A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 12
The 12. Chapter. Of the generation and nation of Antichrist.
1. THe Iesuits fift disputation is concerning the generation and nation of Antichrist, whereof he shall come, and of which he shal especially be receiued. From whence as he vainely supposeth, is gathered a most euident demonstration, that the Pope is not Antichrist. For Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, and consequently he is to be a Iew both by nation and religion: But none of the Popes since the yeere 607. hath boene receiued of the Iewes as their Messias; neither hath any one beene a Iew either in nation or religion: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist: or rather as hee ought to conclude from the premisses, therefore not any one of the Popes is Antichrist. For in all this disputation Bellarmine presupposeth that to be true, which we hauehave prooued to be most false, that Antichrist is but one singular person, and accordingly reasoneth, as if we held that this or that Pope were the Antichrist. We holdeindeed that eueryevery Pope for his time, as he is the head of the catholicke Apostasie, so is an Antichrist: but the Antichrist is the whole rowe and order of them from Boniface the third downeward. If therefore Bellarmine argueth vponupon a false supposition, we are like to hauehave but a simple demonstration of it. But let vsus examine his disputation. Before he proposeth his proposition, as the basis or ground of his demonstration, he dealeth with vsus as cunning tradesmen, who being desirous to vtter their bad wares at a good price, first, shew those that are worse, that the naughtinesse of the worse may commend and set foorth those that be not so bad. So he bringeth forth diuers opinions concerning the generation of Antichrist, and first those that are false and absuide, as namely, that Antichrist should be borne of a virgine by the operation of the diuell, as Christ was borne of a virgin, by the operation of the holy Ghost. Which opinion is propounded by the author of the treatise concerning Antichrist, falslie ascribed to Augustine. Secondly, that the diuell himselfe is Antichrist, who shall fayne himsefe to hauehave taken flesh of a virgine, at Christ truely did; which is the conceit of Hippolytus: vponupon whose counterfeit authority the Papists in other points concerning this controuersie, doe so much relie. Thirdlie, that Antichrist shall bee a true man, but withall a Diuell, by the incarnation of the Diuell; euen as Christ, who is God, by incarnation became man: which opinion (saith Bellarmine) Origen thought to bee possible. These opinions shew into what absurdities men doe fall, when as they will needes be comparing Christ with Antichrist, as the Papists in many things do. Fourthly, that Nero who died aboue 1500. yeares agoe should come againe in his owne person to be Antichrist.
2 But these wares are all so corrupt, that Bellarmine will not for his credit sake cōmend them vntounto vsus. And therefore he maketh a second shew of such opinions as are more probable, viz. That Antichrist shall be borne in fornication and not in marriage, which is the opinion of Damascen and some others. And secondly, That be shalbe borne of the Tribe of Dan, which is the iudgement of twelue of the Fathers, & other approued Authors amōg the Papists; and generally of all Papists almost besides Bellarmine himselfe. But although these opinions be, as he saith, very probable, & the latter cōmended by a whole Iury of auncient writers, yet because they cannot be proued out of the scriptures, he will not put thē into our hands, as though he meant to warrant thē. So that now we must needes thinke that we shall be well dealt withall, and that no corrupt or counterfeit stusse shall be commended vntounto vsus, but that which is currant and warrantable by the word of God. But what say you Bellarmine, cannot this opinion that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, be proued out of the scripture? what say you then to those three places of scripture, which are to this purpose vsually alledged in the Church of Rome? the first Gen. 49. 17. Dan shal be a serpent in the way, &c. The second, Ier. 8. 16. The neying of his horses was heard frō Dan. The third, Apoc. 7. where 12000. of eueryevery Tribe being sealed to saluation, the Tribe of Dan is leftout, because Antichrist was to come of that Tribe. To the first of these places Bellarmine answereth with vsus, that the propheticall blessing of Iacob, was verisied in Sampson, who was of the Tribe of Dan: & that Iacob meaning in these words to blesse Dan, his meaning cannot without absurditie be peruerted to the signification of a curse. And I adde, that they might with as good reason alledge that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Beniamin, of whom it is said, verse 27. that he shal rauin as a Wolfe. Ieremy vndoubtedly speaketh not of Antichrist, nor yet as Bellarmine saith, of the Tribe of Dan, but of Nabuchadonosor, who was to come by the coast or countrey called Dan, to destroy Ierusalem, as Ierome rightly expoundeth. Why Dan is omitted in Apoc. 7. it is not wel knowne saith Bellarmine, especially seeing Ephraim also which was one of the greatest Tribes is left out. But here Bellarmine doth praeuaricari, and