A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 13
Chap. 13. Of the seate or See of Antichrist.
1 OVr aduersaries sixt disputatiō is, concerning the seat or See of Antichrist, concluded in this syllogysme. Antichrist shall sit at Ierusalem, and not at Rome: the Pope sitteth at Rome, & not at Ierusalem: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, concerning which all the cōtrouersie is, is first proued by testimonies of scriptures, & afterwards defēded against our obiectiōs. His foreign or proofe standeth on three testimonies of scripture. The first Apoc. 11. 8. where Iohn saith, that Enoch & Elias shalbe slaine of Antichrist in Ierusalem. And their bodies shal lie in the streets of the great Citie, which is called spirituall Sodome or Egypt, where our Lord also was crucified. But what if Iohn speaketh neither of Antichrist, nor of Enoch & Elias, nor of Ierusalē? that hee speaketh not of Antichrist, it may bee doubted. For verse 7. hee saith, that the beast which ascendeth out of the deepe (which seemeth to bee the former beast described in the beginning of Chap. 13.) shall kill the two witnesses. And verse 2. it is said that the court of the Temple should be giuen to the Gentiles, and that they should tread vponupon the holy Citie 42. moneths, which is the time allotted to the persecution of the beast with seuen heads, Apoc. 13. 5. Besides, the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall bee the Prince of the Iewes and counterfeit Christians: therefore by their owne doctrine, this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles, should not be the persecution vnderunder Antichrist. And that Enoch and Elias be not here spoken of, it hath bene shewed before: & thirdly, that the holy Ghost doth not meane Ierusalem, I hauehave heretofore proued. But suppose that S. Iohn did speake both of Antichrist, as it Chap. 6. Lib. 1. ca… 2. § 17.seemeth he doth not, and also of Ierusalem, which I am sure hee doth not: yet notwithstanding, this followeth not, that wheresoeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him, or by his authoritie, that there should be his principall seate. Whereas therefore Bellarmine argueth thus, Where the two witnesses are put to death, there is the seate of Antichrist, at Ierusalem the two witnesses are put to death, therefore at Ierusalem is the seate of Antichrist: I answere first to the proposition, that it being generally vnderstood, is false: if particularly, then Bellarmines argumentation is not a syllogisme, but a paralogisme. And to the assumption I answer negatiuely, & that answer I hauehave heretofore made good, prouing that not Ierusalem is here meant, but ciuitas Romana (the Citie and Empire of Rome) which eueryevery where in the Apocalyps, is called the great Citie, wherein, and by authoritie wherof, our Lord was crucified. See the first booke, chap. 2. § 16. 17.
2 His second testimonie is, Apoc. 7. 16. wherevnto I hauehave answered before in the second chapter of the first booke, §. 18. But as from that place hee would proue that Rome is not the seate of Antichrist, so by another argument which he addeth, he proueth that it is Ierusalem. For saith hee, If Antichrist be a Iew, and professe himselfe to be the Messias and King of the Iewes, then no doubt he will sit in Ierusalem: but the former of these I hauehave disproued in the former chapter, and therefore further answere needeth not. Yea, but foure of the Fathers auouch that Antichrist shall sit at Ierusalem. Although they did, yet Bellarmine hath taught vsus that we are not bound to beleeue them, vnlesse their assertiō can be proued out of the scriptures. And yet of these foure Fathers which he alledgeth, Lactantius speaketh not of Antichrist. Hierome and Theodoret, where they deliuer Hierony…. ad Algas. 9. 11. Theodoret. in 2. Thess. 2. & Epitom. 1. Anselm.their owne iudgement, doo not affirme that he shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem, but in the Churches of Christ.
