A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 16
Chap. 16. Of the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist.
COncerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist, we reade foure thinges in the scriptures 1saith Bellarmine. 1. that Antichrist arising from a most base estate, shall by fraude and deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. 2. that he shall fight with three kings, to wit, of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and hauing ouercome them, shall possesse their kingdomes. 3. that he shall subdue seuen other kings, and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole world. 4. that with an innumerable army he shall persecute the Christians in the whole world: and that this is the battaile of Gog and Magog. Of all which seeing none agreeth to the Pope, it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist.
To these foure points I will answere, first ioyntly to them all, and then seuerally to eueryevery one. For whereas Bellarmine saith, that these foure thinges are read in the scriptures concerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist, I answere, that not any one of these foure is to be found in the scriptures, and therefore that this argument as it is the last, so of least force, and that his disputation standing now as it were on the tilt, he seemeth to drawe of the lees. Notwithstanding the three first hee would faine father vponupon Daniel, as though hee in the 7. and 11. Chapters had prophesied such things concerning Antichrist. But I answere, that these prophesies had, and according to Daniel were to hauehave their complement before the comming of the Messias, and therfore that the Papists may as wel with the Iewes expect the comming of their Messias, as still to expect the fulfilling of these thinges in their imaginary Antichrist, the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes. Seeing as I said, these prophesies were to be fulfilled before the comming of Christ: and seeing the Iewes do stil waite for their Messias, because with the Papists they will not acknowledge these prophesies (which were to hauehave their complement before the comming of the Messias) to hauehave bene fulfilled before the incarnation of Christ. The occasion of which errour of the Papists (whereat the Iewes also do stumble) hath bene an erronious interpretation of some of the Fathers, who vnderstand whatsoeuer is spoken of the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae, that is, the kingdome of Syria and Egypt (so farre forth as it tyrannized ouer the people of God the Iewes) figured by the two legges of the Image, chap. 2. and the fourth beast with tenne hornes, chap. 7. they vnderstand (I say) as spoken of the Romane Monarchy. And consequently whatsoeuer is spoken of the little horne, chap. 7. 8. 11. whereby Antiochus Epiphanes is most plainely described, they expound it of Antichrist.
2 But the learned of our times hauehave made it cleare, although the Papists shut their eyes against the truth, that by the two legges of the Image, and by the fourth beast, is not to be vnderstood the Romane Empire, and by the little horne not Antichrist properly, but Antiochus Epiphanes. For these thinges which are recorded of the two legges, chap. 2. and of the fourth beast, chap. 7. do not onelyonly sitly, but also properly and onelyonly agree to the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae. And those things which are written of the little horne, do wholy & properly belong to Antiochus Epiphanes, as the Papists themselues cannot deny. Porphyry that learned, though malicious enemie of Christianitie, perceiued Daniels prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. & 12. chapters, which the Papists vnderstand of Antichrist, so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, that he cauelled against the prophesies of Daniel; affirming that they were written not before hand of Daniel, but after the fulfilling of them by some one that liued in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. For so Ierome writeth of him: Contre prophetam Danielem doudetimum librum scribit Porphyrius, notans eum ab ipso cuius Praefatione in Daniel.inscriptus est nomine esse compositum, sed à quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Iudaea, & non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. And after, tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, vt propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse, sed narrasse praterita. So fully and plainly is Antiochus deciphred in the prophecie of Daniel, that the authour of that booke seemed to Porphyrie, to hauehave written a story of Antiochus Epiphanes, rather then a prophecie.
3 As for Antichrist, he is not once mentioned or meant in all the prophecie of Daniel the which I deliuer, not as though I thought, that those things which the papists expound concerning Antichrist, could not for the most part be fitly applied to the Pope: for not onelyonly diuers protestants arguing from the papists owne groundes, hauehave out of Daniel prooued the Pope to be Antichrist: but also the Iewes, and namely R. Leui Gerson, whom Bellarmine citeth, chap. 12. expoundeth all those things in Daniel, chap. 7. and 11. which the papists vnderstand of Antichrist, as spoken of the Pope of Rome, whom he calleth another Pharao. And most true it is, that excepting Antiochus Epiphanes, these prophecies doe best fit the Pope of Rome. And therefore I willingly graunt that, which both olde and new writers hauehave a…med, that Antiochus Epiphanes may be saide to hauehave bene a type of Antichrist. A type I say, not in all and eueryevery particular▪ (as though whatsoeuer can be said of Antiochus, the like may be said of Antichrist) but in some principall matters, in respect whereof he is a type. Salomon the King of peace, Dauid the kingly Prophet, the high priests, which by offering sacrifices made attonement for their bretheren, Iosuae the deliuerer of the people, were types of Christ. And yet it were a ridiculous, if not a blasphemous course, to apply to Christ whatsoeuer is recorded of Salomon, Dauid, the high Priests, or Iosuah. Neither is this without cause set downe by the Schoolemen as a rule of Diuinitie, that theologia symbolica non est argumentutina. For those things which properly are spoken of Antiochus, cannot properly be vnderstood of Antichrist, (if at all) but onelyonly allegorically, and allegories proue not: and that force which they seeme to hauehave in prouing, is not to proue the same particular, but the like: for allegories are similitudes without notes of likenes. If therefore it were scarce a good argument in diuinitie, from a type or allegory to proue the like, because similia claudicant: then must it needs be a sencelesse argumentation from a similitude, to conclude not the like, but the same particular, seeing nullum fimile, est idem, no like is the selfe-same. The principall matters which are recorded of Antiochus are these: that he was foreign an enemy to God, and a persecuter of his church, an aduancer of himselfe aboue or against eueryevery God; or as the Apostle speaketh, foreign, one that was foreign ruled by no lawe, but his owne wil, hauing a mouth speaking Dan. 7. 