A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 5
The 5. Chapter: maintaining against Bellarmine his second demonstration, that Antichrist is already come.
1. THe second signe going before Antichrist is, as Bellarmine saith, he vtter desolatiō of the Romane Empire. From whence this demonstration is raised. If the Roman Empire be not yet vtterly destroyed, then is not yet Antichrist come for: the vtter desolation of the Romaine Empire is a certaine signe going before his comming: But the Roman Empire is not yet vtterly destroied: therfore Antichrist is not yet come. We cōfesse that before antichrist could be reuealed by exercising a soueraigne dominion in Rome, it was necessary that the Emperour, so farre forth as he hindred this reuelation of Antichrist, should be taken out of the way: But that there should be such an vtter desolatiō of the Empire, as that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperor or king of the Romans, that we doe vtterly dony. He that hindred was taken out of the way, partly when the imperiall seate was remooued from Rome to Constantinople, and that to this end (as they hauehave set downe in the donation of Constantine) that the City of Rome might be left to the Pope: but especially when as after the diuision of the Empire into two parts, the Empire in the West (which properly was the Empire of Rome) was dissolued, and lay voyde for many yeares: All which was accomplished before Boniface 3. attained to the Antichristian title. Neither doth the reuiuing of the Westerne Empire in Charlemaine, after it had bin voide 325. yeares, hinder the reuelation or dominiō of Antichrist; but rather proueth that Antichrist was then come. For this new Empire, erected by the Popes meanes, it is the image of the beast (that is, of the old Empire) which Antichrist Apoc. 13.the second beast causeth to be made, & putteth life therinto. It is the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth, & therfore is so far frō hindring Antichrist, that it supporteth him. This beast which was an imperiall state, but is not indeed, though in title it be, as being but an image of the old Empire, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet one of the seuen: wheras Antichrist Apo. 17.by the confessiō of papists is the seuēth. Wherfore although the old Empire in the West (which hindred) was done out of the way, and indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist; yet euen with and vnderunder Antichrist, there was to be an imperial state in name and title, which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, as I hauehave heretofore prooued.Lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 3.
2. But let vsus come to his arguments. The first whereof is this. If before Antichrists comming the Romane Empire is to be diuided into ten kings, whereof none shalbe called king of the Romanes; then is not Antichrist yet come, for yet there is a king of the Romanes: but the first is true, therefore the last. The proposition he taketh for granted, although it cannot be denyed but that vponupon the desolation of the empire in the West, it was deuided among ten kings at the least; who although they had the prouinces of the Empire, yet none of them was called the king of the Romanes. The proposition therefore is false, and the reason may be returned vponupon our aduersary. For seeing these ten kings had not receiued their kingly power in the Apostles time, but were to receiue it either after the beast (which is Antichrist,) as some reade; or with the Apo. 17. 12. foreign.beast as others: it is euident therefore, that when the ten rulers of the prouinces had receiued authority as kings, then Antichrist was come. But many hūdred yeers since, the rulers of the prouinces ceased to be deputies vnderunder the Emperor, & obtained power as soueraigne kings, diuiding among them the westerne Empire, therfore many hundred yeres since was Antichrist come. The assumption he prooueth out of Daniel chap. 2. Where (saith he) is described the successiō of the chiefe kingdomes vntounto the end of the world by a certaine image, the golden head wherof signifieth the kingdome of the Assyrians; the Breast of siluer, the kingdom of the Persians; the Bellie of Brasse, the kingdome of the Grecians; the Legs of Iron, the kingdom of the Romans diuided into two parts, &c. And in the 7. chap. the same kingdomes are signified: the last which hath ten hornes being the kingdome of the Romanes. Now (saith he) as the two Legs hauehave ten toes Subtiliss.which are not legs, & as the ten hornes are not the beast: so the Roman Empire shall be diuided into ten kings, whereof none is the king of the Romanes. Answere. 1. This argumentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction. For if there be in Daniel described a succession of kingdomes which shall continue to the end of the world, whereof the Romane is the last: then the Romane Empire shall not vtterly be destroyed before the cōming of Antichtist, which goeth before the end of the world. But howsoeuer the cōmon opinion hath bin, that the fourth kingdom mentioned in those chapters is the Romane Empire; yet by the learned, especially of these latter times, it hath beene most clearely prooued, that by it is vnderstood that kingdome of the Seleucida & Lagidae, which tyrannized ouer the people of Iewry. For the Seleucida who were Kings of Syria, and the Lagidae who were Kings of Egypt, were the two legs of the image, & were also the fourth beast: the ten kings of these two kingdomes, which successiuely Chap. 16.vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes, were the ten hornes of the beast; which being most true as hereafter also shalbe shewed, it appeareth euidently, that this whole argumentation is impertinent. But suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Romane Empire, yet would not that follow which Bellarmine would inferre thereof. For by the beast is signified the kingdome it selfe, and by the hornes the seuerall kings, who although they be not the kingdome it selfe signified by the beast, no more then the hornes are the beast, yet are they so many kings of that kingdome, which is signified by the beast. As for example: Seleucus, Antiochus, and the rest of the ten kings signified by the ten hornes, and as Bellarmine speaketh, by the ten toes, though they were not the kingdome of Syria & Egypt it selfe; yet were they kings of that kingdome, and therefore this argument of Bellarmine is very friuolous.
