A Revelation of the Apocalypse

Chapt. 3. which showeth that Antichrist is come.

OF Antichrists coming we gave demonstrations in the beginning of this refutation; which serve to moderate all the questions in this cause, that they may manifest the truth of every of them. Yet least this place, where the thing is purposely handled, should complain that it is naked & empty: it shall not be unprofitable, to add unto the former, one reason or two, in stead of th'advantage. And these we draw from 2 Thes. 2. and first from the 3. verse, where it is said, except there come a departing first, and that the man of syn, the son of perdition, be disclosed. In which words the Apostle setteth down, that both of these shall go before the coming of our Lord; & also that the departure or Apostasy shall come before the disclosing of Antichrist. For that former is the cause of this latter, drawing this evil with it, as afterwards he teacheth, that Antichrist shall therefore come, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved; ver. 10.11. Neither should the disclosing stay long after the defection, whereunto it is straight annexed, the Apostle saying, except there come a departing first, and the man of syn be disclos • d &c. but the impediment being taken away, which we hav shown to have been doon shortly after: forthwith came this mischief to light. But this departure began secretly even in the Apostle time; which is not a defection from the Roman Empire, but a neglect and contempt of the truth received, as the same Apostle there interpreteth it, and it hath prevailed now through many ages, to be seen in the veneration of relics, the invocation of Saints, and worship of Images, as was said erewhile. For by such manner of Idolatry, the Lord is forsaken, and men fall from him unto other God's, as Jeremiah saith, chap. 16.11. where he is bid̄ to speak thus to the people; Then shalt thou say unto them, because your Fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other God's, and have served them, and worshiped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law: After which manner the other Prophets also speak continually. Needs therefore must Antichrist be come long a go; seeing the conjoined sign & cause of his coming, hath reigned now in the world many ages.

Secondly; that impediment is now long since taken away, which only hindered in the Apostles time, that the man of sin was not reveled, ver, 7. Which was not the Roman Empire, but the sixth head of that Empire; which had the supreme government of things whiles John lived; for thus speaketh the Apocalypse, chap. 17.10. Five are fallen, one is, the other is not yet come. That one, which the Angel saith was then, was the sixth King: with whom the Roman Empire should not fall, because a seventh King & head should after succeed. Neither did many reign together with one head: whereupon the seventh should as well susteyn the Empire, for his part, as any one other of the former. Therefore so soon as that present regiment should be changed, which fell out about two hundred years after John, then that weighty burden, which hitherto did restrain, being removed, Antichrist should come forth, and converse in all men's sight.

Thirdly, if the mystery of iniquity wrough whiles the Apostles lived, of necessity the birth could not be far of, whē the pains of bringing forth did vex so betimes 2 Thes. 2.7. Otherwise what a monstrous thing is this, that one should be a breeding in the body these fifteen hundred years, and yet the youngling is not brought forth; and when at last he shall come forth, he shall be but a King for three years and six months? But these ar dreams. If the Apostles scarcely repressed him, much less did they keep him in which came after, and which had less piety, knowledge, study, diligence: whose gifts also decaying daily more and more, made way for the speedy rising and increasing of the Man of syn.

These things being thus laid down, now come we unto yours: which is but one only argument about this matter. Long enough in deed it is, for it reacheth from the beginning of the chapter to the end: but it is no less weak and feeble, then long and tedious. Thus it goeth: Antichrist is not yet come, because he came not at the time which some both of the ancient & later men have supposed. The ancient men you mention are the Thessalonians, Cyprian, Jerome. Gregory, one Judas, Lactantius, and a Bishop of Florence: the later are, the Samosatenians of Hungary, and Transylvania, Jllyricus, Chytreus, Luther, Bulinger, Musculus. And in following this matter, is the whole chapter spent. I answe twofold; first false it is, that he which cam not in the times spoken of by the said authors, is not yet come. It was not necessary that they should know the first rising & original of Antichrist. The Beast remaineth a Mystery after his disclosing, Apoc. 17.7. whose person was manifest, but not his wickedness and original. Eor the Mystery were taken away, if that which lay hidd within, should lie open unto all men. And as God's Kingdom, though foretold by the Prophets, came not with observation, Luk 17.20. so neither doth Antichrists Kingdom. The tares are sown, whiles the husbandmen sleep, Mat. 13.25. neither were they perceived in the first springing: but were they not therefore, because the husband-men knew not which way they grew? Shall we not acknowledge the motion of the sun, because we perceive it not as it moveth? Doubtless the crafty enemy, of his ingenious disposition had much rather that his Vicar should invade men privilie, whereby he might oppress the moe unwares: than that rushing upon them with noise and tumult, he should give men a sign for to look to themselves. Moreover, when you conclude that he is not yet come; you should have comprehended all the other times, and not those few only, which the said ancient and later men do mention. Is not one come in some day, because he is not come in the first, or second, or third hour thereof? It is a fault in reckoning up the parts, to pass by any one: and seeing you have omitted many, your proposition is made diverse ways absurd, and the whole argumentation that hangeth thereon.

Secondly I answer severally to the rest; and first concerning the ancīet Fathers, from whose words, we do more then probably conclude, that Antichrist is come. For thus saith Cyprian, lib, 4. Epist. 6. You ought to know, and for certain to believe and hold, that the day of vexation is begun to be upon our heads; and that the fall of the world and time of Antichrist is at hand. Jerome in his Epistle to Ageruchia, concerning Monogamie, saith, He that did hold is taken out of the way, and do we not understand that Antichrist is near? Also Gregory lib. 4. Epist. 38. All things foretold, are come to pass; the King of prid is near. For if Antichrist were near thirteen hundred years ago, or a thousand at the least; as is evident by these testimonies: how can it be that he is not yet come? You answer, that the ancient Fathers were deceived, with opinion that the worlds end was nearer, than in deed it was: and that therefore Antichrist was then near in false opinion, not in very deed. Wherunto I say, If the ancient Fathers had grounded their sentence upon the persuasiō only of the worlds end; it must needs have been, as they erred in this, so also they had erred in Antichrist: but seeing they persuaded themselves so by other arguments, and gathered, not so much that Antichrist was near, because the end of the world was at hand, as that the worlds end was at hand, because Antichrist was near; needs must that be firm and stable which they avouched of this thing, unless beside that vain opinion, you can prov the other reasons also to be light. But it is manifest by their words, that they had suspicion of the worlds end, by Antichrists coming, not contraryweise. For Jerome reasoneth from the impediment taken away, that Antichrist was near. He that held, saith he, is taken out of the way; and do we not understand that Antichrist is near? Gregory by the fulfilling all things that were foretold: than which, what can be a more certain argument? And you confess, that all the ancients, minding the evilnes of their times, suspected that Antichrists times were at hand. They did not therefore upon suspicion of the end, conclude of Antichrist. For the last end is never made a sign of things going before, but the things that go before are determined to be signs of the last end. The end seeing it is the last and the most unknown, even to the Angels in heaven, and to the Son of man himself Mark 13.32. can give no fore-perceiving of things that are before & more known. By sure arguments therefore they knew that Antichrist was at hand: but that which they joined thereto of the last end, relied but upon an unsure & human conjecture. They had received from Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 1. a false Chronology of five thousand, seven hundred, four score & four years, two months and twelve days past from Adam unto the death of Cōmodus the Emperor. Therunto was added an opinion of the worlds durance six thousand years: whereupon Cyprian in the preface de exhort. Martyr. saith, the six thousand years are now almost fulfilled, since the Devil impugned man. And Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 25. Divinar. Institut. All expectation seemeth to be more than of two hundred years. Add unto these, the conjecture of the worlds speedy end, after Antichrists coming, and then it will easily appear, that great difference there is, between those things which are handled of Antichrist, and of the end of the world. The first they had found out by many Prophesies, and undoubted signs: the later they did persuade themselves, by some likelihood of truth, and the infirm authority of men.

The like we do see in Christ's disciples, which expected as we know a temporal Kingdom. Yet when they preached that Christ was come, & that the Kingdom was thē to be restored to Israel; should any which saw not the Kingdom restored; disannul their faith touching Christ's coming? surely he should do them wrong. For that Christ was come, they knew by most sure arguments, which could not deceive: but their opiniō of the temporal Kingdom, they drew from the dregs of the common error. Even so, the ancient Fathers, understood by true signs from the Scriptures, that Antichrist was at the doors: but that which they affirmed of the last end, was of their own; & should not diminish the credit of that wherewith it is joined. Therefore you have not escaped by this your answer, but by the sentence of the ancient Fathers, it remaineth firm and steadfast that Antichrist is come: and therefore it was not for naught, that the Bishop of Florence one of your own men, openly avouched five hundred years ago, that Antichrist was then come: to stop whose mouth, the Council of Florence was gathered. But you thought it better, that the fame of this Council should rather come unto posterity, than that the acts thereof should come unto their knowledge.

As touching the later men, in the first place you mention the Samosatenians of Hungary: with whom I will have nothing to do. Whatsoever they think or think not, is all one to me: until they return unto soundness of mind. The other learned men have a threefold difference: Illyricus, Chytraeus, and Luther, make Antichrists coming to be about the yere of our L. 500. Bullinger, at the yere 763. Musculus, about the year 1200. Surely the second rising of the Beast, in whose territories they remained, did cast so strong a smell, to those prudent men, that they could retch their minds to no further thing: even as hownds, which when they fall upon the denn of the wild beast, do run with full course and cry, not senting anymore the several footsteps. Therefore for the most part they transfer unto this second rising, the things which belong to the first, and bring in here some other things that are not to the purpose. Nevertheless, this light aberration of the time of his rising, taketh not away his rising: but by their voices and cries, we know that Antichrist is; though the moment when first he began to be, was hidd from them. Let us therefore run through your answers unto every of them; that you may perceive how they have not so much erred, as yourself have labored in vain, in oppugning their judgments.

Secondly therefore you encounter with Illyricus, who saith, Antichrist was thē born, when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome, that he should be called Head of the whole Church, which fell out in the yere 606. You answer; that he was not born at this time, for two causes: first, because Antichrists temporal reign of 666. years, which Illyricus would have to begin at that arising; should now long since be ended, and Antichrist should be dead. Secondly, that by his spiritual reign, which Illyricus will have to be of 5260 years, the Century writers might exactly know the end of the world; contrary to our Lord's words Acts. 1. & Mat. 24. I answer unto the first: It is a foolish thing which you gather of Antichrists death, at the end of 666. years: when you see they give unto him a spiritual reign of 1260. years. Can any one reign 594. years, (for so many is this reign proroged beyond the temporal,) after he is dead? But perhaps your spiritual Pope hath no more vital life without temporal things, then the serpent hath without dust.

Unto the second I answer, it is as lawful for the Century writers exactly to know the yere when the world shall end: as it is for your Papists, to know the very day. Doo not you reckon 1335. days, from the beginning of Antichrists reign, unto the last judgment? Shall that speech of Christ touching this unknown day, have no longer place than til Antichrist cometh? Mark 13.32. How then shall it come as a snare upon all that dwell on the face of all the earth? Luk. 21.33. Your refutation therefore is nothing. We have shown that that first number is not of his Reign, but of his nam: & that the other is to be counted frō the first coming of Antic. not from the second. But I will be no longer now about this matter: I return again to you, & do grant that which you strive for. Be it, that Antichrist was not then first born. I ask this onething of you; whither was he then or no? If you deny him then to be; I thus convince it. Then was the impediment taken away, which only hindered his coming, as Jerome even now affirmed. Then all things were doon, which were foretold should go before his coming; as Gregory did avouch. Then was there an Universal Priest, such as the same Gregory confidently saith, whosoever calleth himself, or desireth to be called, he is in his pride the forerunner of Antichrist. lib. 7. Epist. 194. unto Mauricius. But, if he that desireth such a name be the forerunner of Antichrist: what shall we cal him that hath the name? Seeing therefore Antichrist was at that time: now look you how he is not yet come.

Jn the third place you answer to Chytreus, who maketh his birth to be about the same time; especially, because Gregory at this time stablished prayer to Saints, and Masses for the dead &c. To this you say, that Gregory was not the first that taught to pray unto the Saints, and to offer Masses for the dead. For all the ancient Fathers taught the same; and in stead of all you bring forth one Ambrose, which was two hundred yere before Gregory. I answer, surely Chytreus erred, that though Antichrist to be some years younger, then in deed he was. He was much more ancient, but did so bear his age, that as another Cupid he always seemed to be a child. For the man was deceived by his second rising, whereby he revived from the dead: and as Aeson of an old man became a young; so he frō youth returned to his cradle. Neither should it be strange to have him then accounted first, who then seemed to be new. But you so deny his birth, as you add years to Antichrist, & take none away: as if you should require inheritance for a ward, and be afraid, least he should go too late out of his wardship.

Fourthly you come to Luther, who makes a double coming of Antichrist; one with a spiritual sword, after the yere 600. another with a temporal sword, after the yere 1000. You answer, that the Popes deposed Emperors, and made wars before the thousand yere. I answer, therefore thou Luther also wast deceived: Antichrist was come before thou supposest. Surely you so defend the Popes, as if one being charged with theft, to avoid the crime should openly cry, that that was not the first thing that he had stolen; but for many other greater things had he plaid the thief before. You feared not, as it seemeth, that any should afterwards come, which would search out the higher origin of Antichrist.

Fifthly, Bullinger so expoundeth that number 666. as to design the yere of Antichrist coming, after the writing of the Apocalypse, namely the yere of our Lord 763. To which you answer, and rightly, that this is the number of Antichrists name, not of his time. Though from hence your cause have but little help. For although he were not then first born, yet he mought be born before: which sufficiently showeth, that you falsely do avouch, He was not yet come.

Sixthly, Musculus affirmeth that Antichrist came about the yere 1200. moved hereunto by Bernard's authority, who saith after many other things, wherewith he bewaileth the wickedness of those times, Jt remaineth that the man of syn be reveled. Serm. 6. of Psal. 90. You answer two things, first that Bernard's suspicion was false, as was Cyprians, Jerome's, Gregory's, in their times. For he suspected by the evils which he saw, that Antichrist was near. Secondly, that there were worser Popes without any comparison, in the former age than in that. I answer to the first, you fayrlie contradict the Apostle. He teacheth that the Apostasy goeth before Antichrist: and that he should come into the world for men's despising the love of the truth: declaring thereby, that there is no more evident sign both of Antichrist approaching & reigning; than that all kind of hypocritical impiety licenciously rangeth abroad. You will have Bernard to be deceived, and that he suspected by the evils which he saw, that Antichrist was near. In very deed he was deceived in that he thought him to be but near, and not present. Otherwise he judged more sincerely of Antichrist; than the Jesuits are wont; or any other Papists. Unto the second I say, seeing they were worser in the age before, we grant you that his first birth did not now beginn, but having been brought forth long before, now only he was exstant. And thus, when all comes to all, you have disputed this question, as if one should contend, that the Sun is not risen at noon day, though it began to shine in the horison at six a clock in the morning: because it neither rose at eight a clock, as one affirmed; nor at nine, as the second, nor at ten, as the third avouched By the very like argument, you and yours would persuade, that Antichrist is not yet come.

Chapt. 4. Against the first demonstration, from the universal preaching of the Gospel.

THIS question of the time, yieldeth great abundance of light, illustrating all the rest, as the Sun with his beams. Wherupon Bellarmine to darken this same, hath prepared six thick coverings, which he calleth Demonstrations, under which he hopeth to be drawn from so many certain signs, as he saith, of Antichrists coming; whereof two do go before; namely 1. the preaching of the Gospel in the whole world, 2. and the desolation of the Roman Empire: two do accompany it, namely 3. the preaching of Enoch and Elias, 4. and a very great and known persecution: two do follow, namely 5. the destruction of Antichrist after three years and a half; 6. and the end of the world. None of which, saith he, we see as yet to be performed: we will help therefore this blind man, if God will, and with a faithful hand, will pul the scales from his eyes, if so he will suffer it.

For a groundwork of the first demonstration, you set down that which is written Mat. 24.14. this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations: from which an argument is thus framed; which let me, I pray you, bring into form, that we of the ruder sort may more easily observe the art of demonstration. He that is to come after the preaching of the Gospel in all the world, he is not yet come: Antichrist is to come after the preaching of the Gospel in all the world: therefore he is not yet come. This is your demonstration, wherein we find many strange and new points, never delivered by any Demonstrating Masters: namely, that principles are used for demonstration, which be neither true nor first. For as touching truth, the proposition is either manifestly false, or at least doubtful, as after more plainly shall appear, and therefore not meet for a demonstration. Moreover, if any would doubt of the minor, what strength hath it from Matthew? what one word is there in him of Antichrist to come after a general preaching? How is this an immediate principle, which if it have any credit, must borrow it from elsewhere? Pardon, I pray you, this my morositie. I thought it necessary to make trial of someone of your demonstrations: of all which, seeing we have now a pattern in this first, we shall not need to deal so exactly in the rest, but may judge of what sort all are, by the nature of this. But yourself saw, how trifling and unworthy a demonstration this was; and therefore you flee unto a probable reason, which as a propp you put under that ready to fall. To cōfirm the Minor, that Antichrist is to come after the general preaching, leaving now Matthew, whole name at first was vainly obtruded; Jt may be proved, you say, by reason: because in Antichrists time, the cruelty of the last persecution, will hinder all public exercises of true religion. I answer, how truly this is said of the public ceasing of religion, we shall see after in the chapter of Persecution. In the mean while I avouch that you dispute not so much unskilfully, as in deed falsely. For time is threefold; past, present, and to come: neither can anything be concluded that it is to come, unless it be before proved, that it is neither present, nor past. Will you then infer that Antichrist shall come after the general preaching, because he cannot be together with the same? But why, I pray you, may he not be before it? Yea what if by this your demonstratiō, he must needs be before it? Surely neither can he be together with the general preaching, for the cruelty of persecution, as you say: neither can he come after, because Christ saith, when the Gospel is preached in the whole world, then shall come the end. You see nothing to come between the universal preaching & the end. Therefore by this your reason, he must needs come before the universal preaching. This is not the least virtue of this undoubted demonstration; that it maketh more for your adversaries cause, than for your own.

But, say you, the adversaries admit not of this reasō. Surely nor your friends, I believe, unless it be some foxes, that praise the crow for his sweet singing. But I am glad for you, that at last yourself are weary of this demonstration. Furthermore you say, Neither is there time now to deduce it from the principles thereof, and therefore you will prove the thing by testimonies of the Fathers. What? Have not you time, which undertake the most copious handling of all controversies? And, which bring not forth one argument of any weight, in this cause? I know your Jesuitical cunning: what you cannot do, for needynes; that you may not do for hast unto other matters. But let us go forward and see, how you follow both parts of the former argument. For the new, as it seemeth, affordeth nothing; but the old nest was to be trimmed, that some show of building might appear. First therefore you bring Hilary, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascene, affirming, that Antichrist shall not come, til after an universal preaching. I answer, there is now no need curiously to inquire into their sayings, seeing in this thing they teach agreeably to the scriptures. For Antichrist was to come, because the love of the truth was refused, 2 Thes 2. And the punishment is not inflicted before the fault. Neither could the fault be committed, before there was the use of the truth. Here therefore I contradict nothing. Moreover, in some sort I do grant your proof from the text. For the Gospel was to be preached before that great tribulation spoken of Mat. 24.21. But herein you err, that you think this is both the last tribulation, and the persecution of Antichrist. For it is no other than the destruction of Jerusalem; as Chrysostom also doth acknowledge, though typically he would hav it referred unto Antichrist. Let Antichrist therefore come after the universal preaching of the Gospel. But what? Hath not the Gospel been noised as yet through all the world? In deed so you say; though the thing itself be otherwise. Christ being to ascend into heaven, bade the Apostles to go into all the world, Mark 16.25. And promised that they should be his witnesses unto the utmost end of the earth, Act. 1.8. It cannot be, either that the Apostles should neglect that which was commanded; or that our Lord should not perform that which he promised. Neither wanted the thing an issue, as the Apostle teacheth, saying that the faith of the Romans, was published through the whole world, Rom. 1.8. and that the Gospel was come unto the Colosseans, even as unto all the world, Col. 1.6.23. You answer, that the whole world in these places, is not properly and simply taken, but figuratively: but the Gospel should be preached in every nation properly and simply, before Antichrist come. Which you prove by testimony of Fathers, and by three reasons. The Fathers are Augustine, Origen, and Jerome; besides those fore-alleged. I answer, Ther is no doubt but the Fathers do accommodate their words, unto the words of the Scriptures; and therefore they often say, that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, through the whole earth, in all lands &c. but whither they speak more expressly or no, & do signify by name that these kind of speeches are to be taken simply, not figuratively, may well be doubted. Jerome in his Epistle to Ageruchia saith, He that held, is taken out of the way, and do we not understand that Antichrist is near? By which it is plain, that he understood no other preaching through the whole world, than such as was in his time: for otherwise, how could Antichrist be near? So Gregory, as is before mentioned, saith, Al things that were fore-told are come to pass: the King of pride is nigh. Therefore this universal preaching was then doon; but not properly as you would have it, which as you say, is not performed to this day. Turn over the Fathers therefore, and weigh their words more diligently: perhaps though these things were very dark unto them, you shall find no such preaching with them, as you do dream of.