3 His third testimonie is 2. Thess. 2. 4. In so much that he sitteth in the Temple of God. Of which words there be many expositions saith Bellarmine: some by the Temple of God vnderstand the mindes of the faithfull, in which Antichrist shall sit after he hath seduced them: which interpretation agreeth fitly to the Pope, who only sitteth as it were a God in the mindes of men, prescribing lawes to binde the conscience, and that with guilt of mortall sinne, as they speake. Others expound these wordes of 2Antichrist and his whole people, who is therefore said to sit in templum August. de ciuit.Dei, because Antichrist shall professe himselfe with his people, to be the true church of God: which also most fitly agreeth to Dei lib. 20. cap. 19.the Pope and church of Rome, which vaunt that they alone are the catholike church; and that all others professing the name of Christ which are not subiect to the Pope, or acknowledge not themselues members of the church of Rome, are heretikes or schismatikes. Others by the temple, vnderstand the churches 3of the Christians, which Antichrist shall make subiect to himselfe. Chrysost. &c.The which as we proued it to be the most true exposition, so doth it properly agree to the Pope of Rome. Others by the temple 4of God, vnderstand the temple of God at Ierusalem, wherin Antichrist shall sit, and this (saith Bellarmine) is the more common, more probabte, and more literall opinion. I doubt not but that it is an opinion more plausible to the Papists, who care not what they holde concerning Antichrist, so that it agree not to the Pope.
But of these three things which Bellarmine avoucheth in commendation of this conceit, two are false, and the third is to no purpose. For neither is this exposition more common among the auncient Fathers, then that other, which by the temple vnderstandeth the churches of the Christians: which heretofore we hauehave shewed to hauehave beene the iudgement of Theodoret, Li. 1. ca. 4 § 15.Ierome, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Oecumenius, &c. And although it were the more common exposition, yet that would not proue it to be more true, for truth goeth not by voices, neither is to be weighed by multitude of suffrages, but by weight of reason. Neither is it more probable: for if the temple shall neuer be reedified, as hath bene shewed, then is there no probabilitie that Antichrist should sit in it. Neither were that materiall, though it were more literall, vnlesse the literall were vsuall. For in all the Epistles by the temple of God is meant the Church: and there is an vsuall metonymie betwixt the words which signifie either the assembly, or the place of the assembly. So foreign, which signifieth the place, is often vsed for 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16 Ephe. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12.the assembly or church: and Ecclesia that is church, is often vsed for the place. Neither can the temple erected by Antichrist be truly called the temple of God. Yea but (saith Bellarmine) in the scripture of the new testament, by the temple of God are neuer vnderstood the churches, that is to say, the temples of Christians. The more absurd is he to vnderstand this place of a materiall temple, contrary to the vsuall acceptation of the word in the writings of the Apostles. The Apostle therfore by temple, meaneth not a materiall temple of wood and stone, but a spirituall temple compact of liuing stones: and by sitting in the temple, not a corporall gesture, for Antichrist is to sit there as God, that is, he is to rule and raigne in the church of God, as if he were a god vponupon earth. But of this whole matter, see more in the first booke, chapt. 2. § 13. & 14. & 15.
4 Now let vsus come to his foreign or disproofe of our assertion, who hold that Antichrist shall sit not at Ierusalem but at Rome, and in Rome professing her selfe the church of God. First by a fond cauillation, wherein hee greatly pleaseth himselfe, he seeketh to driue vsus to an absurditie. For (saith hee) if Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, and if the Pope be Antichrist, then the church wherein the Pope sitteth is the true church: and consequently the Protestants and all others that be not of that church, are out of the church, &c. This cauill is to be resolued into three syllogismes. 1. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of Christ, The Pope of Rome is Antichrist, therfore saith Bellarmine, the Pope sitteth in the true church of Christ.
But hee might as well conclude thus: Hee that professeth the name of Christ is a Christian: the Papist, the Anabaptist, the Familist, &c. professeth the name of Christ, therefore the Papist, the Anabaptist, the Familist is a true Christian. But hath not Bellarmine learned so much Logicke as not to foist into the conclusion, that which is not contained in the premisses? the word true is not cōtained in the premisses, and therefore sophistically thrust into the conclusion. For Antichrist may sit in the church, although not in the true Church. Generally the Church of Christ signifieth the company of Christians, that is, of those that professe the name of Christ. But as of Christians, some are onelyonly in title and profession, some indeed & in truth: so of Churches, some are onelyonly in title and profession Churches of Christ, others are his true Churches. Now Antichrist he was to be an Apostata, and the head of the Catholike apostasie: therfore the church whereof Antichrist is the head, although it be in title and profession a church of Christ, as being a company of them that are christened, and professe the name of Christ: yet it is but an apostaticall church; a church which of a faithfull Citie is become an harlot; and of the true Church of God, the whore of Babylon. But may not this absurditie rather be returned vponupon the Papists, who by the templeof God 2. Thess. 2. 4. vnderstand that temple which Antichrist shall build at Ierusalem? Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God, saith the Apostle, Antichrist shal sit in that temple which himselfe shall build at Ierusalem saith the Papist, therefore that temple which he shall build at Ierusalem shall be indeed the temple of God. Whereas in truth according to their owne conceits, it were rather to be called the temple of the diuell. If any man obiect that it might after a sort be called the temple of God, because the temple of God did stand there, and because Antichrist will pretend to make it to the honor of God, wherevnto the former temple was erected: I answere by the like reason the church of Rome may be called the church of God, bicause once it was a true church, and stil is in title & professiō the church ofChrist: although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ, then Antichrists imaginary temple at Ierusalem would be the temple of God.