8.presumptuous things, and such like: which as they are recorded of Antiochus, so are they by the Apostles applied to Antichrist, 2. Thess. 2.and do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope. But if we shall apply to Antichrist those things▪ which were proper to the person of Antiochus, and in respect whereof he was not a type of Antichrist, and from thence shall inferre not the like, which were too much, for like things are not like in all things, but the same particular which was proper to his persō, we shall be ridiculously absurd. As for example, if we shall say that Antichrist shall by craft attaine, not to his kingdome, but to the same kingdome of Syria, because Antiochus did so: that Antichrist shal fight with the kings of Egypt, Libya & Aethiopia, because in Bellarmines conceit Antiochus did so, and such like particulars; then may we by as good right affirme, that Antichrist shall immediatly succeed in the kingdome of Syria his brother Seleucus Philopater, for that is expresly noted Dan: 11. 21. and in his place, &c. and consequently, that he shall be the sonne of Antiochus Magnus, that he shall be an hostage at Rome before he be king, as Epiphanes was: that he shall make three expeditions into Egypt, and in his returne homeward eueryevery time shall hee afflict the land of Iury; especially in the second expedition, when being hindred by the shippes of Chittim, Ioseph. antiq lib. 12. cap. 6.that is the Romans, he wreaked his malice vpō the Iewes, chap. 11. 30. and all the rest of the particulars, which properly belong to the person of Antiochus, all which Daniel doth so fully and particularly describe, that hee hath seemed to some which knew not with what spirit he did write, to hauehave written a story rather then a prophecie of him. Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12.
4 But now let vsus examine seuerally the particular instances from whence Bellarmine wold proue that the Pope is not Antichrist. From the first he argueth thus: Antichrist arising from most base estate (ex humilimo loco) shall by fraud & deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. The Pope of Rome ariseth not from base estate, neither obtaineth the kingdome by fraude and deceit, therfore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is after his manner proued out of Dan. 11. 21. And in his place shall stand a vile person, and they shall not giuegive vntounto him the honor of a king, but he shall come secretly, and obtaine the kingdome by fraude. I answere first, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist: and secondly, that this, proposition is not true of him of whom Daniel speaketh, and therfore that this allegatiō is both impertinent & vntrue. That Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, it shall appeare out of Daniel himselfe. For Daniel speaketh of him that immediately in the kingdome of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater. For so he saith, in his place, who was described, vers. 20 shall stand vp a vile person, meaning thereby Antiochus, who, foreign is called foreign, but properly as Polybius calleth him foreign, vntounto whom that which is cited out of the 21. verse, and all the rest of the chapter vntounto the end, doth wholy and properly agree.
5 For the better vnderstanding of this place & the rest of Daniel, we are to know, that excepting one propheticall comfort of the resurrection, cha. 12. his whole prophecie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares, that is to say, from the taking of Ierusalem by the Chaldeans, vntounto the finall destructiō thereof by the Romanes: and his prophecie concerneth those kingdomes which should in the meane time be in the worlde. And those are either such terrestriall kingdomes vntounto whose tyrannie the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias: or else the spirituall kingdome of Christ, (the Messias & king of the Iewes) before which all the former kingdoms were to hauehave an end. Da. 2. 4. …. & 7. 11. &. 26 27. The time wherof, as also of the desolatiō of Ierusalē, is foretold, cap. 9. 25. 26. 27. according to which time this Messias and king, is by the wise men acknowledged to be born Mat. 2▪ and his kingdom by Iohn Baptist the forerunner of Christ, was said to be at hand. Mat. 3. 2. and in like sort preached our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 1. 15. & his apostles, Ma. 10. 7. Christ also a litle before his death confessed that he was a king, and in his death his title was the king of the Iewes. After his death & resurrection he professeth that all power was giuen him in heauen and in earth, and therevpon ascendeth into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God: which is noted in Daniel, chap. 7. 13. that after Christ the son of man was come into the worlde, he went vntounto the auncient of dayes, and to him was giuen power, glory, and kingdome, that all people, nations and tongues should serue him. Of both these sorts of kingdomes Daniel intreateth, chap. 2. and 7. And as touching the terrestriall kingdomes which tyrannized ouer the Iewes before the comming of Christ in the flesh, they are noted to be foure: the first of the Babylonians, the second of the Medes and Persians, the third of the Macedonians, the fourth of the Seleucidae and Lagidae. And of these foure Daniel prophecieth, either ioyntly of all together, or seuerally of some of them. In the second & seuenth chapters, of them all together, resembling them in the second chapter by an Image, the golden head whereof figureth the Babylonians, the breast and armes of siluer the Medes and Persians, the belly and sides of brasse, represent the Macedonians, his legges of yron, and his feete, part of yron, and part of clay, resemble the Seleucidae & Lagidae: and in the seuenth chapter, the same foure kingdomes are figured by 4. beastes, the Babylonians by a Lyon, the Medes and Persians by a Beare, the Macedonians by a Leoparde, the Seleucidae and Lagidae, by the beast with tenne hornes.