by trifling betray the truth. For it is not true that Ephraim is left out: for seeing Manasses is mentioned Verse 6. wee must needes by the Tribe of Ioseph mentioned Verse 8. vnderstand the Tribe of Ephraim Neuer thelesse, this may truly be said, that there are other causes of this omission, then that which is alledged concerning Antichrist. For else we may say as well, that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Simeon, because he is not mentioned in the blessing of Moyses. Deut. 33. The truth is, that where the holy Ghost numbreth the 12. Tribes, and mentioneth Leui, which for the most part is not As Apoc. 17.reckned among the 12. Tribes, because it was scattered among them all; some one of the other Tribes is left out, otherwise, where 12. are named, 13. should be reckned. The mentioning therfore of Leui, is the cause why some one of the rest is not expressed, but either comprehended vnderunder an other that is mentioned, as Simeon vnderunder Iuda Deut. 33. Ephraim & Manasses being two seuerall & great Tribes, vnderunder Ioseph. Deut. 27. 12. Ezec: 48. 32. are altogether omitted, as Dan. Apo. 7. Now Dan seemeth to be omitted, rather then any other, because that was the first Tribe which fel from God vntounto Idolatry: & for the same cause (as some thinke) the genealogie of that Tribe is omitted in the first booke of the Chronicles.
3 These opinions therfore though countenanced with the authoritie of the Fathers, Bellarmine dareth not deliuer as matters of truth, because they cānot be proued out of the scriptures. The which in truth is the cause why we reiect all the fancies of the Papists concerning Antichrist, wherin they differ from vsus, because that although many of thē were also the opiniōs of the auncient writers (who could but ghesse at the meaning of prophecies not then fulfilled) yet they cannot be proued out of the word of God, wherein Antichrist is sufficiently described. This libertie therefore which Bellarmine lawfully taketh vntounto himself in reiecting the testimonies of the Fathers in this point not warranted by the scriptures, must in equitie also be graunted vntounto vsus. For vpō the same principle or ground which Bellarmine here setteth downe, we reason against the Popish conceits after this maner: Those opinions concerning Antichrist which cannot be proued out of the scriptures, are not to be held as certaine truthes, or beleeued as matters of faith, although they hauehave the testimony of the Fathers: But all the Popish cōceits cōcerning Antichrist, are such as cannot be proued out of the scriptures: therefore none of the Popish conceits concerning Antichrist, are to be receiued for certaine truthes, though diuers of them hauehave the testimony of the Fathers.
4 Now let vsus heare in the third place what those things are which Bellarmine would hauehave vsus to take vponupon his word for certaine and sound in this point. There be two things saith hee, most certaine: one that Antichrist shall come for the Iewes especially, and shalbe receiued of them for their Messias. The other, that he shall be borne of the Nation of the Iewes, and shall be circumcised, and shall at the least for a time obserue the Sabbath. On which two points the propositiō of the syllogisme before rehearsed doth consist, the which Bellarmine thought to set out as true, by setting by §. 1it other opinions more absurd then it is. But although there be degrees of falsehood in all these opinions, yet all of them are false, as being grounded vponupon this false supposition, that Antichrist 1is but one singular man. And secondly, by the same reason that moued Bellarmine to reiect the former opinions, may 2these also be reiected, namely, because they cannot be proued out of the scriptures; but contrariwise may be disproued thereby. For Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall raigne in the church of Christ, and shall be an Apostate, 3and the head of the Apostasie, as Bellarmine confesseth, and therfore not the head of the Iewes (who cannot be said to make an Apostasie before they be called) but of back-sliding Christians. Againe, Antichrist is one of the seuen heads of the beast mentioned Apoc. 17. that is, of the Romaine state, hauing his 4seate in Babylon, that is, in Rome, in the gouernment whereof hee succeedeth the Emperour: who, whiles hee ruled in Rome, hindered the reuelation of Antichrist, as it hath beene shewed heretofore out of Apoc. 17. 13. & 2. Thess. 2. All which do sufficiently proue, that Antichrist was not to be a Iew, either by nation or religion, but a Latine or Romaine, which name with the marke therof, he causeth all sorts of men to take vponupon thē. And lastly, for as much as the Papists themselues hold the calling of the Iewes: it would be knowne whether they shall reuolt, after their calling from Christ to Antichrist, or whether they shall be called after the destruction of Antichrist, or during the time of Antichrists raigne, which shalbe as they say, the terme of three yeares & a halfe precisely, or 1260. daies. But themselues denie that the Iewes shall reuolt after their calling, or that they shalbe called in the time of Antichrists raigne: & that they shalbe called after the destruction of Antichrist, which shall not be before the ende of the world, it is absurd.