Of the three reasons which you bring, the first is, that, the preaching in all the world, is a sign, Christ saith, of the end of the world: for so he annexeth, & then shall come the end. But if the Gospel should not be preached in the whole world properly, but by comprehension of a part for the whole, the sign would be of no value. For in that manner the Gospel was preached by the Apostles through all the world, in the first twenty years. I answer; whereas from these words you affirm, that the preaching in all the world, is a sign of the end of the world: this is yours, Bellarmine, not Christ's. He saith no more but and then shall come the consummation, or the end. That, of the world, he addeth not. Neither is the end or consummation whereof he speaketh, of the world, but of the temple, & of the Jewish polity: the law whereof was abrogated in Christ's death, but now also by dissipation of the nation, the whole use should be taken away. For the Disciples inquired of a twofold end, ver. 3. of the temple, & of the world. Of the first, Christ answereth unto the 23. verse: of the later, in the rest of the chapter, under the name of his coming. Neither had he satisfied the demands, unless he had comprehended both. Wherefore that universal preaching, was a sign of Jerusalem's destruction, the nearer token whereof was the abomination of desolation, fore-told by Daniel: which being next added, may teach, of what end the former words do speak. For Christ answereth not so confusedly and intricately, as that from the last end of the world, he would straightway leap back again to the Jews affairs. Seeing therefore in this place he speaketh of this consummation, and not of any other: there is no necessity that the preaching through the whole world, should be properly.

Your second reason is: that properly all nations are promised to Christ, Psal. 71. All nations shall serv him: therefore the preaching ought to be general properly. I answer; I deny not but all nations shall be gathered unto Christ, and that by a general preaching properly, before he come unto judgment. For preaching is that silver trumpet which is appointed for the gathering together of the elect: and I find in the Scriptures a twofold general preaching, figurativ, and proper; as in the end of this chapter I will more fully declare. But what is this, to the coming of Antichrist? It is shown, that he is come a thousand and three hundred years ago. Also his destruction, shall be a long space before the last judgment, as shall be shown after, chap. 9. Of the end of the world, and in the rest of the enarration of this Apocalypse. Therefore that may be before Christ's coming, which shall follow after Antichrists destruction. And in very deed, the general preaching shall not beginn, before Antichrist be at an end; or at least be ready soon after to die. The times may not be confounded; nor that which is proper to one, be transferred to another.

Your third reason is, That the Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations. Therefore a general preaching must go before the general judgment. I answer; This argument is one with the former, but that it is after a sort distinguished in the subjects. That treated of the salvation of the elect; this, of the just condemnation of the reprobates. But the answer is one. For I grant, a general preaching must go before the general judgment: but when you shall have proved that the general judgment, and Antichrist, are things so conjoined, as that which goeth before the one, must needs also go before this other: then will I easily grant you, that a general preaching must properly go before Antichrist. And now as if you had put the matter out of all controversy, you go in hand to answer unto Paul concerning those wores Rom. 10.18. Their sound is gone out unto all the earth: the interpretation whereof you bring from Augustine, Jerome, & Thomas. The sum is, that they are to be understood figuratively. Which you might easily have obtained, without so much a do. Ther is no man but granteth, that the like Scriptures fore-alleged, are not to be taken properly. But if Paul speak figurativelie, why may not Christ likewise? Because it is not absurd, you say, if we grant that our Lord spake properly, and the Apostle figuratively. For the reasons whereby we are compelled to take our Lord's in a proper signification, have not the same force, if they be applied to Paul's words; especially seeing our Lord spake of a thing to come, and Paul of a thing past. I answer; Seeing that end whereof Christ spake, was only of the city, not of the whole earth; to weet, of Jerusalem, not of the world: there is no reason which more compelleth us to take our Lord's words in a proper signification, then those words of Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans ch. 1. verse 8. Coloss. 1.6.23. spoken of before. For whereas you say, that Paul Ro. 10.18. speaketh of a thing past: you might have remembered from Augustine, that he took the time past, for that which was to come, as David did whose words they are, as you wrote a little before: and that so the Prophets are wont to speak almost everywhere, of things to come, as if they wer past. In the other Scriptures, Paul speaketh of that thing performed, which our Lord foretold should be performed. This your first demonstration therefore is altogether lame, having no certainty, no truth: but it is such a sign, (in the sense that you would have the preaching to be taken,) of Antichr. to come, as the Jews have feigned to themselves of Christ to come; namely such as man's bold ignorance hath feigned, without any authority of the oracle of God. Wherfor seeing you have written nothing right of this matter, I will endvour to show some surer thing, as even now I promised, whereby the readers may have what to think concerning this matter.

Universal preaching therefore is twofold; as I said; figurative and proper. The first was given to the Apostles for a sign of the Jewish desolation; & so likewise should go before the Antichrist, who should not come forth until some ages after all that Politie was utterly extinguished. The later, which we cal general properly, shall not go before Antichrist, but follow. For after he is slain, the Gospel shall be spredd far and wide, even unto those nations which as yet never had the hearing of it. For then shall the nations bring their glory and honor unto the new holy city, Apoc. 21.24. Then shall the tree grow amidds the street of the heavenly city, whose leaves shall minister cure and health unto the nations, Apoc. 22.2. Then shall the temple be opened, into which no forreyner could enter during the seven plagues with which Antichrist is consumed, Apoc. 15.8. and chap. 16. Then shall the waters flow out of the temple towards the East, and unto all the country round about; by whose wholsomnes, a very great multitude of fish shall be engendered Ezech. 47. And then after the little horn is taken away, the Kingdom shall be given to one like the son of man, that all people's, nations, tongues, may serv him, Dan. 7.14. which Kingdom is not that which shall be in heaven, where no distinction is of people's, nations and tongues: but shall come in earth, and be administered by the scepter of his word. Wherupon after the cutting off of this Horn, (which men commonly do interpret, partly of Antiochus, partly of Antichrist, but is in very deed the Turk, who shall be rooted out within a while after the true Antichrist;) there shall be a most ample promulgation of the Gospel, with much larger limits, than ever heretofore. For then all the nations indeed shall serve him Psal. 72.11. and Jehovah shall be King over all the earth; and in that day, shall Jehovah be one, and his name one, Zach. 14.19.

These things and many such like do make it plain, that howsoever the doctrine of salvation surveyed many lands before Antichrist: yet after he is extinguished, the tents of the sacred truth, shall be much more amply displayed; so that into them shall assemble a very great congregation, in respect whereof the assemblies of former times have been small, or rather none. These things do the scriptures teach of the universal preaching, & they are constant, firm, sure, full of majesty, power, mercy, if you look unto God; and if you turn your eyes unto ourselves, they are no less full of all joy and confort. Whereas on the contrary, the things which you have brought, are either uncertayn guesses, or vain fictions: which will both deceive, at least, your expectation, and in the mean while, lead into error and destruction.

Chapt. 5. Against the second Demonstration: from the desolation of the Roman Empire.

The second Demonstration, you say, is taken from the other sign that goeth before the times of Antichrist, which shall be the utter desolation of the Roman Empire, which seeing it yet endureth, Antichrist is not yet come. Hereupon you take in hand to prove two things; first that Antichrist shall not come til after the utter desolation of the Roman Empire: secondly, that the Roman Empire doth yet endure. The first you confirm by four scriptures: of which, the three first, namely Dan. 2. and 7. Apoc. 17. do rely upon the interpretation of Irenaeus, book 5. But let us leave, I pray you, men's names, and let us weigh the thing it self, in the balance of truth. If the matter should be discussed by the contrary opinions of men, which might be found many in these dark places; there would be no end. Let us deal rather from such principles, as may lead and bring us to some certainty.

As touching therefore the 2. of Daniel, and that succession of the chief Kingdoms until the worlds end, which the Images showeth, nothing out by the golden head, the sylver breast, the brazen belly, the legs, and the feet partly iron and partly clay; the 4. chief Kingdoms on earth, of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans; the last whereof the Roman you say, was a long time parted in two, as the legs are two and long. Moreover that of the two legs should spring ten toes, and in them the whole Jmage have an end: to weet because the Roman Empire should at last be divided into ten Kings, of whom none should be King of the Romans, as no toe is a leg. As touching these, I say, what one word is there in all this vision, which intimateth that Antichrist should come after the Roman Empire is utterly defaced? I hear there are tow legs, and the feet divided into ten toes; but not a whit concerning Antichrist, whither he should come after this division, or before it, or in the time of the divisiō. Doo you go on thus to build your Demōstrations, without any so much as show of a foundation whereon they should rely? Yea what if the contrary may from hence most firmly be concluded, that Antichrist shall come before Christ cometh? But the Roman Empire shall not altogether be destroyed, until Christ be come. For thē feet of iron and clay shall dure, until the stone out of the mountayn, cut without hands, shall smite them & beat them to pieces, as is plainly shown, ver. 34. thou sawest until a stone was cut out, which is not in any hands, and smote the image on his feet of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces: and again in the 44. verse, And in the days of these Kings shall the God of Heaven rise up a Kingdom, which shall never be destroyed &c. But these feet, are the Roman Empire: weaker in deed than it was before, of the legs; yet is it the Roman Empire notwithstanding. For the Image deciphreth four Kingdoms only: but if the feet should have another Kingdom than the legs, there should be five. Wherupon also that is false which you say, that the Roman Empire shall at last be divided into ten Kings, of which none shall be King of the Romans, as no toe is a leg. For thus you bring in a fifth Kingdom, which the Spirit by the Image saith not. Neither is that of weight, that a toe is not a leg: seeing no one member is another, though both be parts of one whole thing, even as the toe and leg, be of the fourth Kingdom. Now therefore you may see, how fayrly you have made demonstration of your nakedness; which the more you seek to cover and hide, the more conspicuous and filthy you do make it.

The second place is out of Dan. 7.7. where, you say, the ten horns which come out of the last Beast, are the ten last Kings which shall arise out of the Roman Empire, but shall not be Roman Emperors: as the horns arise out of the Beast, but ar not the Beast it self. I answer, as even now I did to the former argument, which was the self same that this. If these ten horns have a Kingdom divers from that of the Beast: then ar there not four Kings only, but five; contrary to that the Angel affirmeth, ver. 17. these great Beasts which are four are four Kings, which shall rise out of the earth. Moreover, do you think that the 4. horns of the Goat, which rose up in place of that broken horn, was another distinct Kingdom from the Kingdom of the Goat, to weet, another than of the Greeks? Dan. 8.8. If so you think, the Prophet showeth you are plainly deceived, who teacheth that this Goat of the 8. chapter, is the Leopard of the seventh: and that the Leopard is one Kingdom only, and the third: chap. 7.6.17. As therefore the Goats horns make not a different Kingdom from the Kingdom of the Goat: so neither do the ten horns of the fourth Beast make a different Kingdom of the 4 Beast. Ther be also the ten horns of the Dragon, in this Apocalypse, which are not rebellious Princes against the Dragon, but his chief defenders, legates, and administrators, by whose help he most exercised his tyranny, Apoc. 12.3. Besides, the ten horns ar not the dissolution of that Empire, whose body remaineth after they are risen up. But so the vision teacheth evidently, that the Beast (namely the fourth) should not be slain and his body destroyed, before the horn, which springeth up after those ten wer broken and taken away, Dan. 7.11. Wherefore the ten horns, do no way signify the dissipation and fall of the Roman Empire, whereby to afford us any help, for the finding out of Antichrists coming. Unto these may be added, that which this argument hath common with the former, that neither is there any mention of Antichrist here. In deed the little horn grows up after the rest; and some learned men do apply it hither: but neither do yourself now insist upon this horn; and we have shown before, in the second chapter hereof, that this exposition is untrue.

The third place is out of Apoc. 17.16. where the ten horns you will have to be ten Kings, which shall reign together; but shall not be Romans, because these Kings shall hate the whore and make her desolate, and so shall divide the Roman Empire among themselves, and utterly destroy it. I answer, It is even marvelous that you see not the plain contrary to that you intended, here proved. For if this hatred, wherewith the ten Kings shall hate the whore & make her desolate, be the fall and ruin of the Roman Empire, then shall Antichrist come before the Roman Empire be desolate. For there shall be hatred long before this, and the ten Kings shall serve her a great while before they shall thus rise up in wrath against the whore, according to that which is written ver. 12.13. And the ten horns which thou sewest, are ten Kings, which have not yet received a Kingdom, but shall receive power as Kings at one hour with the Beast. These have one mind, and shall give their strength and power to the Beast. Moreover, these are the horns of the Beast, not of the Roman Empire divided, ver. 3. Which if they signify any division, the Beast shall be divided from his first arising. And further, seeing they shall rise at the same hour with the Beast, they shall not go before him, whereby to declare by some praecursion that he followeth behind them. Wherefore nothing at all can be concluded from hence concerning the desolation of the Roman Empire, as of any sign of Antichrist coming.

The fourth place is out of 2. Thes. 6.7. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be reveled in his time, only that he which now holdeth, may hold, til he be taken out of the way, and then shall the wicked man be reveled &c. Where the Roman Empire, you say, hindereth Antichrists coming, who shall take his Empire out of the way, for their sins: and so do the Greek and Latin Fathers expound this place. I answer, I do acknowledge that the ancient Fathers (as I hav often said,) did not level aright in these matters, for that being far distāt from the event of things, they were led only by conjectures. They knew so much as concerned their own times. Yet remember, I pray you, what manner desolation Jerome understandeth, who will have him that did hold, to be taken out of the way, in his time; he that did hold, saith he, is taken out of the way &c. as before I cited him. So that by his judgment, the Roman Empire was then so desolate, that there was no let, on this behalf, to hinder Antichrists coming. And surely Gregory said not right, All things are doon that were foretold, the King of pride is nigh, if such a desolation had been to be looked for, as you speak of; or such ten Kings should go before, as you Papists do mention. Therefore those Fathers were either altogether ignorant that there was this let: or they so wavered to & fro in a doubtful opinion, as no firm and stable thing can be gathered from their sayings. But the Apocalypse being now very much illustrated by the event, putteth the matter out of controversy, and explaineth Paul most certainly and faithfully, teaching that the withholder is not the Roman Empire, but the sixth Roman King. Five saith he, are fallen; one namely the sixth, is; the other is not yet come, chap. 17.10. that is, the Hethen Emperors, which make the sixth King, do now reign; which being at length removed, and delivering Rome empty to the Pope, the seventh King shall come, evē Antichrist. The Roman Empire is after a sort one; but the manner of administering it by divers Magistrates, and the kinds of governing, was manifold. Neither could it be said, five Roman Empires are fallen, but five Kings, which were the Rulers and Moderators of that one Empire. More over Antichrist is the sevēth Roman King; for so the Angel plainly saith, and the Beast which was, and is not, and is the eight, and is one of the seven, verse 11. Should the Roman Empire be desolate, whiles the King thereof was alive? nay verily; but rather by bearing of him, the whore Rome should greatly flourish. Therefore when Antichrist cometh, the Roman Empire is not to be destroyed, but during that time fore-appointed of God, is marvelously to be conserved, increased, amplifyed. We may understand therefore Paul and the Angel to speak of the same impediment: but the Angel more plainly and clearly describing it by place, dignity, and number; by which most plain and true signs we might be led as by the hand, unto Antichrists cradle. Wherefore Antichrist should come, whiles the Roman Empire is safe and flourishing: and there was need that the Emperor should give place to the Pope, and leave his habitation free. You therefore Bellarmine, rely upon a manifest error, whereby it will come to pass, if in time you take not heed, that not expecting Antichrist before the last overthrow of the Roman Kingdom, you will be by him oppressed & destroyed, before you perceive that he is come.

Your second propositiō is, that the Roman Empire doth yet endure, which I grant without contradiction, and now as you see, without any detrimēt to the cause which I have in hand. Although in the head of this Empire, which I will tell you in few words, you are surely much deceived. You think the Emperor hath this dignity; and in deed I confess, he hath it in name and title; but the Pope hath the thing it self. For the Roman King must be the head of the whore Rome, which the Emperor is not, but the Pope, who maketh the seventh & eight head, as is declared Apoc. 17.11. Moreover the Emperors, since first the Beast began, have wholly served him, as the Apocalypse also showeth, saying, and they shall give their power & their authority to the Beast; and the practice of all times, confirmeth it. Which servitude proceeded so far, that they received a mark, and yielded an oath of fealty; that I speak nothing of the other most unworthy ways, whereby the Beast trode underfoot the Emperial Majesty. Finally, the toes of the foot now divided, are holden together by no common bond of the Emperors name, but only of the whore of Rome. For what have Spayn, France, Venice, Florence, Naples, to do with the Empire? Al these toes cleave together in the common foundation of the Popes authority, which is the only foot now, wherein these all agree and grow together; and not the Empire, with which they have in a manner nothing to do. Therefore the Emperors are in deed the Beasts horns, but neither the leg of the Roman Empire, nor the foot, but a toe of the foot, or the great toe perhaps whē it please the Pope. You Papists with certain painted titles do dazel their eyes; but they will at length awake, and handle your Rome, according to their authority. The things which you dispute for the Empire and Emperor, are vain. Ther remaineth yet, you say, the succession, and name of the Emperor of the Romans: and by God's marvelous providence, when the Empire failed in the west, it remained safe in the East: and when this failed, it was erected again in the west. I answer; the succession of the Empire remaineth not in the Emperor, but in the Pope. When the sixth head fell, the seventh succeeded, to weet the Pope, and not the Christian Emperors, who then received a horned dignity; the succession of which dignity, and no other, they transferred to their posterity. They have the name of Roman Emperors, but it is a title without substance: even as the Roman Church is called Catholik, & many such like. But in refining the truth, we must look to the authority of the holy Ghost, not to the vain words and voices of men. In deed God's marvelous providence shined in considering this dignity, such as it was, both in the East and West. But this providence is careful no less for the horns then for the head: that is, as well for these that are called Emperors, as for the Pope. Both of them are by his decree, which appointed, that some of the toes of the foot, should be of iron. Neither doth he hinder him, you say, from being Emperor, though he wanted Rome, which you prove by the example of Valens, Arcadius, Theodosius the younger, Charles the Great, and his successors: then by the dignity of going before all other Christian Princes: moreover by the election of the Romans: and finally by the Lutherans confession. I answer to every of these; and to the first, that if Valens, Arcadius, and Theodosius the younger, wanting Rome, remained nevertheless Roman Emperors; then the Western Empire failed not, neither doth the Eastern Empire fail at this day, though the Western Emperors want Constantinople, if right be enough without possession. But the Kingdoms of this world are his that holdeth them: and although they be gotten for the most part by wickedness; yet God by his just judgment taketh from one, and giveth to another. Yet doth not this his administration, quitt the robbers of crime: but he punished in marvelous manner, both by abasing one, and contrariweise advancing another. It is therefore somewhat of more weight to want Rome, for this that any should be the Roman Emperor, than you speak of.

Unto the second, namely that dignity of going before all Christian Princes, I confess the Emperor goes before all the rest: notwithstanding, he that goes before all these, comes after the Pope, as none is so unskillful but seeth, in whom the Majesty of the Empire truly resideth.

Unto the third, be it that Charles the Great was created Roman Emperor with consent of the Romans: yet the Apocalypse teacheth, that the Roman Empire is tied to the city of Rome, not to the clamour of the Roman people.