3. His second proofe is out of Apocal. 17. Where Iohn describeth a beast with seauen heads and ten hornes, vponupon which beast a certaine woman sitteth, which he expoūdeth to be the great citie sitting on seuen hils, that is to say, Rome. The seauen heads as they signifie seuen hils, so also seauen kings, by which number (saith he) al the Romane Emperors are vnderstood: the ten hornes are ten kings, which shal raigne together. And least we should thinke that these shalbe Romane kings, he addeth, that these kings shall hate the harlot, and make her desolate, because they shall so deuide the Romane Empire among them, that they shall vtterly destroy it. Here Bellarmine, as you see, confesseth, that Rome is the whore of Babylon, and consequently the seate of Antichrist, and not Rome vnderunder the olde Emperors, but Rome after the dissolution of the Empire. And that the ten hornes are so many kings, among whom the Romane Empire should be deuided, and that these ten Kings were to receiue their kingdome together; and consequently that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh, which reigned successiuely, Dan. 11. And wheras Bellarmine saith, the 7. heads signifie all the Emperours, it is vntrue. For the holy Ghost nameth seauen, because they were seauen indeed, and therfore numbreth them. Fiue are fallen, the sixt is, and the seauenth is not yet come. But all this is besides the present purpose. How then doth he prooue, that before Antichrist commeth, the Romane Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed, as that not the name of a Romane Emperour or king of the Romanes should remaine? because the Empire shall be deuided among ten kings, which are not Romane kings. But that proueth not that the name shall not remaine: for he that is none of those ten kings, may hauehave the name of the Emperour or king of the Romanes, as namely the beast which was, and is not, though it be, which is the eight head, and is one of the seauen, that is to say, the Emperour erected by the Pope. And why may none of these be called the king of the Romanes? First forsooth, because they shall hate Rome, and make her desolate… As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romanes, may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title, as indeed some of the Emperours hauehave done. Secondly, because they shall so diuide among them the Romane Empire, as that they shall vtterly destroy it. Where you see by a circular disputation, the question brought to prooue his argument, & yet experience sheweth, that although the Empire is dissolued, and also diuided among the beast (that is Antichrist) & ten kings, there doth notwithstanding remaine the name and title of the Emperor or king of the Romās. And so much now shall suffice to hauehave spoken of that place, frō whence I hauehave heretofore proued, both that antichrist is already come, & that the Pope is antichrist.