5 His second syllogisme which is inferred vponupon the former is this. If the Pope sit in the true Church of God then the church of Rome is the onelyonly true Church (for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one): but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God, as was proued in the former syllogisme, therefore the church of Rome is the onelyonly true church of Christ. First, I answere to the proofe of his proposition. The Catholike & inuisible Church of Christ is one sheepfolde vnderunder one shepheard Christ: but particular & visible churches are more then one, as the church of Corinth, the church of Rome, the seuen churches in the Apocalyps, and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome, although it were a true visible church, yet were it but a particular church, and therefore not the onelyonly true church. But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ, but the whore of Babylon, an adulterous, and Idolatrous, and Apostaticall church, which once was Rome, as Petrarch saith, now Babylon; once Bethel, now Bethauen: once the Church of Christ, now the synagogue of Antichrist, as hath bene proued. And therefore there being no truth either in the proposition, or the assumption, I answere the proposition by this foreign, although the Pope did sit in the true church, yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the onelyonly true Church: and the assumption by this foreign, but the Pope doth not sit in the true church, and therefore there is no shewe of reason in this cauill.
6 His third syllogisme is inferred vponupon the second: If the Church of Rome be the onelyonly true Church, then those which are not members of this Church, whereof the Pope is head, as namely the Protestants, are out of the Church. But now (say I) the church of Rome is so farre from being the onelyonly true church, as that it is that Babylon, Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commaunded to seperate, if wee will bee saued: there being no saluation in that Church for those that receiue and retaine the marke of the beast, Apoc. 14. 9. therefore this also is a fond and sophisticall cauill. Notwithstanding, as the adulterous and apostaticall state of Israel vnderunder Ieroboam and Achab, so the Church of Rome vnderunder the Pope, may be called the church of God: in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church, as the administration of some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord, and also of some reliques and remainder, as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church. In Israell, although an Apostaticall and Idolatrous state, the sacrament of circumcision was retained: so in the church of Rome, the sacrament of baptisme. The church of Israel professed Iehouah to be their God, although they worshipped him Idolatrously: so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ, but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry. In Israel euen vnderunder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal: and so we doubt not, but that in the corruptest times of Popery, the Lord hath reserued some who hauehave not receiued the marke of the beast. And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ, although greeuously fallen from Christ, because they still professed the name of Christ, and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptisme, and had among them some fewe names that had not defiled themselues: so I confesse with Caluin, that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ, both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church, as administration of Baptisme, and profession of the name of Christ, and some secret reliques of the inuisible church, which hauehave not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4Baal. But that which is saide to the church of Sardis, may most iustly be avowed to the church of Rome. Thou hast a name that thou liuest, but indeed art dead: thou professest Apoc. 3. 1.thy selfe to be the church of Christ, but art the synagogue of Antichrist: thou art called the church of Rome, which once was famous for her saith, but art the whore of Babylon, the Apo. 3. 4.mother of all the fornications, and abhominations in the christian world.
7 Heere Bellarmine obiecteth two things: If there remaine in the church of Rome but ruines and reliques of a true church, then the church may be ruinated, and the truth hath lyed, who saith, that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it.