Unto the fourth, the Lutherans boasting that they have three Prince Electors of the Roman Emperor, do rather follow custom of speaking, then the truth of the thing: or if in deed they so persuade themselves, it is through the common error; the meaning of the Apocalypse, not being by them as yet enough perceived. Wherefore you gull the Emperors with a deceitful title, who whiles the Roman Pope possesseth Rome, neither truly are nor shall be Roman Emperors: and thus you contending that the Roman Empire doth yet endure, have not found in what place it is, whose both head and habitation you are ignorant of. From this restored Empire by the Pope, do Luther, Illyricus, and Chytreus rightly gather, that he is that great Antichrist. Yet not so much because Charles the Great was declared Empetour by him, as for that the Empire did revive in the Pope, who being a Bishop in name, was made Emperor in deed. This is evident by this, that the Beast hath a head both wounded & healed; for both these pertain to the same Beast. Also, the Beast which was not whiles the Barbarians prevailed, is that very same which is when they are extinguished. Moreover Antichrist is both the seventh King from Constantine, unto the Kingdom of the Goths; & the eight by a new rising up after the healed head by Justinian, and Phocas, & the rest following, as is explained Apoc. 13.3.11. and 17.10.11. You answer, that the healed head, is not the Roman Emperor, but Antichrist, who feigneth himself dead, and by devilish art, shall rise himself up again: and that so almost all the ancient Fathers do expound it. Unto this, I say, that you do not rightly disjoyne the Roman Emperor, and Antichrist: which two, if we would speak properly according to the Apocalypse, do make one and the same person. Not that he which at this day is called Emperor, is Antichrist: but because whatsoever is in this name Emperor, it naturally belongeth to the Pope. For both Pope, and Roman Emperor, or Roman Empire, were wounded to death by the invasion of the Goths. For the seventh head which then seemed to perish, was both a hill and a King; that is, Rome or the Roman Empire, and the Pope, Apoc. 17.9. It is true therefore which you say, that the text it self plainly compelleth us, by that head of the Beast, which was dead and revived, to understand not Charles the Great, but Antichrist. For Charles the Great, was not Emperor indeed: but howsoever he did not die and live again, yet the Roman Emperor or Empire in the Pope, did die and live again, as is sufficiently said before. By which also may appear, that that which is commonly spoken of Antichrists feigned death and resurrection, is a plain fiction: a feigned death is in sport and voluntary; but Antichrist died this death against his will, and with sore pain; from which death when he began to come forth, very great was the torment of his fresh wound, as witnesseth Gregory the Great, by his many mournful lamentations.

Chapt. 6. Against the third Demonstration, from the coming of Enoch and Elias.

HITHERTO of the signs going before: now of them that accompany him: and first of the coming of Enoch and Elias, who are yet, you say, alive; and do live for this, that they may set themselves against Antichrist when he cometh, and keep the elect in the faith of Christ, and at length convert the Jews: which notwithstanding it is certain is not yet fulfilled. In this cause you deal by three arguments, first from the Scriptures; secondly from Fathers thirdly from reason. The scriptures you bring are four, Malachi. 4.5.6. Ecclesiasticus 48.9.10. and chap. 44.16. Mat. 17.11. Apoc. 17.11. As touching Malachi, his words are; Behold I will send you Elias the Prophet, before that great day of the Lord shall come, and he shall turn the harts of the Fathers unto the children, and the harts of the children unto their Fathers, which cannot, you say, be understood of any Doctors whosoever, as of Luther, Zwinglius, & the like. For Malachi saith that the Jews shall be converted by Elias, and for the Jews he shall chiefly be sent, as appeareth by those words, I will send to you, and in Ecclesiasticus, to restore the Tribes of Jakob: but Luther and Zwinglius, converted none of the Jews. And neither can they be understood of John Babptist literally, but only of Elias.

I answer, first, here is no word of Enoch, whose conjoined coming was propounded also. Secondly, no mention neither is here of Antichrist; but that he shall come together with him, that wholly dependeth on a false supposition, of which we will speak in due place. This therefore is a notable Demonstration, that propounding to itself the coming of three, is altogether silent of two of them. But let us discuss him whom it speaketh of. The Prophesy, you say, cannot be understood of Luther, and Zwinglius and the other Ministers of the Gentiles Church: which I also readily acknowledge. For I do not think it to pertain unto us which are Gentiles.

But why may it not be expounded of the Jews? because it agrees not, you say, unto John the Baptist: which is as if you should say, either it is to be expounded of the Baptist, or of none: which maimed and unnecessary disjunction, no adversary can grant unto you. But to pardon you also this third trespass, why perteyns it not, I pray you, unto the Baptist? Because, say you, Malachi speaketh of our Lord's second coming, which shall be for to judge. I answer; if we granted that he speaks of the second coming, may he not withal speak also of the first? Most certain verily it is, that Malachi doth so: for he speaks generally of the Lord's coming; which comprehēdeath as well the first, as the second. And whereas yourself confess it of the second, neither do I deny it: of the first we have Christ interpreting the words of the Prophesy, where he speaketh of the Baptist, this is Elias that should come, Mat. 11.14. Seeing therefore the words are so; behold now, how I fetch from hence a true interpretation, against that literal of Elias. He that speaketh in the same words, of two times: he as he is to be understood of the one time, so is he to be understood of the other: But Malachi speaketh of a twofold coming of the Lord; and of the first, he is to be understood figuratively, for so Christ interpreteth it, saying, that the Baptist is the Elias that was to come. Therefore he is to be understood also figuratively of the second; and such an Elias is to be looked for, as the Baptist was before the first coming. But whither he shall be one singular man or no, is not so evident: it may be there shall be one chief, and excelling among the rest; although the whole company of Prophets, when it shall please God, to gather his rejected people, shall be so furnished with the plentiful gifts of his Spirit, that for the notable godliness and zeal wherewith every of them shall be inflamed, Elias may well seem to be alive again in everyone. For these abiding watchmen on the walls of the City Jerusalem, all the day and all the night continually shall not hold their peace; neither shall they that make mention of Jehovah, keep silence, nor suffer silence to be of him, as saith Isaiah, chap. 62, 8.9. Surely these new preachers of the Gospel, shall burn with so great a desire of godliness, that as consecrating themselves wholly to the glory of God, and salvation of his people, they will do this one thing only, nothing at all esteeming in respect hereof, even the necessary regard of their body, by sleep and rest. And what a fervency shall there be in the Ministers, when among the common people, a father & mother which hav begotten a son, shall strike him through when he is found a false Prophet? Zach. 13.2.3. But whither this Elias shall be one singular man, or more, he shall not be Elias properly, but so as the Baptist was, as we are taught by this necessary reason which I have alleged. But you insist and contend that this coming in Malachi, is the second only, (although the interpretation of our Lord ought to have stoped your mouth:) for so, say you, Malachi saith, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. For his first coming is not called a great and terrible day; but an acceptable time, and day of salvation. Wherupon also there is added, least coming J smite the earth with cursing. But in his first coming our Lord came not to judge, but to be judged, nor to destroy, but to save. I answer; you have brought nothing, which necessarily proveth it the second coming only: the same things which you mention, the Jews and Disciples knew also, who nevertheless did then look for Elias, before our Lord's rising from the dead. And hereunto pertaineth that question, when the Lord had made mention of this matter, Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come? Mat. 17.9. And as for the great and terrible day, why doth it not agree unto his first coming? Loe saith Malachi, the Lord shall come speedily into his Temple. And who shall abide the day of his coming? and who shall endure when he appeareth? for he is like a Finers fire, and like fullers sope, Malachi. 3.1.2. &c. And these things are spoken of his first coming. And is not that day terrible, wherein the axe is laid to the root of the trees, and they that are unfruitful are cut down, and cast into the fire? How fearful is it, to have among them, him whose fān is in his hand, who will purge his floor, & gather his wheat into the barn, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire? Mat. 3.10.12. But he came not to judge, but to be judged? He came not indeed to judge solemnly in a tribunal seat, as he shall do at length in the last judgment: yet in the mean while, the father hath given all judgment to him, John 5.22. which he both exercised of old, and daily now exerciseth upon all contemners of the truth, as we may see in the Jews, that crucified him: upon whom even to this day abideth the longest and heaviest punishment of all that ever were since the first man's fall, as it were a visible document of eternal torment in hell. This time of grace is acceptable to the elect; but to the unbelieving and disobedient, there is none more hurtful, whom the Son of God punisheth daily with blindness of mind, and hardness of heart, until they have heaped up to themselves the just measure of wrath, in their last and never ending perdition, Heb. 10.28.29. Vherfore nothing hindereth, why the Prophets words may not be understood, both of the first coming, and of the second: whereby that literal Elias falleth, whom you would gather from the same.

The second place is out of Ecclesiasticus, chap. 44.16. Enoch pleased God, and was taken away; an example of repentance to the generations. And cha. 48.9.10. which wast taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot of fiery horses, which wast appointed for reproofs in times, that thou mightest pacify wrath before rage, and mightest turn the harts of the Fathers unto the children, and set up the tribes of Jacob. I answer, it was not to be expected of the Demōstratour; that he should bring those witnesses, whom they against whom he useth them account not of sufficient credit. But I will not lay this blame upon you too severely, seeing the words conteyn nothing contrary to the Scriptures. But say you, they agree not, save to those particular persons. In deed Enoch was taken away after a particular manner; but I do not find the least signification of his return. For as concerning that example of repentance to the generations, he is made this by his going away, not by coming again. His taking away crieth openlie, & shall cry unto the end, how great good things do in deed abide for them that repent.

It was also peculiar unto Elias, to be taken away in a fiery whirlwind: but to turn the harts of the Fathers unto the children, doth not so agree unto him, but it migh, as our Lord also taught, be applied unto the Baptist; and afterwards unto the like Eliaes, that should come in the last time, such as the Baptist was. Wherefore here is no one syllable, nor the least title of his return in his own person. Which Janson; one of your own men, saw; at whom you marvel, that one of yourselves durst utter anything sincerely. A rare liberty in deed it is among you, who are wont not to search the truth out of the Scriptures, so much as the maintenance of your error.

The third Scripture is from Mat. 17.11. Elias in deed shall come, and shall restore all things. Therefore, say you, the true Elias, not John: who was already come, and could not be said that he was to come. I answer, The Disciples in the former verse, had made mention of Elias to come; whose speech Christ taking, so speaketh as if he should say; true in deed it is which you say, Elias is to come. Are we wont to speak otherwise, so oft as we relate the speech of others concerning one to come? Further, let us suppose, that Christ speaketh of someone to come; yet shall not he be any other Elias then John was; as the reason before rendered, doth sufficiently convince. But you would prove it by two arguments: First, that the Disciples moving the question by occasion of the transfiguration, did speak of the true Elias: and therefore Christ answering, did speak of the same particular Elias, I answer it may be, that the Apostles were not yet free from the Jews common error about Elias: notwithstanding it is not necessary that the answer should always be made according to the mind of him that asketh the question. Which is manifest even in this place, when after it is said, the Disciples understood, that he spake these things unto them of John the Baptist; ver. 13. How understood they it of John; if our Lord did speak of the true Elias? The second argument is from those words, and shall restore all things: that, say you, John did not. For to restore all things, is to cal again unto the true faith, all Jews, and Heretiks, and perhaps many Catholics deceived by Antichrist. I answer, except this restoring of all things did in deed after a sort belong unto John: the Disciples which saw no such restoring, did misunderstand our Lord to speak of John. But a great restoring did he make, from whose days hitherto, saith the Lord. the Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force, Mat. 11.12. unto whose Baptism, resorted both all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees; as Mat. 3.5.7. Although I will not deny, but there shall be yet a more full restoring, and that of all things properly, that all Israel may be saved, as the Apostle speaketh, of which, that restoring by John, was as it were a shadow. But it is not necessary, that the Minister of this restoring, should be the true Elias; but one so called by a similitude, as is said upon the place of Malachi. And this Elias what manner of one so ever he shall be, shall not accompany Antichrist, but follow after him: and shall not show himself, before Antichrist be abolished, or his kingdom at least be very much darkened; as this Apocalypse maketh plain. Wherefore we find no foostep in these words, of the true Elias properly so called: much less in those, and if you will receive it, this is Elias which was to come, Mat. 11.14. Wher even against your will, you acknowledge that John was the promised Elias, not literally, but allegorically. Which seeing it is so, and that now by your own confession, we have our Lord him self interpreting those words of Malachi allegorically: show you I pray you, by what cōpetent author, they are to be understood literally: which until you do, we will rest in that one allegorical exposition, unto which we dare add no other, without some guide, against whom no exception can be taken.

The fourth Scripture is Apocalypse Chapter 11. verse 13. And I will give to my two Prophets, and they shall Prophesy one thousand two hundred three score days. Which are to he understood, you say, of the singular persons of Enoch and Elias.

But in stead of answer, I ask of you, whither also fire shall come out of their mouths properly, which shall devour their enemies? For so it is there said, in the fifth verse of the chapter: and there seemeth to be the same consideration of this fire, and of their persons. Which if it be so, then Woe to ANTICHRIST, for whom such companions are appointed and prepared.

One may well marvel, how he shall fulfil the three years and a half of his reign, and not rather be consumed the very first day, by this devouring fire. But if these things do not satisfy you, I have shown upon that place, that the words can in no wise be understood of their singular persons; whereof I will yet give you now a more full confirmation. These two Prophets do come into the world, clothed in sackcloth, straightway after the Hethen Emperors: for these are clad with sackcloth, and the Tēple is measured, both at a time. The measured Temple, is the woman's shelter in the wilderness, whereunto she fled, at the rising up of the Beast. The Beast the seventh Roman King, succedeth next unto the sixth, to weet that which reigned in John's time. Therefore when the Beast sprung up straight way after the Hethen Emperors, these sackcloth-Prophets began their mornful office: and therefore they are not properly Enoch and Elias. Now see, if there be anything foolisher then your dotage of these two to come in their own persons: your dotage, I say, for the ancient holy Fathers might miss and be deceived; but you continuing in open error, I see not what it differeth from madness. But let us go on to the other reasons.

You prove that the Apocalypse speaketh properly of Enoch & Elias, because it is said, they should be killed of Antichrist, and their bodies remain three days in buried in the street of the great City: and that after three days they should rise again, and ascend into heaven: which things, you say, have never as yet happened unto any. I answer, that I have made it plain, by the order of the time, and agreement of all things; that all these things are already performed; namely, when the Fathers of Trent, killed the Holy Scriptures, spoiling them of all authority, and tying the meaning of them unto the Pope. Thē that which John saith of the death of these Prophets, affordeth a necessary argument against this literal sense of those singular persons. For Enoch shall not die otherwise then of old by his taking away; the Apostle saying, by faith Enoch was taken away that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God took him away: for before his taking away he had testimony, that he had pleased God, Heb. 11.5. The like reason there is also of Helias. For God is always like himself, and giveth like things to like persons, for like ends. Therefore they are not to be killed by Antichrist. But Tertullian, you say, in his book De anima, chap. 28. saith, Enoch and Elias were taken away, neither is their death found, for it was deferred: but they are reserved for to die, that by their blood, they may extinguish Antichrist. I answer, Tertullian hath nothing save a guess, that these whom the Apocalypse mentioned, are Enoch and Elias: but the Apostle evidently & plainly teacheth that Enoch was taken away that he should not see death. Now the choice is easy. whom we should rather believe. It becomes not holy men, to avouch their blind opinions, against the open words of the Scriptures.

Hitherto hath been your first argument. The second is from the consent of the Fathers; unto all whom I oppose the consent of the Scriptures, which had indeed been enough for them, if through darkness of the times they could have perceived them. Ther is no need therefore to tarry long in examining their opinions, which they themselves, if they were now alive, would with their own voices condemn.

Thirdly, you prove it, because otherwise there can no reason be rendered, why these two were taken away before death, and do yet live in mortal flesh, being one day for to die. I answer, that these last words, being one day for today, do contradict the Apostle, as we shown even now: and then, that they convince the words next before, of falsehood. For if Enoch be not for to die, it cannot be that he doth yet live in a mortal body. For that is not mortal, which is not for to die. But whither they yet live in the flesh or no, is not so manifest, nor indeed necessary to be known. If it be lawful soberly to inquire about this thing, they seem to be exempted from the common death of men, as the Apostle speaketh of Enoch, that he should not see death; and not to live as yet in their bodies. For they live not on earth. For seeing they are adorned of God, with more excellent good than the rest: they cannot be inferior unto other souls, in this thing. And the souls in heaven, have greater joy and more ample felicity than can be on earth. Neither could they together with their bodies enter into heaven; the Apostle avouching that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor corruption inherit the nature uncorrupt, 1 Cor. 15.50. But against this may be objected, that they had the same change, that those which are aliv shall have at the coming of the Lord, according to that which is written, we shall not all die, but we shall all be changed, 1 Cor. 15.51. I grant that there might have been this change, (though this would no way further your cause,) if that saying of the Apostle hindered not, And these all through faith, obtained goo report, and received not the promise, God providing a better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect, Heb. 11.39, 40. For if they felt that change, how obtained they not the promise, to weet glorification: which is the felicity of the soul joined together with the body immortal? And if they obtained the promise without us, that is, before us: what cause can there be why also without us they are not made perfect? These two things seem openly to be repugnant unto the Apostle. Those two therefore being cut off, namely their death to come, and their present mortal body, both which are manifestly false: and that being let pass which is not sufficiently known, whither they be at all as yet in their bodies: if now you think there is no other reason why these two were taken away before their death, save that they might come again to fight with Antichrist; you are willingly blind. The Apostle saith, that Enoch was taken away, because he pleaseth God, walking continually with him: Ecclus. 44. that he might be an exēple of repentance, that is, that he might stir up men uto repentance, which look and think upon this notable example of God's singular lov towards his. And do you think it a light matter, that there should be unto all ages of the world a most clear document of the immortality of the body, and of the ascension thereof at last into heaven? Before the Law and the flood, Henochs ascension confirmed this faith to the men of that age. For unto men at least wise he ascended, for he was not found, as the Apostle saith, Heb. 11.5. Under the Law, Elias ascended; of whom there is the same reason. After the Law, Jesus Christ, the first fruits of all that ascend: by whose merit & power, both those former, in what manner soever it was, did ascend, and all the elect shall at length ascend. Only Antichrist did so stick in your eyes, that you could see none of these things, or any such like. But deceive yourself no longer, with vain expectation of Enoch and Elias: loose not your labor with the men of Jericho, seeking their bodies upon the earth; what say I? your labor? yea a greater loss hangeth over your head, namely, be not you found in the number of them, that following the Beast, have not their names written in the book of life. Ap. 17.8.

Chapt. 7. Against the fourth Demonstration, from the public persecution.

AN other conioint sign you make to be the public persecution, which, you say, shall be most grievous & notorious, so that all ceremonies & sacrifices of public religion shall cease, none of which things we yet see. According therefore to the threefold mark of this persecution, you make a threefold proof; first that it shall be most grievous, 2. most notorious; 3. that it shall cause a ceasing of religion. And you prove it shall be most grievous, frō Ma. 24.21. there shall be thē great tribulatiō, such as was not frō the beginning of the world neither shall be. & frō Ap. 20.3. where we read that thē Satā shall be loosed, who until that time had been bound. And you confirm it by testimonies of Aug. in the 20. b. de civit. Dei, ch. 8. & 9. of Hippolitus martyr, & of Cyril: unto which you add at last, that the persecutiō by the Pope is not the most grievous, & therefore he is not Antichrist. I answer to all, & first as touching the greevousnes of the persecutiō frō the words of Mat. I say, that you care not what you bring for confirmation. Those words pertain to the calamity of the Jews, which they felt in the desolation of their city by Titus, within a few years after Christ. Luke expresseth this people by name, saying, for there shall be great distress in this land, & wrath on this people, Luke 21.23. So Mat. then let them that ar in Judea, flee to the moūtayns, ch. 24.16. And what ells meaneth that prayer against flight on the Sabbath, but properly to note out this nation? So far verily is it, that Antichrists persecution is from these words proved to be most grievous, as the contrary may plainly be concluded: for they evidently do confirm, that no tribulation shall be to be compared wit that of the Jews; & therefore, not that which Antichrist shall procure. I know that Chrysostom refers it typically unto Antichrist, but not truly, nor advisedlie: for when Christ openlie saith, none shall be like it, he cutteth off all typical interpretation: not obscurely forbidding the words to be further drawn for to signify anything to come. For the type must needs be inferior to the truth of it, & a greater distress must follow afterwards, contrary to that Christ saith, if so be the words should be expounded by a type. Matthew therefore makes nothing for the vehemency of this persecutiō; & the Apocalypse doth even as much. Satan in deed shall rage when he is loosed, but the outragiousnes which is mentioned in that place, is nothing to that which he shown before he was bound. For Satan is the same that the Dragon, Apoc. 12 9. and before his imprisonment, he lived in heaven, drawing with his tail the third part of the stars of heaven; which he cast unto the earth, until by Michael he was overcome, and thrown down from thence. That is to say; the Hethē Emperors, not only lived, but also ruled in the midst of the Church, which they vexed in most cruel manner, til Christ put them out of the Empire; as upon that place I have shown. From that time the Devil that is the open enemy, was bound for a thousand years: which being fulfilled, his bounds should be loosed, & he should be styrrd up again, but not with that ability to hurt, as before; for here he should have no place in heavē, that is, in the Church, but should abide only in the utmost borders & territories thereof, compassing the tents of the Saints, & the beloved city, as Ap 20.9. wherupō he should not so much raise persecution as war; neither should the saints die lik sheep, but resist lik soljers. How much therefore an inward & noisome enemy is mor grievous than an outward; so much greater is the afflictiō of the former times, thā that when Satā is loosed, in the last age. Morover Antich. reigneth a 1000 years, whiles Satā lieth in prisō, Ap. 20.9. Wherupō if whē he is loosed, this fellow do trobel all: there should be great trāquility whē he is bound: & so the greatest part at least of his reign, should be void of those turbulēt storms, neirher should Antich. hav an helper of his persecutiō in the other part of his reign: seeing he should abid within the Church & Satā without as is manifest by the things forespokē: also that now he was appointed for the scourge of Antic. himself, not for their hāgmā & torturer, whom he should use for the tormenting of others.