6 Seuerally he prophecieth, either of the Babylonian Monarchy, or of the rest. His prophecies concerning the Babylonian Monarchy, which also were fulfilled in his time, are set downe chap. 4. and 5. Of the three other, and especially of the last (because that especially was to afflict the people of the Iewes) he prophecieth againe in the 8. and 11. chapters. In the 11. chapter, to omit the rest, the Angell promiseth, vers. 2. Dan. 11. 2.to declare the truth; that is, the true and proper sense & meaning of the aforesaid visions concerning the three kingdomes which yet remained, recorded chap. 2. 7. 8. And first as touching the kingdome of the Medes & Persians, he mentioneth but foure Kings, because the rest did nothing memorable against Iuda, verse. 2. In the third verse he prophecieth of Alexander Verse. 3.the great, the mightie Monarch of the Graecians, and of the diuision of that Empire into soure principall parts, vers. 4. Verse. 4.which before was foretold, chap. 8. 22. Of which diuision Ierome writeth thus; Quo (sc. Alexandro) tricesimo secundo aetatis In Dan. 8.suae anno mortuo in Babylone, surrexerunt pro eo quatuor duces eius, qui sibi imperium diuiserunt. Aegyptum enim Ptolemeus Lagi filius tenuit, &c. Alexander being dead in Babylon, in the 32. yeare of his age, there arose in his stead foure of his captaines, who diuided the Empire among them. For Ptolemy Lagides held Egypt. Philip who also is called Arideus, the brother of Alexander held Macedonia. Seleucus Nicanor, held Syria and Babylon, and all the kingdomes of the East. Antigonus ruled ouer Asia minor. These foure kingdomes were by mutuall conflicts reduced to two vnderunder Seleucus Nicanor, & Ptolemy Lagides, from whom did spring the kingdom of the Lagidae & kings of Egypt on the South: and of the Seleucidae or kings of Syria & Babylon in the North. These two vsed to contend for Iudaea, which lying in the midst betwixt them, became a prey to the conquerers, and was greeuously afflicted by them. These two are the two legges and feete of the Image, chap. 2. and also the fourth beast with tenne hornes, chap. 7. for of these two kingdomes there are tenne kings reckened, which tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes, especially the tenth horne; that is, Antiochus Epiphanes, who arose in the ende of the kingdome of this beast, namely, ouer the Iewes, chap. 8. 23. For in his time the people of God were freed from the tyrannie of the Seleucidae, by Iudas Macchabaeus.
7 These tenne hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer Iewry, are mentioned in order in this 11. chapter. First Ptolemy Lagides (the first horne) who is called verse. 5. the king of Verse. 5. Ioseph. antiq. lib. 12. cap. 1.the South, that is of Egypt, who shortly after he had gotten Egypt, inuaded Iudea, and surprized the citie of Ierusalem on a Sabboth. Secondly, Seleucus Nicanor (the second horne) the mightiest of the Princes of Alexander, as he is described in the same fift verse. For although Ptolemy for a time helde Iudaea, yet after it was agreed vponupon that Seleucus should hauehave Syria and therein Iudaea. Him succeeded Antiochus Soter (the third horne) so called, because he expelled the French-men out of Asia: whose sonne Antiochus Theos (the fourth horne) to confirme a league betwixt him and Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt, tooke in marriage Bernice, the daughter of Ptolemy Vers 6.Philadelphus, according to that prophecie of the two legges, consisting of yron and claie mingled together, that they should mingle themselues together in the seede of man, but they should not cleaue together, euen as yron cannot be mixed with claie, chap. 2. 43. for euen so it followeth vers. 6. For howsoeuer they had combined themselues together by mariage, yet this coniunction helde not, and they which had any hande in it shortly after died. For Antiochus Theos had a former wife yet liuing named Laodice, by whom he had Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus Hierax. This Laodice to reuenge this despite, poisoned her husband Antiochus Theos: her sonne Seleucus Callinicus (the fift horne) slewe Bernice, her childe, and her traine: and Ptolemy Philadelphus shortly after this mariage ended his life. But in his place, verse. 7. did arise his sonne Ptolemy Euergetes (the sixt Vers. 7.horne) proceeding from the same rootes with Bernice (that is, her brother) who to auenge the death of his sister, made warre with Seleucus Callinicus, and ouercame him, and hauing caused himselfe to be crowned king of Syria, returned with much spoile, and many captiues into Egypt; and Ver. 8. & 9 Polyb. li. 5. Appian. in Syria. Ioseph. l. contr. Appian. Vers. 10.being stronger then Seleucus Callinicus, hee held the dominion of Syria for many yeares. But the sonnes of Seleucus Callinicus, to wit Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus, raised warre, verse. 5. 