5 But let vsus see how he proueth these things which he saith are most certaine & sure, & from whence he draweth his most euident demonstration. First that Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, he proueth by testimonies of scripture, by authoritie of Fathers, and by reason. Out of the scripture he produceth two testimonies, the former Ioh. 5. 43. which place I hauehave heretofore freed frō the corruptiōs of the papists, shewing that our Sauiour Christ doth not speake absolutely, Another shal come, but cōditionally, If an other shal com, & therfore doth not foretel what they were afterwards to do, but telleth them what in respect of their present dispositiō they were readie to do, if an other should come in his owne name vntounto them, not sent of God. 2. Neither doth he speake definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitly of any false teacher. 3. he speaketh of those Iews, to whō he speaketh, who could not be the receiuers of Antichrist, vnlesse he were come aboue 1500. yeares agoe.
6 His second testimony is 2. Thess. 2. 10 11. Because they receiued not the louelove of the truth that they might be saued: therfore God shall send them the efficacie of errour that they may beleeue lyes, &c. Which words he vnderstandeth of the Iewes, who because they receiued not Christ shal therefore be seduced by Antichrist. But the place is plaine inough to them that wil vnderstand. The Apostle immediately before these words saith, that Antichrist shall preuaile with thē that perish, because they receiued not the louelove of the truth that they might be saued: And immediately after these words, (Therfore God shall send them the efficacie of error, that they may beleeue lyes) he addeth, that all might be iudged or condemned that hauehave not beleeued the truth, but hauehave taken pleasure in vnrighteousnesse. In which words the Apostle doth not goe about to define of what Nation or people Antichrist shalbe receiued: but hauing described Antichrist as by other arguments, so in the last place by this effect of seducing, now he describeth the followers of Antichrist, who shall be seduced of him not by their nation, but by their condition before God. And withall cleareth the iustice of God in giuing them ouer to be seduced to their destruction. The followers of Antichrist are described by their conditiō before God, that they are reprobates, or such as perish, according to that, Math. 24. 24. that it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by him: which is set downe, not so much to be a note wherby to discern Antichrist: as to signifie the estate of those that follow him, whom before hee had described, that they are such as perish, and that worthily. For as I said, in the next words he cleareth the iustice of God, after this manner: On such as hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth that they might be saued, nor beleeued the same, but hauehave delighted in vnrighteousnesse, the Lord sendeth iustly the efficacy of errour, that they may beleeue lyes, that they may all bee condemned: But the followers of Antichrist are such as hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth, that they might be saued, nor beleeued the same, but hauehave delighted in vnrighteousnes: therfore the Lord iustly sendeth vponupon them strong illusions, that they may beleeue lyes, that all such as beleeue not the truth, but delight in vnrighteousnesse, may be condemned.