For the Devil being now loosed, the four Angels at Euphrates are loosed, whō God sendeth to punish the Angel of the bottomless pit, with his infernal crew, which came out of the pit, Apoc. 9.20.21. all which things we hav made plain in their places. Therefore where Augustine saith, that Antichr. shall most rage when the Devil is loosed; as though he were now first loosed, and should be his helper unto cruelty; he judgeth not rightly of this loosing: for he was loosed before in heaven, Apoc. 12.3. &c. which could not be a prison and pit unto him, seeing he took it heavilie to be cast from thence: unless perhaps he went out of prison against his will, Apoc. 12.10. Neither is Hippolitus to be hearkened unto concerning this persecution, when he teacheth that Antichrist is no man, but the very Devil, that should take false flesh of a false virgin. And no better account is to be made of Cyril, if he though that the Devil should personally range abroad, making Antichrist to be a true man, but one that should be a Devil also, because as he thinks, he should be made man by incarnation. What sincere thing could they utter about this matter, whose minds were possessed by such manner errors? Wherefore this grievousnes of persecution which you speak of, hath no confirmation at all from the Scriptures. A very grievous persecution in deed there should be but of another sort then you mention; even such as should consist not so much in killing of bodies, as in murthering of souls. For Antichrist is Balaam, who though it better to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, that they migh eat of things sacrificed to Idols, and commit fornication, then to follow thē with the sword, Apoc. 2.14. He is that Beast, whereon Jezebel the whore sitteth, with the wine of whose fornication, the inhabitants of the earth are drunken, Apoc. 2.20. & 17.2. He is the Angel of the bottomless pit, who opening the pit, the Sun and aier is darkened with the smoke, Apoc. 9.2. Finally he is that man of syn, whose coming is with the efficacy of Satā, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish, for that they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God sendeth them the efficacy of deceit, that they may believe a lie: that they all may be damned, which have not believed the truth, but taken pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thes. 2.9.10. Behold the true persecution of Antichrist, being rather pernicious to the souls than to the bodies: although he should not refrain frō this wickedness of shedding blood; for he should also cause that whosoever would not worship the Image of the Beast, should be killed, Apoc. 13.15. And he is that scarlet Beast of bloody color, got̄ by the blood of the saints, springled on him. But that spiritual persecution is the more outrageous, by so much as the sowl is better than the body, and as the conioynt destruction of both, is crueller than the perdition of one. Whereas before you say that there is no comparison of the Popes persecution of us, whom you cal Heretiks, with the persecution of Nero, Domitian, Decius, Dioclesian and others, as if from hence it were certain that the Pope is not Antichrist; now every mā may see, that it is nothing to the purpose. For Antichrists cruelty, is not to be measured by the privation of mortal life, but by the loss of life eternal. And this is that which surpasseth all prisons, swords, wild beasts, fyres, burning irons, molten lead, or any exquisite torment that either Nero, or any other of the tyrants exercised. This is that, for the torment whereof, men sought death, but found it not, and desired to die: but death fled from them; namely because they felt pain sharper than death, Apoc. 9.6. This is that for which straightway at the rising up of the Beast, the woman fled into the wilderness, which could not be put to flight by any gibbets or flames, wherewith the Emperors raged, Apoc. 12.6. &c. Wherefore though we should grant, that a greater slaughter of bodies was made by Nero and such like tyrants: yet nothing letteth, but the cruelty of the Bishop of Rome may surpass in another respect, and be such, as whereby he may manifest himself to be the great Antichrist.

But, say you, many moe of the Catholics have our Heretiks killed, these 10 or 15-years, in France and Flanders; then the Inquisitors have burned of the Heretiks, perhaps in one hundred years. And if it may be called persecution, the Catholics do rather suffer it, than the Lutherans or Calvinists. For the Catholics ar they which being driven out of many countries, have lost Churches, patrimonies, and country it self, the new Ministers of the Gospel invading them. I answer: whereas now you ar resisted, & some of you whiles they oppugn the good estate of others, have lost their own: that nothing hindereth the spiritual persecution of your Pope. He rageth yet with no less deadly feud against the truth, than at any time before; yea with greater, if greater may be. But this slaughter of his men, somewhat mitigateth the corporal persecution. But the Spirit hath foretold, that that shall be brought at last upō your own heads, which you were wont to do unto others. For Christ threatened that he would slay Jezebels children with death, Apoc. 2.23. and that they should go into captivity, which do lead into captivity, and be killed with the sowrd, which do kill with the sword, Apoc. 13.10. Finally, that the rivers and fountains of waters should be turned into blood, and that they should drink blood, which did shed the blood of the Saints and Prophets, Apoc. 16.4.5.6. Neither is this divine recompense to be called a persecution, unless perhaps it be persecution to repel force by force; or to take from theevs & robbers, the goods, which they have stolen from the right owners, or to drive out of the country, them that betray the country, or to drive away the wolves from the folds. Your wickedness is now known unto all, your treasons, murders, poisonnings, cut-throat boldness, subtle plottings against Princes, unto which you apply yourselves with all diligence, and often accomplish them with overmuch. These things cause many of you to loose your heads, these be the merits of your Martyrs, these be the crowns, these be trophees or signs of your victories. It is to be wished of all which love the public peace and safety, that by the faithful diligence and vigilancy of the Magistrates, this persecution may more increase daily. And thus much of the greevousnes of the persecution: which howsoever it be great in deed, yet you see it is another, than you supposed.

Secondly you prove that Antichrists persecution shall be most notorious and manifest, from those words Apoc. 20.8. and they compassed the tents of the Saints, and the beloved city. And that the Popes persecution is such, as neither they which say they suffer it, nor you which are said to infer it, can say when it begann. I answer; those words of the Apocalypse pertain nothing unto any vexation that shall be inferred by Antichrist, but by Gog & Magog. Antichrist was slain & cast into the lake of fire, in the end of the former chapter; whereupon he hath no part in this battle, neither shall the last afflictiō be raised by him, as you falsely do often avouch, but by another that shall for a while survive Antichrist. And that you may understand how Antichrists persecution, shall not be most notorious in the doing of it: you must remember that Antichrists property is to invade with all guile and fraud, not with open and displayed flaggs. Therefore that he shall carry his matters with very great silence, and privily, which be arts fittest for secret ambush, not that he should be espied of all. Moreover, when all the earth should worship the Beast, needs must the affliction be of the lesser part, and so not most notorious, Apoc. 13.3. That which is doon by the most, is commonly counted to be doon by right; and to deserve no reprehension. Besides, his persecution is specially spiritual, which easily deceiveth the bodily sense and eyes: whereupon though it should not be so readily discerned, either when Antichrist shall come, or unto whom he shall first appear, or when his persecution shall begin: yet this maketh the thing it self no more doubtful and ambiguous, than it is uncertayn that the plague is the plague, because it is not evident unto all, from whence it first proceeded; or that a fire consumeth & devoureth all things, because it is not found out, how first it began and grew. But howsoever these things have heretofore perhaps been more obscure: see now how much we have profited by this Apocalypse, by help whereof we ar come nearer unto that beginning which you seek. For from hence we learn, that straightway after the Emperors were for doon, the woman fled into the wilderness, & a burning mountayn was cast into the Sea, chap. 8. For then the bars being burst, the Roman ambition could no longer be held in: then began error and superstition of every sort, speedily to enter: then was instituted the Feast of the Invētion of the Cross; and Confirmation made a new Sacrament, and that greater, as Bishop Melchiades would have it, than Baptism. Then all the neighbors in their order, strove who might most heap up new adulterate rites: until at length it came to the opening of the Bottmlesse pit, at what time the whole infernal darkness broke out. Neither yet was this an end of the calamity, but at last, by the Trident Council, the two Prophets were slain, the Scriptures being killed, and their bare carcasses cast out, as we have shown, cha. 11.9. whereupon soon also it came to pass, that by the Jesuits, the Masters of controversies, the whole Sea of Popish doctrine, was turned into abominable & deadly putrifyed blood, chap. 16.3. This is the uprising and proceeding of your spiritual persecution. The corporal also cannot now be hidd from any: which beginning after the second uprising of the Beast, excommunicated Leo Isauricus; deposed King Childericus; war with the Emperors; put some of them from their Empire; fell with noisome signs upon the Albigenses, and almost quite destroyed them; would not help the Greeks against the Turks, unless they would first subject themselves to the Latin Pope; did break Europe with continual wars, by setting the Princes together by the ears; burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague: armed Charles the 5. against the Protestants; consumed many Christians in France with flames, shown the same cruelty upon many in England: made that memorable massacre in Paris: set up the tormenting boucherie of the Inquisition in many of his dominions: finally, which sent the Spanish Navy into England: invaded Jreland by force of arms: exposed the Realm of our gracious Queen, to the spoil of any whomsoever: and destinated her sacred persō unto death; her people, to the prey; and the whole nation to most cruel slaughter. These things are now known, and will ere long be more manifest: but while the matters were a doing, they were dect and covered with so fayr a show of piety & zeal for the house of God, that the injury which was doon unto any, seemed not so much to be hatred and persecution, as either the just defense of the Church, or punishment of the wicked. This public knowledge therefore, which may be somewhat when the things are doon, but is very small or none at all rather, before the issue cometh; is no note of the persecution of Antichrist.

The third sign you make to be, the ceasing of the public and daily Church offfice and sacrifice, because of the cruelty of the persecution. I answer, it is here in special worthy to be observed, that this cessation shall be not in one country alone, but universally in all: which both you urge in many places, and reason doth enforce. For if the Gospel must be preached before Antichrists coming, in the whole world, and that not figuratively but simply & properly so said, as in your first Demōstration you pleaded: needs must the ceasing of all public religiō, extend as far, as the preaching did before. Therefore the cessatiō shall be not only in these known parts of the world, but in all lands also yet unknown, among the Tartars and Scythians, the Asians, the Indians, and all the Eastern Islands, in the deserts of Africa, in the Southern continent, in all America, the new Zembla, & all those coasts under the North. Al which superficies, as by Geometrical reckoning is manifest, consisteth of a hundred forty eight thousand thousand, four hundred fifty thousand, nine hundred and nine English or Italiā miles: which space if we will divide into the several days of your Antichrist that shall reign three years and a half, he must travel every day provinces that are a hundred seventeen thousand, eight hundred and eighteen miles over. Surely all Spain and France, taking the whole length & breadth of them together, are very small countries unto the measured portion of his every days way. And shall he have leisure also to build a Temple, and sit therein? But, I pray you, shall he make this journey together with his army, or himself alone? It may be, that as the Monk of Oxford, being carried by his familiar Devil through the aier, described in an Astrolobe the whole Northern Climate; so Antichrist may mount on some such like winged Pegasus, and may provide his army such horses also, and then in every nation whiles he flieth over the countries, he may with the clapping of his wings only compel true religion to keep silence. It may also be, that he will spare his own payns, and will go over the countries by his Legates: yet I believe he shall have enough to do, every day to give commandments unto so large a dominion as he is to administer. But in this general and so deep silence of true religion, where shall your Enoch & Elias be? shall not they oppose themselves; or shall they do it in vain, out of whose mouth fire cometh forth, consuming their adversaries? Apoc. 11.6. But what do I mean? Are you not ashamed of such monstrous opinions as these? Such strange fantasies are rather to be hissed away, than to be refuted by any serious disputation.

But, say you, Daniel doth plainly teach this point, chapt. 12. in these words: From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, shall be 1200 days; as the ancient Fathers do expound it; and the meaning it, that Antichrist shall forbid all divine worship, that now is exercised in the Christian Churches, and specially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist. And experience testifieth that this sign is not yet fulfilled. I answer, that Daniel treateth of nothing less in that place, than of Antichrist. The Fathers that so expound it, will have this number of days that is mentioned, to be of his reign: but incōsideratlie, as the words do sufficiently show. For if these be the days of his reign, he shall make all public religion to cease, before his reign beginn. For these days take their beginning, from the daily sacrifice being taken away; which therefore must needs go before. Wherefore either these things pertain nothing at all to Antichrist, or all those things are vain which the Fathers mention of him, whiles they thrust all his tyranny into the straights of so few days. Ther is no soundness therefore in this their exposition: the true sacrifice which Daniel meaneth, is the daily sacrifice, which was taken away before Antichrist was born; for it was taken away together with the Temple of Jerusalem, unto which it was tied by the institution of God. For all this Prophesy is of the children of Daniel's people, that is, of the Jews, as the Angel speaketh in the first verse of that chapter. Not so, say you, but this daily sacrifice, is our sacrifice of the altar, which succeeded in place of that old. Away with this dotage, and sacrilegious sacrifice, which neither Christ instituted, nor the Apostles knew of, nor the purer Church ever dreamed of. Should there be any daily sacrifice now in the Church, besides that of thanksgiving, & of a contrite heart, after that Christ in the midst of that week, as the Angel speaketh, abolished all sacrifice and offering? Dan. 9.27. &c. Should not the sacrifice of himself alone, be the only and perfect sacrifice: as the Apostle so often testifieth to the Hebrews? chap. 7. ver. 27. But many are your blasphemies that from hence arise, neither to be stood on at this time. It is enough for us in this place, that the ceasing of this sacrifice, is without the compass of the 1290. days: and therefore not rightly attributed unto Antichrist. But this place is sertile, and three notable points are gathered from it: First, that Antichrist is not yet come whiles the daily Sacrifice doth still continue. I answer; you may as certainly conclude, that he is not yet come, because the Tēple of Jerusalem, doth still remain whole. Secondly, you say, the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist, but most contrary unto him; seeing the sacrifice which he shall take away, this man most adorneth and defendeth. I answer, Antichrist shall take away nothing less, than your sacrilegious sacrifice: than which, nothing is more contumelious against Christ. For if Christ profiteth them nothing, which bring in circumcision: they are fallen from grace, which bring in the daily sacrifice, Gal. 5.2. But yours, you will say, is not the legal rite. I answer, it is so much the more impious, in that it is merely human and Popish. Thirdly, you say, that the Heretiks of this time, are above all other, the fore-runners of Antichrist, for that they desire nothing more earnestly, than utterly to abolish the sacrifice of the Eucharist, I answer, unless Satan had blinded your eyes, those whom you cal Heretiks and fore-runners of Antichrist, you would acknowledge them to be the fore-runners of Christ: forasmuch as of his great mercy he useth them, as the Spirit of his mouth to destroy the Pope, who is by all tokens famously known to be Antichrist; and whom now very shortly at last, he will utterly abolish with the brightness of his coming, 2 Thess. 2.8. But it is no marvel that yow which count Antichrist for the Vicar of Christ: do cal Christ's true servants by any name rather than their own. And now it were to be wished, that Antichrist might no more attayn to the Saints by persecuting, than yow have attained to any part of this question by disputing: for so, his persecution would be tolerable, as your disputation is intolerable.

Chapt. 8. Against the fifth Demonstration, from the durance of Antichrist.

THE fifth Demonstration you draw from Antichrists durance, which yow make to be but three years and a half. But seeing the Pope hath now reigned you say, spiritually in the Church, these 1500. years, neither can any be named, that was counted Antichrist, which reigned precisely three years and a half; the Pope is not Antichrist: and therefore Antichrist is not yet come. I answer, how vain this opinion of three years and a half is, I have shown by most firm arguments from the Scriptures. For if Antichrist have reigned from the time of Constantine the Great, unto this day, whereof the Apocalypse hath givē such demonstrations, as no Jesuit shall ever confute: then is there nothing more frivolous, than that three years reign and a half. But the proper argument of this place, is to be taken from the things that follow, chap. 20.6. whence plainly it is gathered, that some part of his reign shall dure a thousand years; for thus he saith: And J saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which worshiped not the Beast, nor his Jmage, nor had taken his mark on their foreheads, or on their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead mē lived not, til the thousand years were fulfilled. This is the first resurrection. From hence it is evident, first, that Antichrists adversaries do reign a thousand years with Christ, before the first resurrection. Secondly, that Antichrists ubiects, that died by his tyranny, lay dead 1000 years. But there can be no exposition against Antichrist, whiles yet he is not: neither is he able to hold his people dead 1000 years, ūless his tyranny should so many years endure. Therefore some part of his reign, is for 1000 years: a part, I say; for these thousand years, are not those whole 1260, days, but some part only, as in their places is more apparent. But let us see, how you confirm those three years and a half. For this thing, you use six arguments. First from Dan. 7.25. and 12.7. Apoc. 12.19. where we read, you say, that Antichrists reign shall dure for a time, and times, and half a time. For by a time, is meant, one yere; by times, two years; by half a time, half a yere. And that so John explayneth it, for in Apoc. 11. & 13. he confirmeth that Antichrist shall reign 42 months, which justly make three years and a half. And in chap. 11. Enoch & Elias are to preach 1260 days, which make up the same time. Neither doth it lett, that in Dan. 12. it is said Antichrist shall reign 1290 days, that is, 30. days more than John spake of for John speaks of Enoch and Elias, which shall be slain by Antichrist, one month before Antichrist do perish. I answer, first, that you unskilfully join Daniel in this thing with John. For that time, times, & part of a time in Daniel, pertain nothing to Antichrist, and to this time, times, and half a time in John, save so far as some similitude and allusion is between them. For that in Daniel is of a little horn; which is not the great Antichrist, whom John speaketh of in this place. For he riseth up after the other ten horns: Antichrist is born together with his ten. Also, he gets dominion but over three horns: contrariweise Antichrist prevaileth over all his: as is shown before, chap. 5. against your second demonstration. Secondly I say, that you plainly know not the account in nūbring the days months and years. For whereas you say, that the full and perfect yere of the Moon containeth 12 months, and every month 30. days, as Augustine teacheth; that is not true. For such a yere of the Moon, should have 360. days: but the Hebreues yere of the Moon, had only 354 days, & some hours and minutes over; as all the Rabbin's, Calendars, & Cycles of the Hebrews do show; who are more to be believed in the computation of their own time, than Augustine is, though otherwise a very learned mā. Wherefore, if you will have these to be the years of the Hebrews; three years and a half, will make but 1239 days, which want 21 of the number in the Apocalypse. Moreover, where you make those 1290 days in Dan. 12. to be also of Antichrists reign; besides that which we have shown in the former chapter, how it can no way be referred hereunto, see how great a new contrariety you make in the account. For neither doth this number fall under the reckoning of the time times and half a time, seeing it cannot be divided into three whole ones and a half; neither agreeth it with John, who numbereth precisely 1260 days. But, say you, this number is of the death of Enoch and Elias, whom Antichrist shall survive one month. Unto this I say, then Antichrist shall reign not only three years and six months, as Irenaeus saith expressly in the end of his 5. book: neither three years and a half only, with an exclusive particle, as Cyril speaketh, Cateches. 25. but a month over the number shall now be added, and for 6. months there shall be 7. Neither shall the half of a time prefigure six, as Jerome saith on Dan. 7. but seven. And thus, while you go about to make Daniel & John agree, you set the Fathers against them both. But let us leave these disagreers, and draw the truth out of the true fountains. I confess that the number of 1290 days, is not of Antichrists whole reign, but is ended at the death of the two Prophets, whose names I now stand not upon; & that Antichrist shall survive they two being slain: but not one month only, as you falsely suppose, but many years, the number whereof we have gathered elsewhere: which thing verily is from hence manifested. For the two Prophets are killed under the sixth trumpet, chap. 11.8.14. and Antichr. perisheth under the last, which comprehendeth 7 other plagues called vials, under the last whereof, he is quite abolished. Shall therefore all the seven vials have their effects in those your 30. days? So four days shall be attributed for the execution of everyone: for they are not poured out all together, and confusedly: but the same order and course is kept doubtless in the executing, that is kept in the declaring. Wherefore, to let pass the five first vials, those unclean Spirits of the sixth, which come out of the mouth of the Dragon, of the Beast, and of the false Prophet, and go forth unto the Kings of the whole earth, to gather them together unto battle; shall they effect all this in the four days next before the last? We have heard of Antichrists incredible swiftness, going over the whole earth in so small a space of his reign: but greater shall be the speed of these his ministers, who shall both survey the whole earth in four days, and bring forth unto battle very populous armies. Verilie this expedition is most expedite or soon dispatched: and such as only deserveth properly the name of an expedition. Doo you not yet perceive how false, absurd, trifling, and mere ignorance the things are which you babble about these matters? When yow shall prove that the seven last plagues shall be all to be accomplished in 30. days; we will assent unto you that Antichrist shall survive the two slain Prophets, one month only; as also that there is an agreement of these numbers in Daniel and John: in the mean while we will determine that these two have their divers intendements, and do not Prophesy of the same things by these numbers. Thirdly I say, although that whole indefinite space did consist with most exact agreement, of those either months or days; yet are yow never the nearer for obtaining your purpose. For the question is, whither those months or days or years be to be taken properly or no, not whither the account do agree; which may agree alike, whither they be taken properly or figurativelie: seeing there is the same proportiō in the type and the truth; though neither the type be the truth, nor the truth the type. How therefore do you prove, that they are to be taken properly? By testimony you say, of the Fathers, some of which you bring forth in the answer to Chytreus, and the men of Maydenburgh. I answer. those ancient Fathers are to be pardonned, that being ignorant of the event, thought they should hold fast unto the letter: but seeing many things are now made clear by the issue, whosoever doth abuse the patronage of their names, to confirm himself in error, he shall procure on his own head just condemnation. Therefore you must either bring forth something of greater weight; or freely confess, that that reign of 3. years and a half, hath no defense from these Scriptures.