10. First Seleucus Ceraunus against Ptolemy Euergetes, and they both beeing dead about the same time, Antiochus Magnus against Ptolemy Philopater, the sonne of Euergetes. Of him (I meane Antiochus Magnus) the Angell prophecieth vntounto the 20. verse: to wit, of his battailes first with Ptolemy Philopator, and those sometimes prosperous, whereby hee recouered Syria, verse. 10. sometime aduerse, wherby he lost the same again, vers. 11. 12. Wherevpon Ptolemy being list vp becommeth the 7. horne, and killeth many of the Iewes, for which hee shall not prosper, verse 12. After, of his battailes and victories against Ptolemy Epiphanes sonne of Philopater, verse. 13. 14. 15. Of Vers. 13. 14. 15. Vers. 16.his afflicting the lande thereby that is Iewry, verse. 16. as being the eight houre: of his giuing his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes to mingle the yron and the clay (according to the prophecie, chapter 2.) therein pretending peace and friendship, but intending by her his destruction, although in vaine, she ioyning with her husband against her father, verse Vers. 17.17. Of his expeditions into the Ilandes of Greece, and conquering them. Of his warres with the Romaines, which brought shame vponupon him, they making him to sit downe with dishonourable conditions, verse. 18. Of his ignominious Vers. 18. Vers. 19.ende, namely in a Barbarian tumult for sacriledge, verse 19. In his place succeedeth his sonne Seleucus Philopater (the ninth horne) one who did pill and poll his subiects by great tributes and exactions, and sent to emptie and exhaust the treasury and temple of Ierusalem: and hauing set free his brother Antiochus Epiphanes, who was an hostage at Rome, and in stead of him sent his owne sonne Demetrius, is shortly after poysoned by Heliodorus, suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes, vers. 20.Vers. 20. Ver. 21.
8 Now in his place (saith the Angel, vers. 21.) shall stand a vile person, &c. that is, in the kingdome of Syria, a vile person shall succeed Seleucus Philopator as the tenth horn, which cannot be vnderstood properly of any other but of Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the rest of the chapt. to the end, is most fully & plainly described. For first he intreateth of his cōming vntounto the kingdome: secōdly of his affaires afterwards: and lastly of his end. Of his comming vntounto the kingdome he saith, that hauing no right of succession (for Demetrius was the heire) nor lawfull election, by flattery & fraude attained to the kingdome, pretending himselfe (as Richard the third did) to be the tutor & protector of the young Prince Demetrius, and Administrator of the kingdome during the minoritie and absence of Demetrius, who had bene sent in his stead as an hostage to Rome. Wherefore Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, vnlesse we may say, that Antichrist was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater, which is ridiculous; yea, and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth else-where, that in this latter part of the chapter, Daniel speaketh of Antiochus literally, who was a figure of Antichrist. This place therefore doth not proue Lib. 3. cap. 21.Bellarmines proposition, namely, that Antichrist arising from most base estate▪ should by fraud obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. Neither doth this proposition sit Antiochus, who is here described; neither is it agreeable to the description itselfe. For neither did Antiochus arise from most base estate, for hee was sonne to Antiochus the great, and brother to Seleucus Philopater: Neither doth Daniel say so, but onelyonly that foreign a vile or despised person should succeede Seleucus Philopator; which is to be vnderstood not in respect of his base estate and condition, but of his base maners and vile conditions, in regard whereof the holy Ghost calleth him, although a great Kings sonne, vile and contemptible. And so is eueryevery wicked man, though mightie in the world, a vile and despised person in the eyes of the godly, Psal. 15. 4. The wicked man is vile in his eyes. And as Salomon saith: The wicked man is an abhomination vntounto the righteous. Such an one was Haman in the eyes of Mardoche, and Iehoram Pro. 21. 27. Hest. 3. 2. King. 3. 13. 14.the wicked king of Israel, in the eyes of Elizeus. So that it was not the base condition, but the vices and base conditions of Antiochus that made him vile, in respect where of Polybius calleth him foreign. So is Seleucus Philopater, verse. 20. in the vulgar translation called Uilissimus, because of his base polling of his people, and not because hee did arise from base estate. Wherefore it is euident, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in this place, and that he of whom he speaketh, did not arise from moste base estate, as Bellarmine woulde beare vsus in hand; vnlesse it be a most base estate to bee the sonne of a mightie King, who for his greatnesse was called Antiochus the great.
