if the Pope teach doctrines of Diuels, and speake lyes in hypocrise (as the Apostle hath prophesied especially of them) then is there in that Church little soundnesse of trueth, that is built vponupon so vnsound a soundation. Thus therefore I reason. The head of the generall Apostasie is Antichrist: The Pope is the head of the generall or catholicke Apostasiei therefore he is Antichrist.

p. 3221. To the three former arguments, a fourth may be added. The seuen heades of that beast which signifieth the Romane state, are not so many persons, but so many heades or states of gouernement, wherby the common wealth of the Romanes, hath beene at diuerse times gouerned: the sixt head was the state of emperours: the seuenth Antichrist, as the Papists confesse: the eight (which also is one of the seauen) the state of Emperours renewed. Whereby it euidently appeareth, Rhem. in Apoc. 17. Bellarmi.Rev 17not onelyonly that Antichrist is not one man, but also that the Pope (who is the seuenth head) is Antichrist.