Secondly, you prove it by this, that the time of the Devil loosed, and of Antichrist should be very short; as Apoc. 12.12. Woe to the land and sea, for the Devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a little time. I answer, a little and indefinite time concludetht nothing at all, for a certain and definite reign of 3. years and a half: so that little help or none rather you get from this place. Moreover, that which you cal the time of the Devil loosed, is the time of the Devil bound: who so soon as he was cast out of heaven, was cast into prison. For every place is to him loathsome, & like a prison, without the assembly of the Saints, among whom he most coveteth to converse, for greater opportunity to his wickedness: wherupō the Lord saith, that the unclean Spirit being cast out of a man, walketh through dry places, as in which there is no pleasure for his mind, Mat. 12.43. &c. But these things we have made evident in explayning the Prophesy. Seeing therefore the Devils prisonment is for 1000 years, & here that time is spoken of whereunto you will have Antichrists durance to be equal: his reign shall be much longer by this place, than you are willing to grant. But, say you, how can so many years be a little time? I answer, if the words be rightly interpreted, here is no mention of durance, but of opportunity. For where you read, knowing that he hath but a little time, it is properly thus, knowing that he hath little opportunity. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifieth, noting the quality of time, not the quantity, whereby it is distinguished from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Ammonius showeth. And reason convinceth that so it is to be taken in this place. If it should be understood durance, the Devil should be angry for the thousand years of his prison, (in which he liveth, by those words, as we have said;) as being bound for a lesser space than he would. Which how far it is from his disposition, his diligence night and day to destroy men, doth sufficiently show. The time therefore was longer than he desired, but the opportunity little: leave being now given him only over his own, whō he had rather spare, and show his cruelty on the elect. Wherefore this place is nothing to the matter, for many causes. The second is, Apoc. 20.3 he bound him for a 1000. years, and afterwards he must be loosed for a little time. I answer, now in deed he speaketh of time; and therefore whereas before it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 season, whiles he lay in bands; now it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 time, when he is loosed. But how say you, shall this be true, if Antichrist shall reign 1260 years? I answer, this is not the loosing of Antichrist, but of the Devil; that his time is short, but Antichrists time long, who reigneth not only when the Devil is loosed, but also when he is bound; as Apoc. 20.3.4. where the Devil is bound 1000. years, whiles the Beast in the mean time is despised of the elect, but dominiereth over his own, by his Mark, and other signs of servitude; as upon that place shall be spoken more at large. Thirdly you say, because as Augustine and Gregory do reason, except that grievous persecution should be very short, many should perish, which are not for to perish, whereupon our Lord also saith, unless those days were shortened, no flesh should be saved, Mat. 24.22. I answer; this of Matthew, agrees not to the persecution of Antichrist, but to the affliction of Jerusalem. What flight shall there be under your Antichrist, (such as there is mentioned,) when all the world shall plainly obey him? Or what shall the Sabbath hurt Christians that flee? Or how shall new false Prophets have place, after your great Antichrist, who shall come you say, a little before the end of the world? how be it after that affliction, the Lord foretelleth that such, shall come a fresh: ver. 24. Therefore what names soever you pretend for this interpretation, there is no firmness in it. Moreover, if I should grant that this persecution is both Antichrists, and short: what is this for 3. years and a half? The Spirit said to the Angel of Ephesus, unless thou repent, I will come against thee shortly, Apoc. 2.5. Was that Angel punished within 3. years and a half? Therefore here is no probability of Antichrists durance, but this your Demonstration is like your other. This also I will tell you of in as word, though it perteyns nothing to the force of the argument, that you had rather speak amiss many should perish, which are not to perish, then to say with the Scripture, that they should deceive, if it were possible the very elect. For that which the Lord saith, no flesh should be saved, he spake of the destruction of the flesh, with greevousnes of the slaughter: not of the peril of salvation of souls.

Fourthly you say, Christ preached only three years and a half; therefore it is meet also that Antichrist be permitted to preach no longer. I answer, you are a notable disputer verily. Will you have Christ, to be a type of Antichrist? If it were so appointed, the agreement of years would perhaps be meet: but being as you mind, they directly cross one another, it is rather meet all things should be contrary; namely that Antichrist should reign very long, because Christ did it openlie in the world a very short time. So also should Christ's glory appear the greater in subduing this enemy: the longer that his tyranny hath continued. Enemies do not set themselves to imitate their enemies: and in many other things they are quite contrary. For as Christ was very poor; so Antichrist is very rich: as Christ was a subject, so Antichrist is a King: as Christ patiently suffered all injuries, so Antichrist studiously inferreth them: as Christ had not where to lay his head, so Antichrist aboūdeath with so great wealth, as he is also able to carry the whore. Will you require a similitude of years in these?

Fifthly, you say, because the sum of 1260 years, which the adversaries do appoint, can no way be applied unto those words of Daniel and John, a time, times, & half a time; I answer; I have often already shown, that we are not much to be troubled about Daniel. But what letteth, I pray you, the applicatiō unto these words of John? Because by a time, you say, without doubt must be understood someone number, as one day, one week, one month, one yere, one five-years-tide, one Jubilee, one hundred-years, one thousand &c. I answer, but you without doubt are egregiously deceived: neither do I thing that you wrote these things waking, but a sleep, or nodding. Doo not you see, that by this reason, you reject not only the years of the adversaries, but even the days and months which the Angel himself setteth? A time, you say, must be doubtless someone number, as one day, one week, one month, &c. Be it therefore one day, then times shall be two days, half • a time, half a day. Now have we the sum of three days and a half: where then shall be the other 1256. days and a half? So let a time be one month, times will be two months, half a time, 15. days; all which joined together, make three months and 15. days; will the 42. months be brought at length to these? But I will not ask too loud least I be troublesome to your sleepy head: I will whisper to you as low as I can, that a time of days, is not one day, but three hundred and sixty days; times, are twice as many, namely 720: half a time, 180. Likeweise also a time of years, is 360. years; times, 720. half a time, 180. So a time of months, is 12. months; times, 24. half a time, six These things, when you are awake, think on, I pray you: and in the mean time dream sweetly those 3400. yeree which by your account you have wrung out from your adversaries.

Sixthly, you say, the 7. times in Daniel chap. 9. are seven years; if they should be taken otherwise, so many days for so many years, Nebuchadnezzar had lived without his Kingdom two thousand five hundred fifty and five years. Therefore one time in John, shall be one usual yere, and 2. times 2. years, and so forward. I answer, it is ridiculous to tie words always unto one signification, except where certain reason, and necessity do constreyn. Daniel himself is said to have fallen on hes knees three times in a day; I think you will not have it that he fell on his knees three years in a day, Dan. 6.11. And thus now you have disputed of Antichrists three years reign, as besides the bare names of some mē, which are not meet witnesses in this matter, you have nothing which may hold either you or any other Papist in this opinion: yea (I may say somewhat more and truly,) whereof you and all Papists may not well be ashamed, which suffer yourselves to be deceyved in so great a matter, with such light and childish toys. God grant, the truth be not now also showed you in vain, as it hath been heretofore. Ther remaineth one thing in this chapter to be considered, which you answer unto the argument of Illyricus, where you say, that in the Scripture there is found indeed & rightly said weeks of years, but not days, for years, or months of years: and that it is rightly called a week, because it hath the name of the number seven: but months and days are names of number, but of the course of the man, or time of light. I answer, whereas first you say that days are not found for years: it is manifestly false. Saith not the Lord to the Israelites, according to the number of the days, wherein you searched the land, even forty days, you shall bear your iniquities forty years? Num. 14▪ 34. what can be plainer? Likeweise unto Ezekiel, A day for a yere have J given thee: chap. 9.6. But, say you, he will not say, for days literally are meant years, but the days are truly taken for years, and they are said to be given for years, because they were a sign of years. O wit, worthy of Neesing wort! A day is not a very yere, but only a sign or signification of a yere: as if any ever thought a day to be a yere truly and properly? Or if a day might signify a yere in Ezekiel, & other places, but might not in John? But now let us hear the reason why a week may be of years, and not a day likewise: forsooth because a week signifieth number; a day not. To this I say, unity indeed is not number, and a day answereth to unity, and this very subtly. How be it we dullars do think that number is the gathering together of unities; & that unities ar such as is the whole it self which is made of thē. Therefore as 7 days signify 7 years; so I pray you with your good leave, let it be lawful for one day to signify one yere: which if you will let us obtain at your hands; in thanks for so great a benefit, we will grant your Pope a long lasting reign, even 1260. years

Chapt. 9. Against the sixth Demonstration▪ from the end of the world.

THE sixth Demonstratiō is taken from the last sign that followeth Antichrist, which shall be the end of the world. If Antichrist, say you, had been come long since, the world had been at an end long since; for he is to come a little before the end of the world: but the world is not yet ended: therefore he is not yet come. I answer, If that of Antichrists three years reign, had been certain; this which you say, should have some weight: but forasmuch as we have proved that to be a vain fiction, partly by taking away your reasons, partly by propounding such as you will never be able to refute; the end of the world may well teach Antichrists end, but is of no force at all to demonstrate his coming, if we will speak of it properly. From the places by you cited, some perhaps may argue thus. The end of the world is conjoined with the end of Antichrist: but the end of the world is not yet come; therefore neither the end of Antichrist. But what is this to the purpose? We make question of his coming, not of his end. You might have spared this labor; unless perhaps you thought these were to be prepared against a new battle, whē Antichrists case shall be debated in hell. There this domonstration may hav some weight, where it shall be certainly known whither the Pope be perished, together with the destruction of all the world, or no. Wherefore the testimonies which you bring are quite from the purpose, and make nothing for the matter in hand. Yea what and if they prove not that end which you think? Then will this your demonstratiō be altogether both without head and tail. Let us see in few words, that we may also illustrate as it were by the way some obscure places; whose meaning it will be very profitable for to know. First you allege that of Dan. ch. 7.9. J considered the horns & loe another little horn came up, & three of the first horns were plucked away from before him. I beheld til the thrones were set up, and the ancient of days did sit &c. And afterwards explaining the vision, he saith, The fou th Beast shall be the fourth Kingdom: and the ten horns ar ten Kings, & another shall rise up after them, & he shall be mightier than the former, & shall subdue three Kings &c. And they shall be given into his hand for a time & times & half a time, & judgment shall sit. I answer, neither is the little horn, the Antichrist, as we hav shown neither if he were, doth his end lead unto the knowledge of that coming But leaving these, let us weigh for what cause this is cited. From these words yow would teach that the end should straightway follow that little horn. But you ought to have considered withal the words after, in ver. 14. & to him was givē dominiō & glory & kingdom, that all people's nations & tongues should serve him▪

That is, he which shall obtain the Kingdom, when the little horn is destroyed, shall be an universal King, unto whom all nations shall obey. But shall there remain a distinction of people's, nations, and tongues, after the last end? yet is it more plain after, if plainer may be, in verse 27. And the Kingdom, and amplitude, and rule of Kingdoms, shall be given to the people of the holy most High, whose Kingdom shall be a perpetual Kingdom, and all Rulers shall serve it. Wher first it is to be observed, that the dominion of this Kingdom, shall be of the things under heaven: then, that it shall be the holy Most-High; and finally, that all rulers shall serve this Kingdom: which things cannot have place in the heavenly Kingdom. The thing • s thus; that little horn is the Turk, who being at last extinguished, the Jews cōverting universallie all of them unto the faith, shall have a perpetual domination, that shall dure until the coming of our Lord from heaven. For the little horn in Daniel, is Gog in Ezekiel, who being slain, the Christian faith shall exceedingly flourish among the Jews, as is shown by that typical building of the Temple & new City. The same reason is of the new Jerusalem in this Apocalypse, after Gog is slain, ch. 20.21. These things we have partly taken out of the 16. chap. of the Apocalypse; partly they shall be explained hereafter more fully. And this is that which Lactantius writeth, lib. 7. chap. 15. The name of Rome, saith he, wherewith the world now is ruled, (my heart is afraid to speak it, but speak it I wll, because it shall come to pass) shall be taken away from the earth, and the Empire shall return into Asia; & the East again shall have dominion, and the West shall serve. The second place is Ap. 20.4 After this he must be loosed a little time: and I saw seats, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. I answer, these things are far from the last end. For they follow not as you think after the Devil is loosed; but these seats are placed during his imprisonment. Again, there are 1000 years before the first resurrection; then they that first rise, do reign 1000 years, as is expressly said ver. 6. Therefore these seats and this judgment. which you suppose to be of the last end. do go before it 2000 years at least; such a stranger are you in these mysteries. Then to that which is alleged out of Dan. 12. Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh unto the 1335 days, that is, say you, unto 45 days after Antichrists death, for then the Lord shall come to judgment, and will give the crowns of righteousness to them that overcome. I answer, as touching this place, we are to explain it after, chap. 20.11. and it may be one day we will take in hand the full handling of it. In the mean while let us know, that the destruction of Antichrist properly so called, is not here handled, nor our Lord's coming to the last judgment, which shall not make all blessed upon whom it cometh, whē many shall desire that they may be covered by the mountains from his sight: but the full calling of the Jews, where Daniel stayeth his Prophesy; neither do any Prophesies go further.

Fourthly you come unto Mat. 24. this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the end be. I answer, here is no mention of your Antichrist: and again, the end in this place, is the end of the Jewish polity, not of the world, as I have shown ch. 4. against your first Demonstratiō. But you add the words following; Straightway after the tribulation of those days, the Sun shall be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light, and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man. I answer, neither doth these make anything for Antichrists destruction to be joined with the end of all things, seeing they speak not of him at all. Yet that we may see the interpretation of the words, let us discuss them a little. With one consent, as I suppose, it is applied unto our Lord's last judgment. But this Apocalypss teacheth both to think and to speak more distinctly of this thing. For from hence we do understand, that the Lord's coming which is yet to be hereafter, is twofold; the one spiritual (so named for excellency,) in the calling of the Jews; the other corporal, at the general judgment. And that coming in Matthew, seemeth to be spiritual, which is in deed described to be most glorious and powrful, by the corporal furniture; as that which shall be both a clear resemblance and as it were a certain pawn thereof, & also no change shall afterward come between, which may make the corporal to appear as new And that thus the thing is, may easily be perceived, if we mind how the Disciples in the beginning of the chapter inquired of the end of the Temple, of the Lord's coming, and the end of the world. Without doubt under Christ's coming they comprehended the restoring of their nation: and therefore after the Lord's resurrectiō, supposing that this was the coming which he had givē them hope of; they ask him again, Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? Act. 1.6. But Christ answering, and by a continued order prosecuting the things to come, teacheth first the destruction of Jerusalem, and dissipatiō of the Jews: then he annexeth the rest of the course of things, neither anywhere mentioneth he any restoring, before this his glorious coming. Therefore it must either be contained in this his appearing, or there will be none: which opinion, if the Disciples had in mind conceived by this answer, surely they would not have nourished any expectation of a Kingdom afterwards. Besides, a tribulation next goeth before this coming, for so he saith, immediately after the tribulation of those days, the Sun shall be darkened; and then shall appear the sign of the Sun of man &c. But before his corporal coming, no such tributation shall go immediately before. For after the calling of the Jews, and the new constituted Church, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow be anymore, for the former things are passed away; Apoc. 21.4. Wherefore that coming is not corporal. It may be also that hath some force, which he saith that the sign of the Son of man shall appear; as if purposely he would distinguish between this spiritual coming, and the corporal following. Hereunto pertaineth, that those words All the Tribes shall wail &c. Apoc. 1 7. we have there shown to belong unto the Jews; and that this wailing is of repentance, which will be too late at the corporal coming. Thus much briefly touching the meaning of these words: which though they help your cause nothing, how ever they be taken; yet was it not impertinent by the way to seek out the truth that is hidd in them.

Therefore I answer unto that Thess. 2.8. Then shall the wicked man be reveled, whom the Lord shall slay with the Spirit of his mouth, & destroy with the brightness of his coming: there is the same meaning of this coming, that is of that in Matthew. At the calling of the Jews, when he shall give a most bright resēblāce of himself present in the Church, shall Antichrist utterly be destroyed: as we made plain in the former chapter. For after the throne of the Beast is darkened, the way shall be prepared for the Kings of the East; that is, the Jews shall be called straight after Rome is destroyed. For she only hindereth this joy. Then, after the Beast and False Prophet and Dragō are cut off; that is, after the Bishop of Rome, and the Turk be extinct (as after shall be shown more at large;) the mystery shall be finished, and the full calling performed, Your Pope, whom you, Bellarmine, boast to be the head of the Church, shall neither be head nor foot in the holy congregation of the children of God. And now see how far these mountayns are under heaven; whose tops, you standing a far off did think, were hidden among the stars.

The last place is 1 John. 2.18. Children it is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last hour. I answer, what John here concludeth, we easily see and acknowledge: he proveth that it is the last hour, because then many Antichrists were come. For Antichrist should come in the last hour. Where is to be observed, that John alluding to the parable of the laborers, Mat. 20.6. of whom some were hired about the eleventh hour: compareth all this age from Christ until his last coming, unto this last elevēth hour. Then, that he saith this noisome age shall be of Antichrist, whom he putteth not off unto the last minute of this howr, but deferrs him to some indefinite space thereof. These things doth John truly, holily, agreeably, to his other writings. But what must you needs conclude from hence; who will not have Antichrist to be yet come? Even thus, and no other way: He that shall come in the last howr, he is not yet come; Antichrist shall come in the last howr; therefore he is not yet come. I bring it into form, that you may see your usual manner of reasoning, and be ashamed. Your sylogism walks on four feet. In the major, by the last howr you understand some little space, to weet, 3. years and a half before the last end: or otherwise, if it comprehend all the time from the first coming to the second, the proposition is most false. In the minor, the last howr is taken in the sense that John useth it, for the whole time of grace, until Christ's second coming: or if it be taken more strictly for 3. years and a half, it is a foolish begging of the question, and John's authority is pretended in vain. You bring a similitude to illustrate John's argument, namely that he speaketh of Antichrist, as one may do of the Sun, whose beams when it ariseth he calleth the Sū, and that so his argument is firm. Even as one may raison of the last howr of the night, the Sun riseth in the last howr of the night: the Sun beams do now lighten the aier; therefore this is the last howr of the night. I answer, the similitude is fit enough for the significatiō which the Apostle useth: for always in the same howr the Sun beams and the Sun it self are seen. Wherupon he that maketh all this last age, one howr; doth not amiss, to mention his fore-runners in the beginning of it. But you that make the last howr to be 3 years and a half: what help cā you have by the similitude of the Sun & beams? For if you part the howr into sixty minutes, Antichrists forre-rūners do come before him no more than 210. years. What are these few years, unto the 1500. years, in all which you grant Antichrists beams have been cōspicuous, and yet hitherto he hath not appeared; and when at length he shall appear, he shall be to be seen but 3 years and a half? How unlike is he to the Sun? And how unlike are his ministers to the beams? The beams go scarcely half an howr before the Sun; which straightway arising yieldeth it self to be seen 12. hours: but these forerunners of Antichrist do glister 1500. years, and Antichrist himself is not yet appeared; and when he shall be come, he shall not shine one minute in respect of that space. If therefore Antichrist be answerable to his forerunners, as the Sun is to his beams: he must needs be come now many ages since, seeing his fore-runners shined in John's time. Take heed hereafter how you have to do with the Sun. This Delius as his manner is, hideth not vices, but discloseth them. At last, from scriptures you descend to the consent of Fathers, and the confession of adversaries. They with their consent will help you nothing, who all of them verily, if they were this day alive, would with like consent acknowledge that in many things they erred. I confess also, that our men do think Antichrist shall reign til the worlds end: but I pray you, let them have place to change their mind, when they are taught better. In things not yet sufficiently found out, they think it sufficient to insist in the footstepps of other men: but when they shall see the truth, (to whose voice alone they know for to hearken,) shine from another part, being confirmed by most sure arguments and use, you shall perceive that they departing from you, will leave you naked, of whose confession you now do boast.