9 But will you see with one view the absurditie of this Popish argument. Hee proueth from this place, that Antichrist shall arise from most base estate, and shall by deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes. But (say I) Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, but of Antiochus Epiphanes. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist. Be it that hee was a type not onelyonly in some other things, but also in this particular: yet from hence we must inferre not the selfe same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus, but the like, and that by way of allegory onelyonly, which were but a sleight argument to proue so weightie a controuersie in diuinitie. Whereas therefore he inferreth from hence not the like (viz. as Antiochus obtained his kingdome by fraude: so shall Antichrist obtaine his) but the verie same particular, (viz. as Antiochus obtained the kingdome of the Iewes, so shall Antichrist obtaine the same kingdome of the Iewes) his argument is ridiculous: and yet this is not all the absurditie of this argument: for when as from the likenesse of Antichrist to his type, he would proue that Antichrist shall arise from base estate, this assertion is not true, of the type it selfe. Yea but Ierome saith, that this place may better be vnderstood of Antichrist, Qui consurgere habet de mo…ica gente id est de populo Iudaeorum, &c. Who is to arise of a small nation, that is, the people of the Iewes, &c. and Daniel compareth Antichrist because of his base beginning to the little horne, chap. 7. I doe not denie but that Antichristes beginning might be base; but yet neither can the testimony of Ierome, neither doth that allegation out of Daniel, proue it. For Ieromes testimony in this case, if it ought to be of weight with vsus, it must be taken either as a prophecie, or else as a sit exposition of Daniels prophecie, as I hauehave said heretofore. But Ierome was no Prophet: neither doth hee sitly expound Daniel, who speaketh plainly, not of Antichrist, but of the successour of Seleucus Philopator. And it is a wonder that Ierome one of the most learned of the Fathers, should in so easie a matter be ouerseene. For seeing hee confesseth that the former part of the chapter is to be expounded of the Seleucidae, and that in the 20. verse is described Seleucus Philopator, for so hee saith on those wordes (Et stabit in loco eius vilissimus) Seleucum dicit cognomento Philopatorem, filium magni Antiochi, he speaketh of Seleucus, surnamed Philopator, the sonne of Antiochus the great.
It is therefore most plaine, that when Daniel saith, and in his place shall stand a vile person; he speaketh of the next successour of Seleucus Philopator, meaning Antiochus; euen as in the 20. verse after he had spoken of Antiochus Magnus, he saith, and in his place shall stand vp a sender forth of an extortioner, meaning Seleucus. Neither doth Daniel say any where, that Anchrist, or he of whom he speaketh, shall arise of a small nation, meaning thereby the Iewes: that which he speaketh de modico populo, vers. 23. is to be vnderstood properly as Ierome himselfe expoundeth it, according to the literal, that is, the proper sense, of the small company wherwith Antiochus surprised Egypt: neither can there be any such allegorical sense, as he seemeth to frame. Neither doth Daniel by the litle horne meane any other but Antiochus Epiphanes, who may not vnfitly in diuers things be said to hauehave bene a type of Antichrist. For the terrible beast with ten hornes, doth not signifie the Romane state as the Papists would hauehave it, but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae: and by the ten hornes, not the ten Kings whereof Iohn speaketh, Apoc. 17. among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided; but ten of these Kings, viz. three Lagidae, and seuen Seleucidae, which tyrannized or ruled ouer the people of God. The tenth, that is to say, the last of them that had dominion ouer Iudaea was, not Antichrist, but Antiochus Epiphanes, who in crueltie towards the people of God surpassed all that went before him.
10 Which I speake not as though this expositiō did much hinder our assertiō; for others which hauehave held the same, hauehave applied those things which are spoken of the litle horne, vntounto the Pope. And surely if this fourth beast were the Romane state, and the hornes the rulers thereof, and the tenth or last horne Antichrist: then is it hereby very likely that the Pope is Antichrist, seeing hitherto hee is the last that hath ruled in Rome, and shall according to the Papists owne conceit continue to the end. But the truth is, that the descriptiō of the fourth beast doth not agree to the Romanes, but to the kingdome of the Seleucidae. For this fourth beast was a kingdome which was to hauehave an end before the cōming of the Messias & his kingdome, chap. 7. vers. 11. 26. 27. So had the kingdome of the Seleucidae, so had not the Romanes. 2. This fourth beast warred with the Iewes, tyrannized ouer them, and hindred their religiō & worship of God at Ierusalem, not only before the comming of Christ, but also before the purging of the temple, and restitution of religiō by Iudas Macchabaeus, cha. 7. ver. 25. 26. 27. So did the Seleucidae, so did not the Romanes. 