4. His third proofe is out of 2. Thes. 2. And now what hindereth you know, that he may be reuealed in due time, onelyonly he which holdeth must holde, vntill he be done out of the way, and then that wicked man shalbe reuealed. That this is to be vnderstood of the Romane Empire, he not onelyonly affirmeth, but also confirmeth by the testimonies of diuers of the Fathers, the which we are so farre from denying, that from hence, as one especiall argument, we prooue the Pope to be Antichrist. But neither the Apostle nor any of the Fathers (excepting Lactantius, whose Prophecie in this point the Papists themselues do thinke to be erronious) doth say, that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished, as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romanes shall remaine; which Bellarmine should hauehave prooued. For otherwise that the Empire was indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist, the holy Ghost prophecied, the euent hath prooued, and we doe willingly confesse: Qu… tenebat, de med… fit, Ad Gerontid de Monogamia.(saith Ierome in his time) & non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare? He which held, is taken away, and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist is at hand? Yea but (saith Bellarmine) the Romane Empire is not yet vtterly destroyed, and therefore Antichrist is not yet come. Neither is it necessary: it is sufficient, that he which hindered the reuelation of Antichrist, wa… done out of the way, which was done first by remoouing the Imperiall seate from Rome, which was to be the seate of Antichrist, as hath beene prooued: secondly, by the dissolution of the Empire in the West. As for the Empire renued by the Pope, that hindereth not Antichrist, but rather furthereth, as hath beene shewed; and therfore there is no necessitie that it should be taken away. Neither is there now an Emperour of the Romanes indeed, but onelyonly in title, without the thing it selfe, as enjoying neither the citie of Rome it selfe, nor yet the Prouinces. And therefore either vnskilfully or sophistically are these Emperors, which hauehave no imperiall authoritie either in the citie or the prouinces, compared with those ancient Emperours, who although they had the Empire, wanted Rome it selfe.
5. And hereby appeareth the error of our aduersaries, who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Romane Empire: whereas neither of the Apostles Paul or Iohn do say so, but rather the contrary, as hath bin shewed. For to omit the rest before alledged, Iohn saith, Apoc. 13. That one head of the beast, meaning the state of the emperors, had indeed …ceiued deadly woun…, both in respect of Rome the head city, and of the Emperours in the West, but was cured, therefore not vtterly destroyed: and cured by the Pope, both in respect of the city, and in regard of the Emperour. And therefore the Pope is Antichrist, as some of our writers infer, because this wound was to be cured by the second beast, which figureth Antichrist. And Ambrose saith vponupon 2. Thes. 2. That Antichrist shall restore libertie to the Romans, but in his owne name. Bellarmine answereth, That he readeth no where in Iohn, that the beast, which signifieth the Romane Empire, was to be cured by antichrist. Yea but this he might hauehave read, that the second beast, which is Antichrist, causeth the image of the beast (that is, the new Empire) to be made, and putteth life vntounto it. For by this renuing of the Empire, Bellarmine elswhere De translat. imperij. lib. 1. c. 4.prosesseth, that the Romane Empire was restored to the same estate, wherin it was before Augustulus. But what hath Bellarmine read in Iohn? Forsooth, That one of the heads of the beast should dye, and shortly after rise againe by the helpe of the diuel; which the Ancient expoūd of Antichrist, who shall faine himselfe to be dead, and by diuellish art rise againe, that so by resembling the true death and resurrection of Christ, he might seduce many. First, it is euident that the former beast figureth not Antichrist, but the Romane state, and that vnderunder the Romane Emperors especially. Secondly, it is not said, that one of the heads did faine it selfe dead, and by the helpe of the diuell did rise againe (which needed not, if the death were coūterfeit) but that one of the heads had receiued a deadly wound, & was cured againe. The head was the state of the Emperours, to wit, the sixt head, which receiued a deadly wound in Augustulus, after whom the Empire in the West lay voide 325. yeares. But this head was cured after a sort in Charlemaine & his successou…s, in whom there was an image of the former Emperours erected by the Pope. And therefore this state of Emperours renued in Charlemaine and his successours, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet is one of the seuen. So that the sixt head which before was woūded to death, was cured, & after a sort repaired in thē. This in substance is confessed by Bellarmine himself in this chapt. where vnderstanding by the two legs of the image §. quod …in Daniel, the Westerne and Easterne Empire, he saith, That the Westerne, which was the one leg, failed, namely, in Augustulus, and was after erected in Charlemaine, and that (as else-wheré he boasteth) by the Pope. Now whereas Bellarmine laboureth to prooue, that this head which was wounded to death and reuiued againe, is not Charles the great, he sheweth himselfe rediculous in fighting with his owne shadow. For by the head is not meant any one man, but the state and succession of Emperours, which was interrupted and cut off in Augustulus, & renewed in Charles the great, and his successours. And that which is added concerning the vniuersalitie either of worship, or of rule, is not spoken of the head which was reuiued, but of the beast, which was to Apoc. 13. 7. 8.hauehave one of his seauen heads wounded to death & cuted againe.