These things thus finished, you come to the insoluble Demonstration, fetched partly from Antichrists three years reign, and partly from the worlds dissolution conjoined with his death. Antichrist, say you, is not yet come, neither is the Bishop of Rome he: because straight-after Antichrists death, the world shall be ended, and Antichrist shall not live, after he hath appeared and begun to reign, but three years & a half. And the Pope hath reigned now with both swords in our adversaries judgment above 500. years, and yet the world dureth still. I answer, I trust I have already sufficiently manifested, that that first point, to weet, that the world shall end straight after Antichrists death, is not with any cōpetent reason by you confirmed; but that the scriptures alleged, do speak another thing, far distant from the last end. Then that the second point also, viz. that Antichrist shall live but 3 years and a half after he hath begun to reign, is in the former chapter convinced to be most false: and to be nothing else but the efficacy of error, to deceive them which believe not the truth, that at last they may perish in eternal destruction. And therefore that which you gather from these rotten foundations, viz. that Antichrist is not yet come, and that the Pope of Rome is not he; is most vain. Seeing albeit the Pope hath reigned with both swords abov 500. years: yea and to yield you more, hath fulfilled 1300. whole years: yet nothing letteth it him from being the Antichrist; nay he is the more convinced by this to be the wicked man; as we hav shown by undoubted reasons, grounded on sure and tried principles.

Ghapt. 10. Of Antichrists proper name.

THE fourth chief point comprehendeth two disputations; one of Antichrists proper name; another of his mark. His proper name, by all men's joint consent, is gathered from that number chap. 13.18. And his number is 666. And this we have shown in handling that place to be no other than Latinos, it being plainly confirmed by use, and the agreement of all things. And surely Irenaeus many ages ago, (whither led by conjecture, or that he had so received from others, the auditors perhaps of the Apostles,) wrote that it was very like to be this name. His words hereof are these; But the name Latinos also hath the number of 666. and it is very likely, because the most true Kingdom hath this title. For the Latins are they that now reign, but of this we will not boast. Thus writeth he. I confess Irenaeus resteth not in this name, but supposeth Titan to be more worthy of credit: yet his conjecture of the Latin Kingdom, came nearer the mark thā he weened. And because you feel yourself pressed with his authority as with a great prejudice; you thought it best first to weaken that; and therefore his conjecture, you say, is at this day nothing, because the Latins do not so much reign, as the Turks, Spaniards, Frenchmen. I answer, this your instance is altogether nothing. For it is not needful that the Kingdom of which Antichrist should spring, should always be most mighty: but it is enough if it have been so some long time; as the Latin was after Irenaeus for many ages. Antichrists Kingdom shall be weakened by little and little, before the absolute and last wasting, until at length it be utterly ruinate. We have heard that Jezebel should be cast into a bed of languishment, chap. 2.22. And have yow not read afterwards that Babylon is fallen, is fallen: chap. 14.8. That the worshipers of the Beast were made botchie; his throne darkened, that Antichrist him self with his, should gnaw their tongues for rage: chap. 16.2.10. Final, that the Kings should forsake the whore, make her naked, eat her flesh, and at last burn her with fire, chap. 17.16. Have you not, I say, read these things; and do you require notwithstanding that Antichrists Kingdom should flourish unto the last moment of time, even as it did in former ages? Certainly you take for defense, that which most of all killeth your cause. For unless the Roman Kingdom were fallen at last from the highest top unto this so low a step, it should not be Antichristian.

Secondly you object, that Latinos, for to signify the Roman, is not written by a diphtong ei, but by simple i, & then it makes not that number. I answer: Irenae{us} doubtless knew the orthographie of the word, as well as Bellarmine. He would never hav said it was very likely, if so be the just writing of it had disagreed frō the just account. And he that so exactly warneth of the name Teitā saying that the first syllable is writ̄ by the 2 greek vowels e & i: could he not see what Latinos needed for the true orthographie? And whereas Latinos is at this day writ̄ by single i? you need not, I trow, betaught that long i among the Romans was wont to be pronounced lik the diphtōg ei, & had little e included. So Cic. wrote Bini in latin, for the greek binei, lib. 9. Epist. unto Papyrius Paet., in the Ep. which beginneth thus, amo verecūdiā. And we at this day both pronounce and write Celeberrimi, Vis, primus, Captiv.: which yet are found in ancient Inscriptions, Celeberrimei, Ueis, preimus, Cap ••• vi. Although therefore we now write Latinos, yet is it not to be doubted but of old it was written by a diphtong, as Irenaeus hath it without any stammering. So the ancient Greeks do indifferently express the Hebrews great Chirik or I, sometime by single i, sometime by ei: wherupō in th • t complaint of Christ Eli, Eli, &c. some write it Elei, Elei, as John Drusius hath observed. This therefore which yow object about the writing, is light, and of no moment all all.

Thirdly, you say, Antichrists name should be proper unto him, and most usual: for it must be shown for a sign of all that buy or sell And no Pope was ever called by this proper name Latinus, neither do they commonly cal themselves Latins, but only Bishops or Popes. I answer, Experience in deed doth very well satisfy this argument. But, say you, Latinos is not the proper name of any Pope. Well then, let some Frenchman or Spaniard, or German, or any other, take to himself the name and authority, either of the Latin Pope, or Latin Bishop, or Latin Patriarch; (for Latin is not a nown substantive, as they say, but an adiective, to which something must needs be joined;) the Bishop of Rome, I trow, will be nothing angry, who looseth nothing by a common name. Or rather will not the Antipapal war be renewed: the Romā cursing the mā with all execrations, who shall challenge that which properly pertaineth unto his seat? So far therefore is it, that this name is not proper to any Pope, as it is proper to all, for the time they hold the chair: seeing Antichrist is a succession of Bishops, not a singular person, as is shown before. Neither are Forenames & Surnames only proper; but whatsoever noteth out a thing plainly, distinctly, certainly, and truly, is to be counted a proper name. Unless perhaps you only cannot tell who is the Greek or Syrian or Egyptian Patriarch, because none was ever called by these proper names? Again, the same use may teach, how this name is shown of all for a sign. For let there be someone of us, with yow Papists, and let him openly declare himself to be an enemy of the Latin name, religion, Empire; shall he sel anything among you, unless it be his head? Or shall he buy any other thing then a sure gibbet? The Greeks are for a proof, of how great moment this name is; which could receive no comfort from these of the west, before they acknowledged this name, and subjected themselves to the Latin Pope: as we shown before, chap. 13.

Fourthly, you say, there are innumerable names which make this number. I answer, this name is not only to be judged by the number, but also by all properties joined together, which the Spirit hath fixed as rails, to describe the greatness of it. For there must be such a number of 666, as should make a numerable and famous name, at that time whē this Prophesy was given to John: which notwithstanding for the Churches good was not then openly to be divulged, least it should procure unnecessary peril: and finally, by which men which take the mark thereof, are received unto mutual traffic. That this is the true and natural description of this name, we have learned from Apoc. 13.18. as upon that place we shown: & now if all these properties do agree to innumerable or many names, let them be all of like account. But seeing neither Teitan, nor Arnoumai, nor Lampetes or other of like sort; nor Martin Luther, nor Luther, nor Dabhidh Cithraiu David Chitraeus, nor Saxoneios, or any other like fiction can be fitly applied unto that purpose: needs must Latinos, not only for the convenience of the number, but for the agreement also of all the properties, be counted the only and true name of Antichrist.

The last refuge and insoluble argument is, that men do yet strive with great controversy about this name: for if, say you, Antiehrist were come, and the Bishop of Rome were he: his name would be certainly known: for all Prophesies whē they are fulfilled, are made most certain. Christ's name noted of Siby lla by the number 888. was hidd from all, before his coming: but after he was come, all controversy was taken away, and all men plainly know that he is called Jesus. I answer, that is false which you simply & absolutely do avouch of the clearness of Prophesies after they be fulfilled. The Prophesies in deed are clear, when they have their event, but unto them whom they concern, and whose eyes God openeth: as for the unbelievers and the other wicked multitude, they continue dark and obscure unto them, no less when they are fulfilled, than before. For why do the Jews deney Christ to be yet come, when so many ages sithens, the thing hath been performed? Why did they not acknowledge Elias in the person of the Baptist: whē as that of Malachi, pointed at him evidently with the finger? Ther is no doubt, but that abomination of desolation which Daniel foretold, and Christ biddeth so diligently to be considered: was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. But do all even Christians agree, what this abomination was? As for Sibyll, her Acrostik verses might have taught, what this name should be. Yet the Jews do neither believe Sibyll, neither will they have the name Jesus fitly to agree unto that number. They strive about the orthographie, (as you erewhile did for yours;) they take away the last letter, writing the name imperfect and maimed Jessu: or if they grant the letter Ain should be joined thereto, yet they ask by what reasō the Greek Sigma is put in the place thereof; seeing otherwhere it is wont to be expressed by A or by N. Doo you see then how vain & frivolous this argument is? Doo you, for to prov that Antichrist is not yet come, afford help to the Jews; that withal you may evince, that Christ is not come neither? But it suiteth well, that Christ should be oppugned, & Antichrist defended, with the same arguments. You cannot, Bellarmine, whiles you ar environned with the thick smoke of the pit, behold with pure eyes the Angel of the bottomless pit. You must go forth into the wilderness with John, from out of the vapor of the infernal cave: & then will all things appear unto you clearly.

Chapt. 11. Of Antichrists Mark.

IN what things the Mark of the Beast consisteth; I have largely declared chap. 13.16.17. Against which Bellarmine objecteth two things; one from the text; another from the antiquity of the signs by which we define the mark. From the text he gathereth four things. First, that the mark shall be one, not many. For always, saith he, the Scripture speaks in the singular number, as well of the mark as of the name, and of the Number of the name of Antichr. And therefore s • ing the adversaries do make so many marks, as the oth of fealty, the Priestly unction, the profession of the Roman faith &c. they know not what mark it is. I answer: that which you say of the singular number of the Mark, is very infirm; seeing Aretas, the Compl. edition, and some other copies of no small authority, do read, that they might give them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Marks, or Characters: ver. 16. Neither is that by reason of the multitude which receiveth: forasmuch as the same copies with one consent do express the seal of God in the singular number, although they speak of many; as they which have not the seal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not, the seals, chap. 9.4. Moreover, is it strange unto you that any multitude should be signified in the singular number, and contrariweise, one thing in the plural number? But the name and number of the name, you say, are singular things. Be it so; surely by like reason you might conclude that Musraijn is of the form singular, because Put and Canaan, with which it is joined, ar of that form: Gen. 10.6. Who ever urged this, that all words should be of lik force, which ar rehearsed in any one sentence? But, if Grammar perhaps will not satisfy you, yet Logike will constrein you to rest; which teacheth that a mark or character is one in the name, but manifold in the thing. For a mark is that which necessarily all must receive, ver. 16. but it is necessary that all receive, either the mark properly so called, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name, ver, 16. Therefore these all ar marks; & that which is universally called a mark ver. 16 we now perceive cōteyneth moe kinds, & that you falsely affirm the mark to be one.

Secondly, you object, that the mark is common to all: the oth of fealty, and Preistly unction, is of few: I answer, the mark is twofold; the one general cōprehending in it all the other ensigns of the Beast: the other special, a part & member of the former. For that which is first called a mark, ver. 16. is distributed into three members, ver. 17. namely, into the mark, so called by the name of the whole; the name of the Beast; & the number of his name. Now then see how finely you reason. The mark is common to all: the oth of fealty is not common to all: therefore it is not the mark. In the major, the mark is taken generally: but then nothing can be concluded therupō, but that the oth of fealty, or preistly unction, & such like, is not the general mark: which I easily grant. Or if it signify a special mark; the proposition is particular, and so the whole reason, is without reason. After the same manner one may prove that a man is not a sensible creature. For a sēsible creature is a thing common to all that have sense; a man is not a thing common to all that have sense; therefore, no sensible creature. Of all the flours of Logik, you seem most to delight in Aequivocations: which yow use so often, as if you relished nothing, that is not seasoned with this salt.

Thirdly you say, the mark may be carried indifferently in the right hand or in the forehead: but the oth, unction, profession, &c. belong not to these parts: & therefore ar not marks. I answer, by your sport you make yourself a sport most of all. Surely no sober man, when he seeth the mark to be called by a borrowed Speech, would require the places on which it is imprinted, to be taken in their natural signification. We read that the elect were sealed on their foreheads, Chapt. 7.3. Think you there was some very brand mark set on those parts of their face? So Ezekiel saw the godly of Jerusalem, signed on their foreheads: yet no man ever believed, that the men, (excepting in the type) wer painted with a very ynken mark, Ezek. 9 4. The like borrowed speech is here of the forehead, & hand, & mark. The forehead is the bold & open profession: the hand is the stout and diligent labor: for the performance of both of these to the Bishop of Rome, every of his servitours according to the condition of his place, is bound by mark. Wherupon this mark is not seen only in the knees, as you would prettily frump our men: but, that you may the more marvel, even whiles yourself in time past ware a cowl on your shoulders, you openly shown by the mark on your forehead, whose beast you were.

Fourthly, you say, in Antichrists Kingdom no man should be suffered to buy or sell unless he shown the mark, or name, or number of his name: but many of the Popes dominion do buy and sell, which have not yielded the oth of fealty, yea in the City of Rome it self, as Jews &c.

I answer, the necessity of the mark for mutual traffic, is required in the subjects only; not in strangers, such as the Jews are esteemed. For who judgeth them that are without? But if any that is called a Christian should show his mind to be alienated from the Pope of Rome, he can no otherwise traffic among you, than by procuring to himself the danger of his head; as we have shown more at large Apoc. 13.17. The words therefore of the text, have not yet refuted these which you cal trifles: but plainly do confirm them to contain one true meaning.

Your other reason is whereby you prove that all these signs are more ancient than Antichrist. Which that it may the more distinctly be understood, we are to know, that Antichrists time is twofold; (for this summary division is now enough.) The one, of his first rising, whereby he is the first Beast; the other, of his second rising after his head was healed, whereby he is the second Beast. Now the Mark is the ordinance of this second Beast, within whose borders it is contained, though the foundations were laid before: which began then to get it force, when the Romish ceremonies were obtruded on the Churches, and all were constrained to undergo the yoke of them. Wherupon that which you bring of certain rites, is altogether from the question in hand. For the antiquity of these rites is not now dealt with all; but the time when first they were used for a sacrament of Romish obedience: which you shall not find to be before the birth of the second Beast, if you will cast a true account. For whereas in the first place you mentiō the Chrism of Baptism, we acknowledge the superstition thereof to be ancient; yet Sylvester the Roman, put to it some new thing, not necessarily used in other Churches; til Augustine the Monk the Roman Apostle about the yere 600. compelled the Britons to administer Baptism after the Romish manner, and to receive the books of their other ceremonies. Con. Rom. 1. Can. 5. Innocent. 3. Decret. Epist. Beda Histor. Angl. lib. 2. cap. 2. And this Mark once received, the age following also imprinted deeper, & propagated larger through all Germany by means of Boniface the Englishman, who stablished the Romish rites everywhere, and removed out of their places many godly and learned men, that somewhat resisted the same. What should I mention other countries, of which it is now sufficiently known to everyone, both by what beginnings and proceeding at last all were branded with the same marks?

Secondly, for the name Catholik, we confess the Romish Church was in old time Catholik, (so far as this nam cā agree to a particular Church) whiles integrity of doctrine flourished in the same: and therefore was not amiss by the ancient Fathers often so called. I confess also, the first declining of this Church not being well perceived, and Augustine, Victor Vticensis, & others spake honourably of this Church. But what is these men's commendation, to excuse the Antichristian loftynes that followed? It is one thing to be Catholic; another thing to be the only Catholik. The first, holy men acknowledged because of the consent of holiness: this other, the later Popes challenged as proper to their seat, after that they could suffer no man, except they had him bound unto them by some sign of servitude. Then boasted they impudently, that it was necessary to salvation, to be subject to the Church of Rome: Bonifac. 8. Extrav. de Majorit. & obed. tit. Vni, unam sanctam: and that he was an heretic, which denied the authority and prerogative of that seat: Nicolaus to the Bbs. of Milan, Distinct. 22. Omnes. Which very thing you chant at this day to the world: but a thing never heard off before, til the Beast came forth with his branding iron. You ar wont foolishly to skip, at this word Catholik so often as you meet with it, as if it were your peculiar ensign: but bring forth any one place of any approved and sufficient author, that made Rome a square and rule of faith, so as your Popes sacrilegiously arrogated to their seat, after the rising of the second Beast, namely after the yere of our Lord, about 600. And if you cannot, then acknowledge either the Mark, or at least your own lamentable obstinacy.

Thirdly, you say, the oth of fealty is found in the time of Gregory, lib. 10. Epist. 31. I answer, miserable is your want, Bellarmine; who were necessarily bound to insist in the first degree, before the rising of the second Beast. Could nothing be produced more ancient, whereby you might put the thing out of controversy? But neither doth this oth profit you anything; seeing it was not compelled, but willingly offered; nor of any universal order receiving authority to do a thing, but of one schismatik asking pardon, and returning to the communion of Rome. Wherupon it was not the Mark, so much as a kind of resemblance and image of it to come soon after. In creating of Bishops, I find no oth more ancient than that of Boniface, about the yere 726. after that the second Beast was risen up. And in ordaining of the civil Magistrate, none before that of Otho the first, in the yere 912. Shew you something before, or confess that this sign, wherein the chief force of the special mark is contained, came not abroad, before the second Beast had brought it forth.

Fourthly, you say, Gregory Nazianzen mentioneth the anointing of Priests. I answer, Nazianzen speaketh not properly but figuratively. No writer of that age, makes mention of that ordinance of Anoynting. And Innocēt 3. takes away all scruple, who plainly confirmeth that the Greeks used not this manner of Anoyting in ordering Bishops, before his time. For so Decret. Epist. lib. tit. 15. he writeth to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of a certain Branditribarense Bishop, who in his consecration had not received the holy unction as he calleth it. Because, saith he, with you, Bishops are not wont to be anointed when they ar consecrated: we have commanded that to be supplied in him, which he wanted, causing his head and hands to be oynted with the holy Chrism, by the Bishop of Alba, two Bishops moe assisting him, according to the Ecclesiastical manner. Wherupon afterward he exhorteth also the Patriarch himself, that he would likewise be anointed. We warn therefore, saith he, your brotherhood, and diligently exhort, that you also receive the sacred unction, that you may want nothing to make up the sacrament: and when you are anointed with the holy Chrism, that you likewise anoint your Archbishops and Bishops: & by them cause the hands of the Priests to be anointed with the blessed oil: that in ordaining Priests and consecrating Bishops, you may keep and cause that manner to be kept, which the Apostolical seat observeth. Thus wrote he: By which it is manifest that neither Patriarch nor Archbishops nor Bishops nor Priests received any oincting in their ordination▪ til the Romish mark came unto them. Which also might be understood by Nazianzens words, who speaketh no otherwise of the Priests oil, than of the use of the talents, of the care of the flock, and of the oil of perfection: which are all spoken figuratively.