3 Of the fourth beast there were but ten hornes, that is Princes that ruled ouer Iudaea, which is most true of the Seleucidae & Lagidae; but of the Romanes, after they had once obtained the dominion of Iury, there were many more then ten that ruled ouer the holy land. If any say the Romane Empire is figured Apoc. 17. by a beast with ten horns, I answer, that the ten hornes wherof Iohn speaketh, Apo. 17. 12. are ten kings, amōg whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided, who succeeded not one another in the same kingdome, but were rulers of so many seueral prouinces or kingdoms at the same time: but these ten horns tyrannized ouer the same kingdome of the Iewes successiuely, as they are particularly described, chap. 11. And further, he that in Daniel is supposed by the Papists to be Antichrist, is one of the tenne hornes, but in Iohn not. 4. that which is spoken in Daniel of the tenth horne, doth fitly & wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth and last king of that kingdome, that ruled ouer Iudaea, but the same things cannot in like sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romanes. 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horne, chap. 7. with those thinges which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus, chap. 8. 23. &c. and chap. 11. 21. &c. to the end of the chapter, it appeareth euidently, that he & no other is that litle horne. For wheras Daniel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdomes besides the Babylonian, which should tyrannize ouer the Iewes by three beasts: in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdomes by 2. beasts. For the kingdome of the Medes & Persians which before was resembled by a Beare, is here signified by the Ramme with 2. hornes: the kingdome of the Macedonians & Seleucidae, which before were represented by two seuerall beasts, are heere figured by the Goate Bucke, containing them both; for both the Macedonians and Seleucid… were Iauan, that is, the Greekes, Daniel. 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter, the kingdome of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had foure heads: so here it is saide, that after the great horne signifying Alexander the great was broken off, there grewe foure hornes in stead thereof, meaning the foure Princes among whom the Macedonian Monarchy was diuided. The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. hornes, is here signified to be that kingdome which was chiefly erected by one of those foure hornes, namely Seleucus, that is, the kingdome of the Seleucidae: and from him, namely in the end of their kingdome ouer the Iewes, came forth a little horne, that is, the king with the impudent face, chap. 8. verse. 9. 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth horne of the fourth beast. And in the eleuenth chapter without figures of beastes the same three kingdomes are described, the same tenne hornes reckned vp, the same tenth horne more particularly deciphred. 6. The people pusht at and oppressed by these hornes, is Daniels people, the people of the Iewes yet remaining and inhabiting in Tzeby, that is in Iury and Ierusalem, not onelyonly before the desolation of Ierusalem, but also before the reformation vnderunder Iudas Macchabaeus. But Antichrist, if we will beleeue the Papists, shall be the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes, neither shall hee afflict the Iewes, but by them the Christians, and that in the ende of the worlde, &c. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horne, doe precisely agree to the persecution vnderunder Antiochus. But these times are diuersly to be reckened in respect either of the beginning, or the end of the account. For as touching the beginning, we recken either from the defection and reuolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest, in the yeare 142. the sixt monethmonth, and sixt day, vntounto the restitution of Religion, in the yeare 148. and 25. day of the ninth monethmonth, and this space is 2300. dayes, (that is 6. moneths, 3. yeares, 18. dayes) foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we recken from the pollutiō of the temple, and erection of the new altar, & abolishing of the daily sacrifice, to wit, in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae, on the 15. of Casleu, diuersly in respect of the ende, viz. either to the restitution begunne by Iudas Machabaeus, Ioseph. antiq lib. 12. cap 6.in the 25. of the same monethmonth Casleu, in the year 148. which space is called a time and times, and parcell of time, that is, three yeares and tenne daies: or if we reade a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57.and halfe a time, we may recken vntounto the time of that victorie which Macchabaeus and the Iewes had against the Armies 1. Mac. 14: 52.of Antiochus, whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed, and Antiochus his Armies were expelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello Iud. lib. 1. cap. 1.out of Iury, which as Iosephus noteth, was done after three yeares and sixe moneths: or if we recken to the time that Antiochus hauing heard of these and some other ouerthrowes of his Armies after his owne discomsiture and slight from Persepolis, was striken by the hand of God, and promised all good things to the Iewes, it is 1290. dayes; if Dan. 12. 11. 12.to his death, 1335. By all which considerations, it appeareth that Daniel by the fourth beast vnderstandeth not the Romane Monarchy, but the kingdome of the Seleucidae, and Lagidae: nor by the tenth horne Antichrist properly, but Antiochus Epiphanes.