Ans. The Catholike and inuisible church of Christ, which is the whole company of the elect, can neuer faile: But visible and particular churches which consist of hypocrites many times and vnsounde christians (which are in the visible church, but are not of the inuisible) as the greater part, may faile and fall away, although not one sound christian that 1. Ioh. 2. 19.is of the inuisible church doth fall away. As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel seuered from Iuda, the examples of Corinth, Ephesus, and many other famous Churches, which were planted by the Apostles. Againe saith Bellarmine: If the Church be ruinated, and the ruines remaine in Poperie, then the Papists hauehave the Church, although decayed and ruinated, but the Protestants hauehave no Church; not entyre, for the entyre Church is ruinated: not ruinated or decayed, for the ruines are among the Papists. What hauehave they then? a new building, which because it is new, is none of Christs, and therefore who seeth not, that it is safer to liue in the church decayed, then in no church at all? But in this cauill there is not so much as any shew of reason, vnlesse he take that for graunted, (which we do most confidently denie, and they are neuer able to proue) that the church of Rome not onelyonly is the true church of Christ, but also the onelyonly true church. For otherwise the church of Rome may fall, and yet the Catholike church of Christ may stand, yea, shall stand, maugre the force of Antichrist, and malice of Sathan himselfe. And as for the church of the Protestants, it is no new building, as Antichrist vaunteth, but is a part of the Catholike church of Christ, reformed and renewed according to the word of God, and the example of the primitiue church: euen as the Church of Iuda vnderunder Iosias, was no new building, but the olde frame, as it was vnderunder Dauid, renewed and reformed according to the lawe of God.
8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments, concluding that Rome is the seate of Antichrist, I hauehave for the Lib. 1. cap. 2.most part taken away before. It shall suffice therefore now, to answer those which before were not touched. That Rome is the seat of Antichrist we proue, because it is mysticall Babylon, scituated on seuen hilles, & hauing dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, &c. Bellarmine among other answers before refuted, saith, that by mysticall Babylon we are to vnderstand Rome Heathenish, not Rome christned, because S. Iohn speaketh of that Rome which had dominion ouer the kings of the earth, and which is said to bee drunke with the bloud of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesu. I aunswere, that although these notes agreed not to Popish Rome, yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus, that that citie which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, & then persecuted the Saints, is called Babylon: because it was to be the seate or See of Antichrist. But now these notes agree also to Popish Rome, both in respect of dominion vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope, then by any Emperour: and in regarde of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ, as before hath beene shewed.
9 Againe, whereas we proue that Antichrist shall sit in the church of God because the Apostle saith, he shall sit in the Temple of God, and withall affirme that this cannot be vnderstood of the Temple of Ierusalem, which now is vtterly destroied, & is no more to be reedified, as Daniel testifieth chap. 9. verse 27. hee answereth that Daniel would say something that he doth not say: eyther that the Temple should not be reedified vntil a little before the ende of the world. But Daniel doth not say vntill a litle before the end: but as their owne translation readeth, VsUs que ad consummationem & finem perseuerabit desolatio, the desolation shall continue vntill the consummation and ende: or as Ierome saith, VsUs que ad finem mundi, vntounto the ende of the world: or as other, VsUs que ad consummationem eam que praecisam. As it is said of Michel, 2. Sam. 6. 23. that she had no childe vntill the day of her death. And of Ioseph, that he knew not Mary vntill shee had brought forth her first begotten sonne, Math. l. 24. & of Christ, that he will be with the faithfull vntill the ende of the worlde, Mat. 28. 20. Not that Michel at her death, or a little before had children: not that Ioseph euer knew Mary: nor that Christ will euer forsake the faithful: So that this word vntil in the scriptures signifieth rather perpetuitie then cessation before the time, which seemeth therby to be limited. Whereas therfore Daniel saith that the temple should lie desolate vntil the end & consummatiō of the world, it is as much as if he had said, that it should neuer be reedified. Or if that were not Daniels meaning, thē he must say, that although the temple should be built againe, yet as it was desolate before it be built, so afterward the abhominatiō of desolation, that is, Antichrist or his Image, should remain in it to the end. Yea but the Primitiue Church beleeued that the temple should neuer be built againe, and held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable. And as touching the abhomination of desolation, it hath bene shewed that our Sauiour Christ by a metonymie vnderstandeth Luk. 21. 20. and Mat. 24. 