Fifthly, you bring forth, the sacrifice for the dead, and the worshipping of Images: of the beginning of which impieties there is no need curiously to dispute. Whosoever was the author by whom first they took place, they became the symbols of Rome only, after that she would have them exercised by her only authority. For when she had bereft Leo Isaurus of the Empire of the West, for being against her Idolatry; she made manifest unto all, both what her mark was, for which she so eagerly contended, and with how great peril men did refuse to receive the same. Of these signs therefore, some indeed are before the second Beast, in the beginning of their superstition: but in force of binding to Rome, they be either all equal, or in age a little after.

But because to the former marks we have adjoined the numeral name Latinos; least perhaps you should here object the same thing which you do in the other; I will speak of it a few words. This name is most ancient: who knows it not? which notwithstanding lay dead for many ages, til the Emperors translated their seat to Constantinople. Then it somewhat revived, and began to be famous; as appeareth by Epiphanius in his book De mensur. & pond. speaking of the Romans, which are not still called Romans, saith he, but Latins. But this name was not yet so commonly used, or so obtruded on the Churches, as to have the dignity of a mark. Wherupō Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, Evagtius, do use the same very sparingly, or nowhere rather, to my remembrance: but so often as they speak of Rome, they cal it Old Rome, & the Provinces they distinguish by the names of the East and West only. But after when at length the second Beast turmoiled all things, and a partition of the Empire was made, & limits were appointed, by Nicephorus of Constantinople, & Charles the Great: then did the name of the Roman Provinces remain in the Eastern countries: & the Western were by a common name called Latin; as appeareth by Zonaras, Nicetas, Gregoras, and Chalchocondilas. Neither was it enough thenceforward for the Greeks to submit themselves unto the Roman Patriarch; (for they challenged this name of Romans to themselves;) but now the chieftie was to be yielded unto the Latin Bishop, or Bishop of Old Rome; or otherwise no reconciliation could be made, as appeareth by the Council of Lions, under Gregory 10. However therefore these and many other superstitions were in use many years, before Antichrist was known to the world: yet after they were made bonds to tie men for to defend the errors of the Church of Rome, then put they on the nature of Brands & Marks. These things do you dispute against the true Mark, stablishing rather our opinion by your empty oppugnation, than doing it the least hurt. But what Mark do yourself now feign unto us? forsooth some positiv Mark which Antichrist should devise, but what it is, shall not be known until he come. I answer; if it be a positive mark, and all must receive it, as the Spirit evidently saith; then Antichrist must either go to all, or at least must compel all to come to him. Whither of the two we make it, here will come again that admirable journey into all lands in his three years space & a little more; of which we spake in the 6. chapter of this Refutation, against the public persecution. Or though the performance hereof be committed to his Legates: there will, I believe, be more travel and business, than can be dispatched in so little a space.

Chapt. 12. Of Antichrists generation.

TOVCHING the generation and stock of Antichrist, you rehearse the opinions of certain Fathers; some of which, you say, are erroneous, some probable, othersome sure and certain. Erroneous are the opinions of the Author of the treatise of Antichrist, among the works of Augustine, of Hippolitus Martyr, of Origen and Sulpitius. Probable, are those of Damascene, Irenaeus, Hippolitus, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper, Theodoret, Gregore, Bede, Rupertus, Aretas, Richard and Anselmus. The catalogue of whom I now therefore repeat, to put you in mind, upon what authors you rely in this matter. For when you see these whom you esteem for chief witnesses in all questions, partly to be in manifest error, partly to confirm their opinion with no sure arguments: why do you wholly depend, I pray you, upon their words, as it wree upon some divine oracle, that could not be deceived? It is no wise man's part willingly to follow blind guides, especially such as himself ackowledgeth to be blind. Awake then at last, and learn to know Antichrst rather from the truth it self, than from them which have scarcely seen any shadowing portraiture of him. But to let these pass, let us come to those things which you count most certain; of which the one is, that Antichrist shall chiefly come for the Jews, and be received of them as the Messias. The other, that he shall be borne of the Jews stock, and be circumcised, and observe the Sabbath, at least for a time. Both which, the time of Antichrists coming teacheth to be most false. For seeing he hath reigned now many ages at Rome, to weet since the hethen Emperors were expelled; and yet the Iwes submit not-unto him: it necessarily followeth, that he neither is to be received of thē as the Messias, neither shall he come chiefly for them▪ Yea neither was he to be as appeareth by the testimony of all memory past, which never relateth any Jew to have sitten in the chair of the Pope of Rome, and it is in some sort certain that there never shall. For he shall not invade by open force, and bring in a new regiment. For so he should not be the seventh head, or the eight▪ which is the same; but the ninth; whereas so many heads the Beast hath not. And it is not likely, considering the sagenes of the Cardinals, especially being holpen by the Porphyry seat, that ever they willingly will choose such a one, whiles things remain as they are. Al these your trifles fall to the ground, by those engines which the Spirit ministereth, and we applied in the beginning of this treatise. But let us examine what you bring to the contrary. First you confirm that Antichrist shall come ciefly for the Jews, and shall be received of them as the Messias, from the place often cited; J am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive: John 5.43. I answer, it is true, that an Antichrist should be received of the Jews; but the question is of the Antichrist properly so called, not taken commonly. The proper Antichrist they would never acknowledge, as is most sure by many arguments, which may be gathered from the things fore spoken: the other they would readily and studiously follow: as came to pass as we read in Seder Olam Zuta of one Cuziba, and a certain Syrian mentioned by Paulus Diaconus, lib. 21. rerum Rom.; and elsewhere of other such like deceivers, which vaunted themselves to be the Messias. That therefore which is spoken of the Antichrists of the Jews, is wrongly wrested to the great Antichrist, whom the Apocalypse and Apostles do describe.

Secondly you bring that in 2 Thess. 2.10. Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, therefore God will send them the operation of error, that they may belpev lies &c. This place, you say, the ancient Interpreters do expound of the Jews: I answer, as touching the ancient Interpreters, you know their mind being possessed with some prejudice, inclined all their cogitations thereunto. Wherupon it came to pass that those holy men, when once they had conceived in mind, that Antichrist should be a Jew, taking it so rather one from another than weighing the thing itself: whatsoever anywhere was delivered about this matter, they applied for the most part thereunto. But, say you, the thing itself without the Fathers commentaries proclaimeth that the Apostle speaketh of the Jews. This in deed is worthy to be considered, for from hence we shall have whereby we may judge of those Fathers testimony. First therefore you say, Antichrist should be sent unto them which would not receive Christ. And who are they which more ought and would not receive Christ, than the Jews? I answer, rhat which you first propound, is not firm enough. For the Apostle saith not that Antichrist should be sent unto them which would not receive Christ, but, because they received not the love of the truth. And there is a great difference between these two; as much surely as is between Jews & Gentiles. For this manner of speaking which the Apostle useth, properly belongeth to the Gentiles, who shall bring, as he saith, this evil upon themselves; not for that they altogether refused the truth, but because outwardly professing it, they carry not that study, zeal, desire towards it, that was meet. Even as the Angel of Ephesus is blamed, (& that in the name of the whole Church of the Gentiles, as there we shown,) for that he had left his first love; Ap. 2▪4. From these words therefore I conclude most firmly against you, that the Apostle speaks of them which acknowledging & professing the truth, did not love the same as became them, which agreeth certes to the Gentiles only, not to the Jews: who refusing the whole truth, are not blamed for want of love: seeing the lesser crime is not wont to be objected, & nothing said of the greater. Secondly you say, the Apostle speaketh not in the time to come, they will not receive: but in the time past, they have not received: which agreeth to the Jews that would not believe when Christ and his Apostles preached; when in the mean while the Gentiles received the Gospel most desirously. I answer, the Apostle speaketh in respect of the time of Antichrist, of whom he treateth. God will send Antichrist, because before Antichrist came, men studiously followed not the truth, as became them. Neither could he speak otherwise, unless he had set the punishment before the offense. For if he had said, because they will not receive the truth, it might seem that Antichrist should come upō thē for the obstinacy that should be after his coming. These ar your reasons, which you say, do proclaym that the Apostle speaketh of the Jews: but if you diligently mark, you will confess that this is not so much as a soft whispering, unto the loud cry on the other part. For hear what the Apostle saith in the beginning of the chapter, ver. 3. Unless there come a departure first, and the man of sin be reveled &c. Whereby he teacheth that the departure, (or Apostasy ) shall go before Antichrist; and the Revelation of Antichrist, before the coming of the Lord. And whose departure shall this be? not the Jews: for they received not the truth at all. And defection is from a thing, which one embraced before. Moreover these men's defection could not be to come, seeing they from the first preaching of the faith, did resist the truth. Therefore it should be the defection of the Gentiles; and not passed, but to come. For if it had been past, the Thessalonians had seen Antichrist, who had not yet shown himself, being restrained by some impediment, as the Apostle after teacheth. But you will say, this departure was from the Roman Empire. But let the Apostle, I pray you, interpret himself, who afterwards expresseth that which here he calleth a departure, by other words, for that they received not the love of the truth, ver. 10. And what other departure, could bring forth this mischeevous evil? Was the Roman Empire which crucified the Son of God, so regarded of God, as for departure from it, he would send Antichrist into the world? These are the dreams of Romish men that abound with excess and surfeiting: not of such as with true desire do follow the truth. Therefore whatsoever hitherto you have said, it is clear enough, that they be not Jews which should receive this Antichrist, but Gentiles: and that for just causes, Calvin of blessed memory, and others whom yoy cal Heretiks, did depart from the ancient Fathers interpretation; & also did expound these things of you and such like, from whom certainly, so far as it seemeth, God hath taken away all judgment of right and wrong in matters of salvation; because you more esteem the honor and pleasures of this world, than the simplicity of the Gospel. But, by reason also you would persuade that the Jews are they which shall receive Antichrist, who should join himself first unto them. For they be ready to receive him, which expect the Messias to be a temporal King. I answer, they are ready in deed to receive Antichrists, and ofttimes they have received them, according to that which Christ foretold: but what is this unto the Antichrist, of whom we speak? For inquisition is made of Antichrist properly so called, who because he hath two horns like the Lamb, Apoc. 13.11. they which hate the Lamb, do hate him also that is somewhat like him. and therefore eschew him as much as they can. Let the Jews therefore cal the Pope of Rome Heghmon, that is tail, and give him what reproachful names so ever: yet followeth it not thereupon, that he is not the great Antichrist, seeing it is nowhere said that he should be honored by this people, in any peculiar sort. For whereas you say Antichrist shall in like manner come from the Jews to the Gentiles, as Christ came from the Jews to the Gentiles: surely you either guess or dream. Yow prove nothing, unless perhaps you would make Christ to be a tipe of Antichrist; which impious divinity of yours we heard once before, in the ch. of Antichrists durance. That which you bring therefore of Antichrist properly so called, to be received of the Jews, is altogether vain. The second, which you said was also most certain, is that Antichrist shall be a Jew, and circumcised: and this, you say, is deduced from the things forespoken: I answer, those things already spoken from which this is deduced, we have sufficiently shown to be most absurd: and therefore this which is built upon them, is of like strength and authority. For that which you annex in stead of confirmation, that the Jews will never receive a man that is not a Jew, and uncircumcised: it makes against you. For hence it followeth that they will never receive Antichrist properly so called, whom by necessary reasons we have evinced to be a Gentile and uncircumcised.

Secondly, you say, Antichrist feynenth himself to be of David's family, because such a one the Jews do expect; I answer, either Antichrist shall fein it, or you now feyn it of him. Where, I pray you, doth the holy Ghost, among all other notes of the true Antichrist, describe him unto us by this? But it is God's just judgment, that you which turn the truth into shadows should be deluded by shadows instead of the truth. And so as your custom is, being destitute of all scripture and probable reason, you flee to the patronage of human authority: whereunto, besides the other things already fore mentioned, I oppose this reason in stead of a conclusion. The Jews shall have no dominion, before they return unto Christ: and therefore the Antichrist shall not be of them; who should be the highest ruler, and as you feighn, by help of the Jews should subdue the Gentiles. The first part of the reason is plainly confirmed by many scriptures: some of which I will set down, not so much for your sake Bellarmine, (though for yours also, if so be at last you shall affect the truth;) as for my brethren's: whom I would have to be stirred up by this judgment, unto a more diligent search of many places, which being commonly counted plain and evident, are yet altogether unknown. The first is Lev. 26.39.40. &c. Where the last plague of the chapter, is this grievous casting of of the Jewish nation, in which they lie for despising Christ, from the time he was crucified unto this very day: whose solution and deliverance at last, is conjowned with the extreme misery wherein they shall be, at the time when this deliverance shall happen unto them. But if that Antichristian glory, which you do feyn, do come between: how shall this bounteousnes of God, find them so miserably afflicted? The second is out of that excellent song of Moses, Deut. 32.36. &c. When the Lord shall have judged his people, then will he repent towards his servants, when he shall see that their power is gone, and that the shut up with the left abroad is nothing: and he will say, where are their God's? the Rock in whom they trusted? There Moses singeth of the same times, & t •• cheth that they shall be brought unto the lowest ebb, when God shall arise to avenge his people. The third is that of Isaiah, 49.14. And if Zion say, the Lord hath forsaken me &c. Unto these shall be adjoined Ier. 30.8. &c. Ezek. 37. Dan. 12.1. Hos. 3.4.5. Which few places may suffice to open the meaning of many. From which I conclude although the Bishop of Rome be neither at any time a Jew, nor by the Jews received for the Messias, but rather be by them hated: yet this is no cause why he should not be the great Antichrist; yea and unless these things were, he should be far from being the principal Antichrist, as in their places we have declared.

Chapt. 13. Of Antichrists seat.

IN expounding the words of the Prophesy, we concluded by most firm arguments taken therfrom, that Rome is the seat of Antichrist; and that forthwith, after the Empire is taken from the Hethen Emperors. For the heads of the Beast, abide fixed to Rome, where are both those Hills and Kings that the Angel speaketh of. And where these heads abide fixed; there must the seat of Antichrist needs be. Moreover seeing Antichrist then also shown himself, when Constantine began to reign, as before is proved at large: he hath no other seat than Rome. For whereas he abode a few years at Avenion: he did that with purpose to sojourn for a time, not with a mind to change his seat.

But on the contrary, you Bellarmine do contend, that Antichrists seat shall be Jerusalem, not Rome: and Solomon's Temple, and David's Throne: not S. Peters Temple, or the seat Apostolical. Which you endeavor to prove two ways: First, by an argument unto the man; then, by the Scriptures and Fathers. The argument is this: If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist, sitting in the Church of Christ: then the Lutherans and Calvinists, and as many as are aliens from the Church which is under the Pope, do live out of the true Church of Christ. For Christ's Church can be but one, as Christ is one. And our men do affirm the Pope of Rome to be Antichrist: therefore our men all do live out of the Church. I answer, the Proposition is false, and relieth only upon the Churches unity misunderstood. For the Church is both commonly so called, and properly. The first, hath piety corrupted; the word adulterated; the Sacraments depraved; is full of superstition, and human devises, retaining Christ's name only, and boasting in the title thereof: and also commonly so accounted, whiles any whit of the foundation is remaining. The other is chaste, pure, entire, clean, hearkening to Christ's voice in all things, and not departing from his prescribed rule any whit at all, so far as mortal infirmity suffereth; and this always is the only and true spouse of Christ: how ever the whore also taketh this name to her self. So before, the Temple & Altar was proper to the elect, and measured by the Angel: but the Court was not set forth with any description, but cast out, and permitted to the Gentiles, to weet, the profane multitude, which for their neernes, falsely challenged the name of the Temple. To whom the holy city also was given; which having their seat in the said court, they trode underfoot at their pleasure, during the appointed time. Apoc. 11.1.2. More plainly in the 7. Churches, which all ar Christ's, though Sardis lived but in name only: and the Angel of Laodicea was neither hot nor cold, forthwith to be spewed out, unless he repented. chap. 3.1.16. Therefore that is not rightly transferred unto the common Church, which pertaineth unto it properly so called. One may be an alien from the Church commonly so called: and yet be a true citizen of the true Church. If you could show that the Pope of Rome hath his chair in this, which properly enjoyeth this name: you might rightly conclude us all to be fugitives and very miserable. But whiles you shuffle together things disjoined, and contrary; and dally, as your manner is, with a plain equivocation; the absurdity which you thought to throw against us, is lighted upon your own head. So your argument unto the mā is lying, like him, whose cause you have in hand.

Secondly you prove it from three Scriptures, the first whereof is Apoc. 11.8. where, you say, John saith that Enoch and Elias shall fight with Antichrist in Jerusalem, and there be killed. I answer, that which is spoken of Enoch and Elias to come. and fight with Antichrist, is altogether vain; as I have proved in the 6. chapter, against your third Demonstration. But because it skilleth nothing, for the force of this argument, what the names of these Prophets be: we let that pass for the present, and do say, that that which you tell us how they are to be killed in Jerusalem, is false. For the Spirit designeth not Jerusalem by name, but only by this circumlocution, where our Lord was crucified: which agreeth as well unto Rome, seeing Christ was crucified by the sentence of Pilate the Romā Deputy. By which fact, he made his City guilty of this blood, which was shed by this cities authority; as we have shown on chap. 11.8. This argument therefore is worthless and weak, assuming that which cannot be proved, yea the contrary whereof is plainly evident by the Scriptures. Neither was there any cause, why either Chytraeus should purposely pass by these words, as you feyn, where the Lord also was crucified; or why you should so trouble yourself, to prove against Jerome, that Jerusalem may be called Sodom: which we acknowledge to be so called otherwhere. Although in the Apocalypse your Rome only is Sodom; & you should rather have strained your sinews to acquit yourselves of this than have spent your strength in a matter for which there is no fight. The second place is Apoc. 17. where John saith, that the ten Kings which shall divide the Roman Empire to themselves, and in the time of whose reign Antichrist should come, shall hate the purpled whore, that is, Rome, and make her desolate, and burn her cke with fire. How then, say you, shall it be Antichrists seat, if at the self same time it must be overthrown and burnt? I answer, the Apocalypse easily taketh from you this scruple. You ask, how Antichrists seat can be burnt, he being alive and seeing it. The Apocalypse telleth, that the fifth vial shall be poured out on the Beasts throne, and his kingdom shall be made dark, so that they shall gnaw their tongues for so row, chap. 16.10.11. which vial verily, is no other thing, than this burning, whereby the ten Kings shall consume the whore to ashes. For you see that this city which is to be consumed with fire, is Queen of the nations; which agreeth not to Jerusalem, that hath been laid even with the ground now many ages since. And if you doubt how the ten Kings should be inflamed with such hatred, who so dearly loved the whore before: hear how the Angel saith, that for a time they would yield themselves wholly to the Beast, but should at length be stirred up of God to destroy her, whom they most honored before, ver. 16.17. This hatred therefore, will afford your Rome no comfort. The other things which you heap up to exaggerate this argument, are of no weight at all. For that Antichrist the Jew, we have chased away in the former disputation: and those things that are mentioned of the Kingdom of Asia, are some small pieces of truth, shining clearly in the fabulous heap of confuse earth. Certayn it is that the Empire shall return thither again; but which Antichrist shall not constitute, but Christ himself shall build, taking pity on his people, and declaring himself in his Church, to be King of all nations.