11 Thus much therefore may suffice to hauehave spoken of his proposition: now let vsus briefly consider of the assumption. The Pope (saith he) ariseth not from base estate, neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdome. As touching the former I answere, that although it were false of Antiochus, yet is it true of the Pope, whether you consider the meane estate of the first Bishops of Rome, or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes. For that which Bellarmine alledgeth in commendation of the Primitiue religion, and auncient church of Rome, is but a vaine flourish, nothing appertaining to this purpose. 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdome by fraude and deceit, Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for graunted, then once called in question: and therefore cunningly passeth it ouer with silence. But if this were set downe in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist, to attain to his greatnes by fraude & deceit, I would make it manifest, that neuer in any estate more deep policy, and diuellish deceit hath bene vsed then in the See of Rome, wherby they hauehave obtained their supremacy, and maintained their soueraigntie ouer the Christian world. Yea their whole religion of Popery and mystery of iniquitie, seemeth to be nought else but a packe of policy deuised by worldly men to deisie the Pope, and to enrich the popish cleargy. For wherevnto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons, their Iubelies, their doctrines of merits & supererogation, their purgatory, their trentalls of Masses, and praier for the dead, their pilgrimages and adoration of Saints, Images, and reliques, their licences and dispensations, their thunderboults of excommunication, their oathe of allegeance and fealtie imposed on Princes and potentates, subiection to the Pope enforced vponupon all sorts, as absolutely necessary to saluation, their wilfull deprauations of scriptures, forgeries of Canons, counterfeit donations of Constantine and others, to proue the double supremacy of the Pope? Whervnto tended his often maintaining of quarelles among Christian Princes, his warres inioyned them for the recouery of the holy lande, but that they being by these meanes weakened, might be the more easily subdued vntounto himselfe: his Croisades and promises of heauen, to all those that sight such battailes as like him? HaueHave not their cleargy come to their riches, and the Pope to his greatnes by these and such like meanes? But because the comming to his greatnes by fraude and deceit, is not set downe in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist, vnlesse it be by way of type and allegory in Antiochus, I will therefore let it passe: onelyonly let me put you in minde that the prophecie of Peter in the former respects is performed in the Pope and cleargy of Rome, who by fained words make merchandise of mens soules through couetousnesse. And this was Bellarmine his first instance.
12 His seconde argument is thus to be framed. Antichrist shall warre with three Kings, to wit of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; and hauing ouercome them, shall possesse their kingdomes. But the Pope of Rome hath not warred at any time (he should say, shall not warre, and that is more then hee is able to proue) with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, neither hauing vanquished them, hath possessed their kingdomes, therefore the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist. And in this argument Belarmine doth so greatly please himselfe, that after an insulting manner hee breaketh foorth into these bragges: Hoc autem maximè refellit insaniam haereticorum, &c. This especially refuteth the madnesse of heretikes, who make the Pope Antichrist. For let them say if they can, when the Pope hath killed the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, &c. What would this Thraso do thinke you, if hee had any good argument against vsus, that thus insulteth vponupon a meere dotage? For where doth the scripture say, that Antichrist shall sight with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and that hauing vanquished them, he shall possesse their kingdomes? Forsooth in the 7. and 11. of Daniel. In the 7. chapter Daniel speaking of the tenne hornes of the fourth beast, he saith, verse. 8. I considered the hornes, and loe the last horne came vp, a little one among them, and three of the former hornes were pluckt vp before it. And after, verse. 24. expounding the same words, hee saith: And the tenne hornes are tenne Kings of that kingdome, after whom shall arise the last (namely of the tenne) diuerse from the rest, and he shall abase three Kings.
But this allegation is impertinent. For I hauehave shewed that this fourth beast is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae; that the tenne hornes are those tenne Kings of that kingdome which tyrannized or ruled ouer Iewry; that the tenth or last of them that tyrannized ouer the Iewes, was Antiochus Epiphanes, who is therefore called little before his comming to the crowne, because of his vnlikenesse to be King. First because hee was the third and youngest sonne of Antiochus Magnus, his elder brother Seleucus hauing also a sonne called Demetrius. Secondly, because he was to be a perpetuall hostage at Rome. For when as other hostages, which Antiochus the great gaue to the Romanes, were to be changed eueryevery third yeare, he was to be a perpetuall hostage. And thirdly, because of his vile and base conditions. Now whereas it is saide that three hornes were to be plucked vp before him, wee are by those three hornes to vnderstand three kings, not of others, & those also diuers kingdomes, as of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; but three kings that successiuely had ruled before him in the same kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes, as being expresly called three former hornes, viz. of the tenne, verse 8. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist. It cannot be proued that he was a type in this point, or if he were a type in this, we may not inferre the same particular as Bellarmine doth, for then those three kings mentioned in Daniel, must be reuiued againe, that Antichrist may make them away: but the like might be inferred, viz. that as Antiochus Epiphanes to make himselfe a way to the kingdome, did make away his brother and two others that went before him: so it is not vnlike, but that this should be an Antichristian practise. It is well knowne that Gregory the seuenth, who resembled Antiochus in many things, to make himselfe a way to the Papacy, made away sixe of his predecessors by poyson. And it is an ordinary practise among the Cardinalles of Rome that aspire to the Papacy, now and then to minister an Italian Figge to their Popes: that you may not maruell that there hauehave bene nine Popes in the time of Queene Elizabeths raigne, of whom the three next predecessors of the present Pope Clement 8. were so suddainly pluckt vp before him, namely Urbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocent 9. that I suppose their names hauehave bene heard of fewe among vsus.
13 But the 11. of Daniel, perhaps will proue Bellarmines assertion. That allegation will proue nothing but Bellarmines wilfull blindnesse. Hee saith that in the 11. chapter vers. 43. Daniel explaneth who those three Kings are. Hee shall stretch out his hand ouer countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape, and he shall passe through Libya and Aethiopia, as Bellarmine readeth, but according to the Hebrew, the Lubim and Cushim, that is, the Libyans and Aethiopians shall be in his passages or voyages. Whence Bellarmine inferreth, that Antichrist shall kill three kings, viz. of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia.