15.thereby the armies of the Romanes, who in respect of their paganisme were abhominable, and in regard of their effect desolations, such as brought vponupon Ierusalem the finall destruction and desolation. Daniel saith per alam detestationum desolantem by a synecdoche for per legiones &c. as Esay 8. 8. Or lastly, this must be Daniels meaning, that the temple shall neuer perfectly be reedified, but that the reedifying is to be begunne, and that in the temple so begunne Antichrist shall sit. Thus shamefully the wilfull patrones of errour, sticke not to drawe the scripture to their fancies, not caring to conforme their iudgement to the scripture. Daniel in that place speaketh not a word of Antichrist, nor yet of Antiochus his type, but of the vtter desolation and finall destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes: and of this desolation, according to their owne translation, he saith, that it should continue to the ende and consummation: that is, (saith Bellarmine) the temple shall neuer perfectly be built againe, but yet it shall be built againe, and in it being so built, Antichrist shall sit. How built? is it like that Antichrist, who shall according to their conceit be the most mightie Prince and Monarch in the world, that he I say, will suffer that temple which he chuseth for his chiefe seate, to be vnbuilt: or that so great and so proud a monarch will sit in a temple without a roose or vnsinished, professing the same also to be his principall seate? Why but Christ saith, the destruction of the temple should be such as that one stone should not be left vponupon another; and Daniel saith according to their owne translation, that this desolation of the temple should continue to the ende. How then can his meaning be, that it should be reedisied either in whole or in part? The stories also of the church do testifie, that as Daniel Socrat. li. 3 c. 20.and our Sauiour Christ had foretold the finall destruction and desolation of Ierusalem: so when Iulian the Apostate, desiring Theodoret li. 3. ca. 20. Sozom. li. 5 cap. vlt.to conuince the preaching of our Sauior of vntruth, endeuoured by the Iewes to reedifie the temple: the Lord to verifie his word, would not suffer it to be built either in whole, or in part: but by a fearefull earthquake ouerthrew the foundations, by fire from heauen burnt the tooles of the worke-men, by winde and tempest scattered the lime and morter, and by fire proceeding out of the earth burnt the workemen as they digged. Ierusalē & the temple were types of the church of Christ. Therefore when as by the preaching of the Gospell to all nations the church of Christ was planted among the Gentiles, the citie and temple were to hauehave an ende as our Sauiour hath prophecied, Math. 24. 14. then shall be the ende, to wit, of the citie and temple of Ierusalem: which being once ouerthrowne by the legions of the Romanes, should according to Daniels prophesie remaine desolate vntil the ende of the world: or as our Sauiour foretold in other wordes, that Ierusalem should be troden Luk. 21. 24.vnderunder foote of the Gentiles, vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
10 Lastly, whereas Theodorus Bibliander proueth by the testimony of Gregory the great, that Antichrist was to sit in the church, & to exercise an vniuersall dominiō ouer the same, because Gregory saith that Iohn of Cōstātinople challenging the title Lib. 4. Epist. 38.of vniuersall Bishop, therein was the forerunner of Antichrist: and secondly, because hee saith that an army of Priests were prepared for Antichrist, thereby signifying that he should be a prince of Priests: Bellarmine answereth, that the contrary is to be inferred vponupon Gregory his wordes. For the forerunner must not be equall to him, whose forerunner he is, but lesse and inferiour. If therefore Iohn of Constantinople, who was the forerunner of Antichrist, challenged the title of vniuersall Bishop, Antichrist himselfe shall challenge greater matters, and shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God. But I reply, that although the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople was very great and Antichristian: yet it was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome. Iohn of Constantinople sought a superioritie ouer all other Bishoppes, but challenged not that height of authoritie and foueraigntie which the Popes since hauehave vsurped, not only ouer Bishoppes and Ecclesiasticall persons, but also ouer the Kings and Monarchies of the earth. Neither hath the Antichristian pride of the Pope rested heere, but as I hauehave shewed heretofore, in some thinges hee matcheth himselfe Li. 1. cap. 5.with Christ, in some things he aduanceth himselfe aboue him, and aboue all that is called God. To the second Bellarmine answereth, that it was not Gregories meaning, that Priestes as they are Priests, belong to the army of Antichrist, but as they are proud. But hence it followeth not saith hee, Antichristum fore principem sacerdotum, sed fore principem superborum, that Antichrist shall be the prince of Priests, but that he shall be the prince of proud men: shamelesse, and yet ridiculous. Doth it not follow, that if he be the prince of Priests as they are proude, that he is the prince of proude Priests, such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of? It followeth therefore vponupon our arguments, notwithstanding all his cauils, that Antichrist was to hauehave his chiefe seate in Rome, and in Rome professing her selfe the church of God, but being indeed the whore of Babylon.