This is the discourse of the Apostle, cōcerning the followers of Antichrist, which cannot with any shewe of reason be restrained to the Iewes, vnlesse it may be said that they alone are such as perish; that they alone hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth that they might be saued; that they alone hauehave not beleeued the truth, &c. for he saith, that all might be condemned, &c. For it is certaine, that as Antichrist, which in this chapter is described, is not the head of the Iewes, but of counterfeit Christians: so the Iewes (as they are Iewes) are not the followers of Antichrist here described. Antichrist is the head of the apostasie or reuolt from Christ, and consequently the head of Apostate Christians. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall rule and raigne ouer the Church of Christ. Antichrist was to sit in Babylon, that is, Rome, and therein was to succeed the Emperours: who whiles they ruled in Rome, hindered the reuelation and dominion of Antichrist. All which points as they do fit the Pope, so they do proue that the Papists be the followers of Antichrist, and hauehave receiued the name and marke of the beast. And hereof there can be no doubt, if this description also agree vntounto them, as most euidently it doth. For seeing they are the Apostate Christians described, 1. Tim. 4 1. 3. certaine it is, that they hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth, that they may be saued. That strong illusion is sent vponupon them that they might beleeue lyes, &c. it appeareth plainly in their written vanities, which they call vnwritten verities, in their legends, portuises, and festiuals fraught full of incredible lyes, in their ridiculous dotages & deuout superstitions, wherin they plainely shewe themselues to be besotted and made drunke with the whore of Babilons cuppe of fornications, and to be giuen ouer to beleeue vntruthes. That they will not beleeue the truth, appeareth by their manifolde grosse errors, frō which they wil not be reclaimed And that they delight in iniquitie appeareth by their doting vponupon the doctrine & religion of Antichrist, which as there it is opposed to the truth, so before is called the mystery of iniquitie. This descriptiō therfore of the followers of Antichrist, ought to be an admonitiō for all Ver. 12. Ver. 7.Papists to renounce that religiō of Rome, if they would not be in the number of thē that perish: & a caueat for all Christians, who professing y• true religiō, hauehave no true louelove therof, but are ready to accept & embrace the religiō of Rome, least this heauy iudgement of the Lord fal vpō thē, that because they hauehave not receiued the louelove of ye truth to their saluatiō, the Lord send vpō thē strong illusiō, that they beleeue lies vntounto their destruction.
7. Yea, but (saith he) this place cannot be vnderstood of Christians, but of the Iewes: for he saith, that Antichrist shalbe sent to them who would not receiue Christ, which is true of the Iewes, but vntrue of Christians. The Apostle speaketh of those that receiue not the louelove of the truth that they might be saued, which may be verified of vnsound Christians (as the Rhemists themselues on this place do graunt) that is, of all those who content themselues with a bare profession of the faith, hauing neither a true faith, nor yet a sound louelove of the truth. A sound Christian doth not only professe the name of Christ, but also hath some good vnderstanding & knowledge of the truth, and withall an assent thereto, in which two, namely knowledge & assent, consisteth the historicall, or dogmatical faith: & not only a knowledge & assent (for so much the diuels hauehave) but also a louelove & liking of the truth; & not onelyonly that (for euen hypocrites & temporary beleeuers may attaine to a louelove & liking of the truth for some temporary respects) but also a speciall application of the promises of the Gospell vntounto himselfe, & particular apprehension of Christ his merits, whereby he is receiued of the beleeuer to iustification & saluation. Now the Papists are such as professe Christ, but indeed receiue him not, nor yet the louelove of his truth that they might be saued. And therfore this place is verified of them. For doth any man I beseech you, receiue Christ or beleeue in him, who doth not beleeue that Christ is his Redeemer & Sauiour? But if thou be a Papist, thou must not beleeue that Christ is thy Redeemer & Sauiour; thou must sing Magnificat, but thou maist not say with Mary, that thy soule reioyceth in God thy Sauiour: nor with Paul, that Christ hath loued thee, or giuen himselfe for thee. Gal. 2. 20. Must thou beleeue that Christ is thy Sauiour & redeemer? thē must thou beleeue that thou art redeemed by Christ, and shalt be saued by him. Must thou beleeue that thou hast redemption by Christ? then must thou also beleeue that by him thou hast remission of sinnes. Ephe. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. But this to beleeue without speciall and extraordinary reuelation, is damnable presumption saith the Papist. Therefore they professe Christ, but they receiue him not. Nay, they are so farre from receiuing Christ by a lustifying faith, that they might be saued, that they hauehave not so much as the historicall faith, which consisteth in knowledge of the truth & assent thereto. For the most of them hauehave no knowledge, pleasing themselues in their implicite faith: vnderunder which name grosse & palpable ignorace is commended in the laitie of the church of Rome. And the rest assent not to the truth, but set themselues against it. So that whereas all the faith which they professe themselues to hauehave, is but that faith which is also in the diuels, yet they hauehave not euen that little which they do professe. But the Apostle (saith Bellarmine) speaketh in the pretertence, which hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth, &c. not in the future: therefore this speech cannot be vnderstood of any other but those who before the Apostle wrote this, had refused to beleeue the preaching of Christ & his Apostles, that is to say, the Iewes. Answ. The Apostle speaking both of the sinne of the Antichristians, and of their punishment, which presupposeth their sin going before, he expresseth their sin in the pretertence, which is to be referred not to the time of the Apostles writing, but to the time of their punishment. Antichrist shalbe receiued of those that perish. But why shal they perish? because they hauehave not receiued the louelove of the truth, &c. But this appeareth more plainly, ver. 12. God shal send thē strōg illusiōs to beleeue lies, that al may be condemned, foreign that hauehave not beleeued, that is, that shall not hauehave beleeued the truth, Qui non crediderint veritati, but hauehave delighted, that is, but shall hauehave delighted in iniquitie, Sed acquieuerint in iniustitia. Conferre with this place Mar. 16. 16. Goe preach the Gospell saith our Sauiour Christ, to eueryevery creature, baptising them (as it is in Mathew 28. 19.) foreign, H… that hath Qui crediderit & bap tizatus sue…it &c.beleeued and hath beene baptised shall be saued; that is, shall hauehave beleeued, and shall hauehave bene baptised, but he that hath not beleeued, that is, shall not hauehave beleeued, shall be condemned. Otherwise, if Bellarmine will needes vrge the pretertense, as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should bee receiued onelyonly of those who before that time had reiected the truth, he must with all hold, that Antichrist shall be receiued in the end of the world of those who died aboue 1500. years since.
8 To these testimonies of scripture he addeth the authoritie of diuers Fathers, who supposed that Antichrist was to be receiued of the Iewes, and accordingly expound the place alledged out of 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11.
Ans. So they held that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, & accordingly expounded some places of scripture, which no man now vnlesse he will be too ridiculous, can vnderstand of Antichrist. Therefore as Bellarmine in that point answered a whole dozen of Fathers, so may I answere here with as good reason, that although this opinion might seeme probable to the Fathers in their time, liuing before the reuelation of Antichrist, yet now there is no probabilitie in it, seeing it cannot onelyonly not be proued out of the scripture, but as you heard, is confuted both by the scripture and the euent.
9 Let vsus therefore in the third place consider his reason: Antichrist shall without doubt ioyne himselfe first and chiefly to those who are readie to receiue him: But the Iewes are readie to receiue him, not the Christians nor the Gentiles, therefore Antichrist first and principally shall ioyne himselfe to the Iewes. First to the proposition I answere, that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer, but to those in the Church that are readie to receiue him. For as Cyprian truly noteth, They be the seruants of Epist. 1. lib. 1.God whom the diuell troubleth, and they are Christians whom Antichrist impugneth, Ne que enim quaerit illos, quos iam subegit, aut gestit euertere quos iam suos fecit. For he seeketh not those whom he hath alreadie subdued, or desireth to ouerthrowe those whom hee hath already made his owne, the enemie & aduersary of the church: whome hee hath estraunged and kept foorth of the Church, them he neglecteth and passeth by as captiues and ouercome: those he assaulteth, in whom he perceiueth Christ to dwell. If therefore Antichrist be ledde by the spirit of Sathan, then no doubt he shall passe by both Iewes & Insidels, & set himselfe foreign, 2. Thess. 2. 4.that is, both in the Church of God, and against it, that the vnsound he may seduce, and the sound he may persecute. The assumption standeth on two parts. 1. affirmatiue, that the Iewes are readie to receiue Antichrist. 