Answere. 1. Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus, as I hauehave manifestly prooued. 2. although Antiochus were graunted to hauehave bene a type of Antichrist herein, yet the same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus, may not be applied to Antichrist. For then we must dreame that the world and the kingdomes thereof, must be brought againe iust to the same passe wherein they were when Antiochus raigned, and the same kings to be reuiued; but something like might be applied, that as Antiochus, in Bellarmines conceit, suppressed three kings, so Antichrist should be a suppressor of kings, which is true of the Pope: who besides diuers kings deposed by his meanes, hath also depressed foure Emperours at the least, as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. 3. Daniel in this place is so farre from mentioning three kings slaine by Antichrist according to Bellarmines conceit, that he neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor of three kings, nor of the killing of any one king, but onelyonly of Antiochus his spoyling of Egypt, hauing in his company the Libyans and Aethiopians. Whether therefore this argument of Bellarmine doth reproue our madnesse, or rather proue his folly, let any indifferent arbiter be Iudge. Now if Ierome or any other of the Fathers hauehave let fall any such thing, we are to esteeme it as an excrement of theirs, which we are to passe by, rather then with the Cacouorae the Papists, to gather it vp as Cacouora, auis quaedam est apud Indos, quae alterius auis asse… cla est: cuius vescatur excremētis. Scalig. de subtil.fit foode for their soules.
14 And the like answere we frame vntounto his third argument, which is not grounded vponupon the scriptures; but vponupon the bare coniectures of some of the Fathers. For where is there in all the scriptures any word of this which Bellarmine saith he readeth in the scriptures, that Antichrist shall subdue seuen other kings, and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole worlde? Forsooth Lactantius and Ireneus say so. But I neuer tooke their writings before to be the scriptures. Why then Ierome saith so vponupon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt, that he did that which his forefathers neuer did; Nullus Iudaeorum absque Antichristo in tot… vnquam or be regnauit. These be Bellarmines scriptures. But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings? Nay, the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures. The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh, were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea, as hath bene shewed. And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors, yet hee could not hurt the other sixe (for there were but nine besides himselfe) which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares. Yea, but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade, and the tenne hornes which thou sawest, are tenne Kings; these hauehave one minde, and they shall giuegive their power and authoritie to the beast.
No maruell though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of waxe, seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure, and giuegive vntounto it what sense they list. Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three, or subduing seuen? Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wherof Daniel doth? Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias: Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome. verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other. Iohn, of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided, who also were to hauehave their kingdome together with the beast. Daniel telleth vsus what the little horne which was one of the tenne, should doo to three of the other nine, without mention of the rest, Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist, which is none of the tenne hornes, but one of the heades of the beast. If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel, and that Antichrist shall kill three of them, & subdue the other seuen, he may hope to proue any thing,
But what other scriptures hath hee? forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill. For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith, that Antichrist shall bee a Monarch, and shall succeede the Romanes in the Monarchy, as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes; the Greekes succeeded the Persians, and they the Assyrians. And Cyrill saith, that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15which was the Romanes. I answere, that for substance these Fathers held the truth. For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares, besides the Pope, who calleth himselfe King of Kings, and Lorde of Lords, to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth, who hath as they say, the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power; who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth, in so much that he taketh vponupon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world. And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6.gouernment of Rome, as it becommeth Antichrist, who is the second beast, Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast, Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt, I shall not neede to proue.
15 There remaineth the fourth argument. Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world, and this is the battell of God and Magog: but this agreeth not to the Pope, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. I answere to the proposition, that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture. Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. & 39. & Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist, nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him. But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie, and also prophesied of the comming of Christ; in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time, to wit, after their returne out of captiuitie, before the comming of the Messias, and withall, denounceth the iudgemēts of God against the Seleucidae, who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor, and their adherents, who should be the chiefe enemies of the church, and people of the Iewes after their returne. For Gog signifieth Asia minor, hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof. Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria, built by the Scythians, and frō them hath that name. So that by the land of Magog, wee are to vnderstand Syria, and by Gog, Asia minor. And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23.are named in Ezechiel, were such as assisted the Seleucidae (who were the kings of Syria, and Asia minor) in their warres, either as their subiects, or as their friends, or as their mercenary souldiers. And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor, were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes, by Ad Tremell. & Iun. in Ezech. 38. & 39.whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ: therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language, the mortall and deadly enemies of the church, are called Gog and Magog. And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names, Gog and Magog, to signifie the enemies of the church, meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh, but the like enemies of the Church, which should afflict the true Christians, as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes. Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the persecution of Antichrist properly, but of Sathan (after he was loosed) his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell, and of Gods iudgements against them, signified by fire. And so much shall suffice to hauehave answered to this argument. For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog, neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Protestants, which he thought were more easie to answere: seeing in the former booke I hauehave sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be Antichrist: neither is the controuersie betwixt vsus, whether eueryevery argument that hath bene produced by eueryevery one, doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist. That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall, I let it passe.