2. negatiue, that the Christians and Gentiles are not readie to receiue him. The former hee proueth, because the Iewes do yet looke for their Messias, who shall be a temporall King, such a one as Antichrist shall bee. But this reason is built on false suppositions. First, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, which we hauehave proued to be false. Secondly, that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes, which as it hath bene disproued out of the scriptures, so can it not with any colour of reason be proued out of the same. For as hath bene shewed, Antichrist is the head of the Catholike Apostasie or Apostate Christians, sitting in Babylō, that is, Rome, professing her selfe the church of God, being one of the seuen heads of the Romane state, succeeding the …mperours in the gouernment of Rome, &c. Thirdly, as Antichrist shall not be such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes: so there is no necessitie that there should such a one come to the Iewes, as they expect. The second part also of his assumption is false. For although sound and constant Christians bee not readie to receiue Antichrist, but alwayes hauehave bene readie to resist him euen vntounto the death: yet vnsound and back-sliding Christians, who embrace not the louelove of the truth that they might be saued, either are as readie to receiue Antichrist, as they are apt and prone to decline from the truth (a searefull caueat to those which waxe wearie of the Gospell) or alreadie hauehave reuolted from Christ to Antichrist, & hauehave receiued the marke of the beast. Yea, but Christians saith he, doo not expect Antichrist, as the Iewes doo. The Iewes looke for him with ioy, as for their Messias, but the Christians with feare. I answere, as true Christians looke not at all for the expected Messias of the Iewes to be Antichrist, but acknowledge him that is come: so Papists, but that they cannot see the wood for trees, might in stead of looking for Antichrist, looke vppon him.
10 The second thing which Bellarmine deliuereth concerning Antichrist for a certaine truth, is, That Antichrist shall be a Iew both by Nation and Religion; that is, he shall be a Iew borne, hee shall be circumcised, hee shall be an obseruer of the Iewes Sabboth, and other Iewish ceremonies. But how is this certaine truth proued? forsooth from the premisses. For the Iewes will not receiue one for their Messias, that is not a Iew borne, nor circumcised. Nay, it is not to bee doubted, but that as the Iewes looke for their Messias out of the family of Dauid; so hee will faigne himselfe to be of the Tribe of Dauid, although indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. But this Popish conceit, built vponupon their owne vaine imaginations, needeth no answere. For seeing I hauehave ouerthrowne their former assertion, wherevpon this is grounded; therefore this building of it selfe falleth to the ground, Whosoeuer (saith hee) shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, he shall be a Iew borne, and circumcised, but Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias: as hath bene proued, therefore Antichrist shall be a Iew borne, &c. The proposition is not altogether true, for the Herodians receiued Herod for Epiphan. lib. 1. de haeresi Iudaeor. 7.their Messias, and thence had their name. But I will not stand vponupon that.
The assumption I hauehave alreadie disproued, shewing that Antichrist was not to be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias, and therefore there is no validitie in this argument. In the next place therefore for want either of reason, or authoritie of scripture, he vnderproppeth this tottering wall with testimonies of Fathers; but such as either himselfe before hath reiected, or else in this question may by the same reason be little regarded. The twelue Fathers (saith hee) which affirmed that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, doo therefore holde that hee should be a Iew borne. But himselfe hath tolde vsus, that we are not to beleeue them, because their opinion cannot bee prooued out of the scriptures: and therefore by the same reason, neither they, nor the rest are to be beleeued in this point, which hath no ground in the word of God.
And thus his most euident demonstration is come to nothing. For although the Iewes receiue not the Pope for their Messias, but rather esteeme of him as of an other Pharao, and withall apply vntounto him all that is spoken either of Antichrist, as the Papists say, or of the type of Antichrist R. Ieu… Gerson.Antiochus, as we say, Dan. 7. & 11. this hindereth not, but that the Pope may bee Antichrist. Yea, this may bee some inducement to perswade vsus, that if those thinges which bee spoken of Antichrist, or his type, may in the iudgement of the Iewes, who are no parties, be applyed properly to the Pope: that then the Pope is that Antichrist, that in Daniel is figured, and in other places of scripture not vnlike to that figure described.