The third place is in those words, so that he sitteth in the Temple of God: 2. Thess. 2.4. where you bring four expositions of the Temple. The first is theirs that by the Temple, understand the minds of the faithful. The second is Augustine's, who interpreteth the Temple to be Antichrist himself, with his whole people, which will have himself and his, to be thought the true spiritual Temple of God. The third is Chrysostom's, that takes the Temple for Christian Churches. The fourth is theirs that understand it of Solomon's Temple. Of these four expositions you chose this last, worst, and furthest from the truth: even as women when they ar troubled with the green sickness, do long for coles & lether more then for wholesome meats. The Temple in this place, must needs be that people's, whose the apostasy is, for which Antichrist is sent: and this we have shown to be the Gentiles only, which came in deed unto Christ, but served him not with such affection as was meet: and that it cannot by any means agree to the Jews, who never would be writ̄ citizens of this Kingdom. Moreover, neither did Antichrist come, while the old Temple stood; neither shall he sit therein afterwards, seeing it was overthrown long since, never to be reedified more, as the Angel teacheth, And the desolatiō shall continue even to the consummation and end. Dan. 9.27. Besides, how could the Apostle cal that God's temple, which God would detest, and which shall not be founded by any authority of his, but by Antichrists commandment alone; as you will have it, vaūting himself for the only God? These and many other things do teach, that it is least of all to be understood of Solomon's Temple. Yet you say, this opinion is the more common, probable and learned. But by what reason, I pray you? Beeause, say you, in the Scripture of the New Testament, by the Temple of God, is never meant the Christian Churches, but always the temple of Jerusalem. Which short sentence containeth two notable falsehoods. The first is, that you say, by the temple of God, is never meant in the Apostles writings, the Christian Churches. For, Paul in Ephes. 2.21.22. speaketh thus of the Christian Church, Jn whom all the building fitly coupled together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are built together, to be the habitation of God by the Spirit. And what other thing doth the Apocalypse mean by that so often name of the temple: but the holy Christian assemblies? Arise and measure the temple of God, chap. 11.1. Then was the temple of God opened, chap. 11.9. And they came out of the temple: neither could any enter into temple, chap. 15.6.8. The temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, before this Revelation was made: least perhaps yow should think, that that is meant by these words. This is the first falsehood. The second is, where you say, the temple of God evermore signifieth the temple of Jerusalem, in the new testament. For what? Are there so many Jerusalem temples, as there are faithful persons? Unto the Corinthians Paul speaketh in words commō to every Christian, Know you not that ye are the temple of God? And if any destroy the temple of God &c. 1 Cor. 3.16.17. Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost? 1 Cor. 6.19. To let pass the things I mentioned a little before. You certes are a more speedy builder than Solomon, which can build so many temples in so short a space: but what cā not you do, which make a Christ every day of Bread? But this is a small matter, you say, that the Scriptures do so speak. Therefore you bring some greater thing, namely that the ancient Fathers Latin and Greek, for many ages, never called the Churches of Christians, temples; but Oratories, the Kings-houses, or houses of Martyrs. I answer, the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, did speak so as the Scripture speaketh: as Clemēs Alexand. Strom. lib. 7. One temple, saith he, is great, as the Church: another little, as the man, who reteyneth Abraham's seed. And Cyprian in his first book against the Jews, chap. 15. that Christ was to be the house and temple of God, and he had ended the old temple, & begun a new. And lib. 5. Epist. 8. Although love should no less enforce us to help our brethren, yet it was to be considered in this place, that they are the temples of God which are taken; and that we ought not to suffer by long delay and neglect of sorrow, the temples of God to be holden captives long. But, you will say, that you mean not either Christian assemblies, or particular faithful persons, but houses and aedifices wherein they meet together for public worship. I answer, you dispute therefore bravely, who now conclude not the question. For thus you reason. No houses of public worship were called temples among Christians for many ages: but some temple of God are houses of public worship; therefore some temple was not among Christians for many ages. And what then, I pray you? For though some temple was not, yet some temple was among Christians also in these ages you mention; even such a temple as Antichrist afterward should sit in. Unless perhaps you think that holy houses only are temples: which if it be so, then Antichrist shall be no longuer Antichrist, than he shall sit in these material houses: or if so he shall be out of the holy houses also, the great Antichrist may also be out of the temple of God, and thouh he do not show himself as if he were God. For this sacrilegious vaunting of him self, shall be only whiles he sitteth in the temple of God, as is evident by the Apostles words. And so we shall have a new great Antichrist, such as the Apostles never saw by the Spirit of Prophesy. Great is the force of your argumentations, which everywhere bring forth such monsters: but let us go forward. Whereas you say, that the houses of prayer had not the name of temple given unto them, til Jerome's time, whom you cite: you may understand that Eusebius who was before Jerome's age, abstained not from this name lib. Hist. 10. c. 2. whom Ruffinus maketh to speak thus, lib. 9, Hist. Eccl. cap. 10. Renewed places by building to rise up more high and excellent, and high temples to be lifted up, for the low meeting houses, And again Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 13. by whose industry a sumptuous temple was built in Tyrus, the most famous throughout all the nation of Phoenicia. So also in a public oration which one made of the building of Churches, ascribed to Paulinus Bishop of the Tyrians, And thou ô great praise of the new holy temple of God; and afterwards again, he constituted this maiestical temple of the most high God. And certainly the Spirit most wisely meeting with your fraud, would have the name of temple, about that time when Antichrist should appear, to be given even to the holy Christian aedifices: that every way it might be evident how he sitteth in the Temple of God. Whereas therefore concluding this point you say, it seemeth certain that the Apostle speaks of Jerusalem's temple; that writing how Antichrist should sit in the temple of God, he would say something which he would have understood by them to whom he wrote, and they then would understand and well perceive the name of the temple, nothing but the temple of Jerusalem: you may easily now see how false it is, that I say no more, though I speak truly. The Thessalonians might understand that he should sit in the minds and conscience of men, whom he should seduce by his guile and hypocrisy, as Anselmus doth interpret it; or that he should reign in Christiā assemblies, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilact & Oecumenius do expound it: or that he should boast himself to be the temple & Church, as Augustine explaineth it: But Jerusalem's temple could not come into their mind, which they knew by Christ's words should utterly be destroyed, Mat. 23.39. &. 2. and never be built again, seeing wrath was come upon the Jews even to the utmost, as 1 Thes. 2.16.

Unto these you adjoin, as you speak, the common exposition of the Fathers; but the contrary judgment of those before mentioned, will not suffer it to be common: neither ought the ignorance of a few, to hurt the clear truth. Thus have we seen your arguments, whose force I now leave to be judged by the reader: and in a word I will consider those your answers, whereby again you endeavor to put away the reasons of some of our side. First, where our men do object from Apoc. 17. that the chief seat of Antichrist is Rome; because this seat is the great city, which sitteth upon 7. hills, and which hath reign over the Kings of the earth, all which ar found in Rome; You answer three ways. First that by this city is not meant Rome, but the universal city of the Devil. But in this answer you rest not, neither is it in deed of any moment, seeing it is not the universal city of the Devil, which shall be burned by the ten Kings, especially the wicked remaining alive, which shall lament her fall, Apoc. 18.9. For how shall the whole city perish, whose citizens shall afterwards remain? Leaving therefore this, you betake you to another, and you grant that by the whore is meant Rome, but hethenish Rome reigning, worshiping Idols, & persecuting Christians: but not Christian Rome. I answer, you do evil disjoin, what the Spirit hath coupled. For Rome is then the whore and seat of Antichrist, when it is carried of the Beast: and it was not carried of the Beast whiles the Hethens reigned. For it is carried of the seventh head, which was not yet come, when John received this Prophesy: Apoc. 17.9.10. Moreover, if Hethenish Rome reigning, be the whore: then Antichrist came during that Hethenish Empire. For the Spirit would have th • se two to be undevided companions, until the burning of the whore. The Beast carried; the whore sitteh: neither of them hath vital life without the other. Again, if that be true, now she hath plainly left to be the whore, nor should she be found such, when Antichrist should come; because as afterward you tell us, Peters chair cannot be separated from Rome, lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. cap. 4. And how agreeth this, I pray you, that Rome being Christian, holy, Catholik, Peters chair, as you will have her; should at last suffer the punishment of a whore; which when she was Hethenish, and according to your opinion, played the whore most lavishly, bare no punishment for it? Apoc. 17.16. Surely Jerome seemeth not well to have affirmed, speaking to Rome, I speak unto thee, which by confessing of Christ, hast wiped out the blasphemy written on thy forehead, lib. 2. contra Iovinian. For Rome hath not wiped away her blasphemy, but imprinted it deeper after she became Christian, seeing now she shall bear the punisment of her fornication. Your sesond answer therefore, is no less infirm than the first. Let us see the third. And this saith, Although that woman were Christian Rome, yet our argument should have no force at all: because Antichrist shall hate Rome, & fight with her, and make her d • solate, & burn her. Therefore Rome is not Antichrists seat. I answer, that which you speak of Antichrists hatred, & fight against Rome, is plainly false. You borrow this from Ap. 17.16. where you read thus; and the ten horns which thou sawest, & the Beast, these shall hate the whore &c. which reading we hav proved, in handling that place, to be faulty. The true reading is, & the ten horns which thou sawest on the Beast, these shall hate &c. The difference is, that the true reading teacheth, that only the horns of the Beast, shall hate the whore; the false would hav it, that both the horns, & the Beast, that is, both the Kings & Antichr. should hate the whore. Aretas readeth so as I say; the Vulg. Latin, (to which you ar bound by the decree of Trent,) hath it also; many other copies have it so, to which the rest of the Apocalypse giveth approbation, most adverse to that which you bring. Whetfore unless you can find a better answer, you must needs confess that Christian Rome is the seat of Antichrist.

Unto the second place which our men bring, from 2 Thes. 2.4 that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God; you answer, that Paul speaks of Solomon's temple: and you refer us to the things that you said before: and so do I the the reader, to the refutation of them. Then, unto that reason, that the Jews temple was in deed God's, but it is now ceased, when the Jewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased▪ you answer, that it ceased not by and by to be God's temple: for the same temple might have been the temple of Christians, and so in deed was, whiles it remained, for the Apostles preached and prayed in it. Luk 24.53. Act. 3.1. and 5.20. I answer, and ask, what all these things do make to confirm the sitting of your Antichrist, in Solomon's Temple? Because the Temple of Jerusalem wherein the Apostles preached and prayed, was whiles it continued, the Temple of God: shall therefore the Temple of God wherein Antichrist shall sit, be the Temple of Jerusalem? Surely I could show you, how after the old ordinances of religion were abrogated, a titular sanctity at least might remain for a time in that temple of Solomons: evē as a boat doth not by and by cease to move, after the oars be stayed: if it were not vain to spend labor in a thing of no cōsequēce. For you might with as much certainty conclude, that the temple of God wherein Antichrist shall sit, is Jerusalem's temple, because (with a little change of the Poets words) Ye friends, admitted auditors, can ye forbear to laugh? as from the antecedent which you have set down.

Unto that of Daniel chap. 9. And the desolation shall continue until the cōsummation and end, whereby our men prove that the temple shall not be built again: You answer; it is not in deed to be built again, but in the end of the world; or though it should be built again, yet would it never be but profane; or finally that it shall not be built again perfectly, but only begun, and in it being begun, Antichrist shall sit. I answer, we had need of some Gerion, that with his hundred hands may take this slippery eel. How do you wreath yourself into manifold boughts & circles? yet though you should change yourself into a 1000. saps, you shall not slip away. who taught you, I pray, so to distinguish against Daniel? It is not to be built again, say in the end of the world: or being built again, it shall abide profane, or it shalt be built again not perfectly, but begun. Did you fet these things out of the Popes chapel? Surely the truth inspired of God afforded not this unto you. For, that teacheth that wrath is come upō the Jews evē to the utmost 1 Thes. 2.16. & that it is in part of this wrath, that God hath bowed down their backs always, Rom. 11.10. Therefore the Jews shall never so lift up themselves under Antichrist, as to have the least power to enterprise any such thing: but shall always remain desolate and oppressed, until they shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; that is, until Christ shall come, and not Antichrist. Mat. 23.39.

Fourthly, whereas our men bring forth some places out of the Fathers, affirming that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians, you grant it is true, and not against you; because the Fathers would not say, that Antichrist shall sit in the Church as a Bishop, but as a God. I answer, your Pope shall not scape away by this ridiculous distinction. The same man may sit in the Church, both as a Bishop and as a God. Antichrist shall sustain the person of both: as we see in your Pope: in word he will humbly feyn himself a Bishop; but he will arrogate the authority of God in deed. He will forgive sins by some more superior power than a Minister can; he will let out of Purgatory: he will put into the Calendar of Saints, whom he will at his pleasure; he will command new articles of faith; and many such like things will he do that appertain not to this mortal condition, but to the highest Majesty. Why should the Fathers speak of his Bishops office, in this so great a loftines? When great things are mentioned, the smaller matters ar wont to be hidden with the exceeding greatness of the more excellent. By their silence they denied not that he should sit in the Church as a Bishop: but when the highest pinnacle of pride was to be spoken of, they thought they were not to insist in the lower steps.

Unto our men's fifth argument, taken from the words of Gregory lib. 4. Epist. 38. The King of pride is nigh, and (though it be heinous to be spoken,) an army of Priests is prepared for him: you say, from hence the contrary is gathered, to that which we collect. For it followeth not that Antichrist shall be an universal Bishop: but the contrary, because the forerunner is not all one with him, whom he runneth before. I answer, neither is an universal Bishop alone with him that would be universal. The Bishop of Constantinople would have been; but he obtained not his desire: the Bishop of Rome, asked it of Phocas, and got it. The contrary therefore is not gathered from hence, as you say, but it is rightly collected that Antichrist shall be an universal Bishop, which dignity, none beside Antichrist could obtain. And to the army of Priests, you answer, that Gregory would not say, that the Priests as Priests pertained unto Antichrists name: but that the Priests as being proud, prepared him an army. Unto this, I say, that now the matter is past danger: the Popish Priests cā not be proud. I trow when Antichrist shall come, the Priests then will be either Popish or proud. What? Shall pride make a new order of Priests? Or if this haughtines be required in Antichrists soldiers, will there be any natiō under the Sun, prouder than Popish Priests? Cardinals do excel Kings: Archbishops and Bishops are superior to Barons and Earls; all in their order, do go before the civil honors; neither is there any of the basest rowt of shavelings, that will be under the civil Magistrate. Let Antichrist therefore, seek him soldiers otherwhere: he shall find none in this lowly flock of Popish Priests. Gregory notwithstanding very expressly biddeth that Antichrist be looked for as chief Captain & Emperor of the Priests. And other Priests there are none on earth, by their own vaunting, besides the Popish Priests. By his judgment therefore the Bishop of Rome should necessarily be Antichrist; and not far from his time, seeing by his confession, armies were then prepared for him. Surely as Gaiphas prophesied that which himself knew not: so Gregory seemeth unwares to have told the truth; not by any power of his seat, but by the mercy of God so governing his tongue, that men might take heed by this admonition, & the wicked world be made inexcusable, as is observed Apoc. 8.13. Vayn therefore is that which is affirmed of Antichrist to sit in the temple of Jerusalem: and so far is it off, that the Pope is not Antichrist, because he continually tarrieth at Rome: as so much the more he may thereupon be concluded to be Antichrist.

Chapt. 14. Of Antichrists doctrine.

THE doctrine of Antichrist, we together with the holy Ghost, do teach from the scriptures, to be full of hypocrisy, fraud, treachery, which may deceive even the most prudent, whom the Spirit enlighteneth not with his truth. For one had need of singular prudēcy to know this Beast, which hath two horns like the Lamb, and is a false Prophet seducing the earth. Contrariweise the Papists will have this same doctrine to be so openly impious and blasphemous, that none is so blockish, but he may perceive it forthwith, and detest it.

Which that you Bellarmine may make plain, you reduce this all unto four heads. First that he shall deny Jesus to be the Christ, and thereupon shall oppugn all our Savior's ordinances, as Baptism, Confirmation &c. and shall teach that Circūcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies of the old law, ar not yet ceased. Secondly, he shall affirm himself to be the true Christ, promised in the Law and Prophets. Thirdly he shall affirm himself to be God, and will be honored as God. Lastly he shall say that himself is the only God, and shall oppugn all other God's, that is, both the true God, and also false God's and Idols. And from hence you take four arguments, that the Pope is not Antichrist; because he denieth not Jesus to be the Christ, neither bringeth he in Circumcision; or the Sabbath: neither doth he make himself Christ, nor God, and least of all the only God: but honoreth even Images and dead Saints. Which what force they have for this thing, we shall afterwards see in the confirmation which you bring. The first point therefore you confirm by this, that Antichrist by nation and religion shall be a Jew, & be received of the Jews for the Messias: whereupon he shall openly oppugn our Christ. I answer, this foolish opinion of Antichrists stock, we have sufficiently refuted before, chap. 12. and 13. for he shall sit in the temple of God, and not in Jerusalem's Temple, (which Christ foretold should be demolished, and never built again,) but in Christian assemblies, as is declared at large: and therefore that he shall not be by religion a Jew, neither shall restore the ceremonies of the old Law, which were tied to the Temple, and had no place out of it. And how doth it agree that Antichrist the general plague of the whole earth, should be sent into the world for the syn of one natiō of the Jews in not receiving the truth, as ye would have it? Surely it were meet that he which should come for the wickedness of one natiō, should be restrained within the limits of that one nation: but there is no need of new arguments for this matter.

Secondly, you say, it is proved from 1 John 2.22. Who is a liar, but he that denieth Jesus to be the Christ? From whence you gather, that Antichrist shall surpass all Heretiks, and therefore he shall deny Christ all manner of ways: which is confirmed, you say, because by Heretiks, the Devil is said to work the Mystery of iniquity: because they privilie do deny Christ. But Antichrists coming is called a Revelation, because he shall openly deny Christ. I answer, as touching that of John, I have shown before, that this denial which he speaketh of, is not open, but secret and treacherous; to weet, by men named Christians, which had privily crept in, and of whom the faithful had need to be warned, being otherwise in danger to be surprised by them unwares. And though Antichrist surpass all Heretiks, yet is it not therefore necessary that he should deal more openly than the rest; seeing the chief reward of wickedness is not to be given to the outward work, but to the power of doing hurt. For otherwise men should surmount the Devil himself; who are so foolish in respect of him, as they do that in the light, which he doth most covertly. Moreover Antichrists coming is a Revelation, but to the elect only: the others which believe not the truth, he shall beguile by his crafty shows, 2 Thes. 2.11.12. The Angel requireth no common wisdom to know the Beast, and the whores name is mystical, as before we have been taught.

Thirdly you prove it by the sentences of certain Fathers: but no equal judge will not confess, that they are rather to be heard anywhere ells, than in the matter of Antichrist. Our Lord should consume him with the Spirit of his mouth, and by his bright coming: whereupon the nearer the Lord should approach, the more was this man of syn to be discovered. I proceed therefore unto the ceasing of public offices and divine sacrifices (as you speak,) which you say shall be in Antichrists time, for vehemency of the persecution, and that therefore he shall not deprave Christ's doctrine, under the name of Christianism, but openly shall oppugn Christ's name and Sacraments, and bring in Jewish ceremonies, as you have shown in chap. 7. I answer, at the same chapter I have proved that all these are most false: and that you hav not brought forth anything, which hath so much as any likelihood of truth. And therefore that no other ceasing of public religion is to be looked for, thā such as hath been these many ages, to weet from Constantine the Great, unto this day: in all which time Antichrist hath reigned. Whiles the woman lived in the wilderness, and the Saints lay hid in the temple, there was in deed a lamentable fewnes of true worshipers: and so great darkness and obscurity possessed all things, more store of smoke bursting forth daily out of the bottōless pit, that the truth commonly could not be seen. Yet in the mean time Antichrist dominered in the holy city, and in the utmost court: whereupon by counterfeit religion he deceived egregiously, whiles all mē almost thought, because of his neernes unto the Temple, that he did sit in the true Temple.

The second chief point of doctrine, you say, is, that he shall openly and by name cal himself the Christ, not his Minister and Vicar: as appeareth by those words of our Lord, If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. And those words in his own name, you wittily warn to have been purposely added against the Lutherans and Calvinists, which would say that Antichrist should not come in his own name, but in the name of our Christ, as if he were his Vicar. I answer, you understand Christ's words very perversely. For name in this place, is not an appellation as you would have it, but a mission and authority as we hav shown in the 2. chapter touching Antichrists singular person. By which it may appear, that his own name, and the Vicar of Christ, do not so contrary one another, but the Bishop of Rome may boast himself to be this vicar, and do it also in his own name, to weet his own authority, having no such right given him of God. Moreover if name be an appellation, & Antichrist shall come in his own name, and his appellation properly is not Christ: how, I pray you, doth he openly & by name cal himself Christ? See you not, that you speak contraries? Can any come in his own name, & openly cal himself another, whose name he beareth not? Besides, we have often answered, that this place perteins nothing to Antichrist properly so called, but to those whom the Jews should submit themselves unto: who what manner of persons so ever they were, they do not in all points express the great Antichrist.

The third chief point of doctrine is, that he shall affirm himself to be God. and will be worshiped for God, as it is written, so that he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself as if he were God, 2. Thes. 2.4. not only, say you, by usurping some of God's authority, but the very name of God. And here because your vulgar authentic Latin text, is too weak to defend the Pope, you flee to the Greek, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as God, say you, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that he is God. The Argument is this, Antichrist shall in words acknowledge himself to be God; the Pope of Rome doth not acknowledge himself to be God: therefore he is not Antichrist. Let Oecumenius make answer to the proposition, who thus interpreteth that word of the Apostle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he saith not saying but showing, that is, by works, signs, and miracles endeavoring to show that he is God. According to his interpretation therefore, a manifest publishing is not necessary. Yea let the Holy Ghost expound himself, who by a like manner of speech in Ezek. 28.2. teacheth how this is to be taken. Thus he saith of the King of Tyrus, Because thy heart is lifted up, so that thou sayest, J am God. No man I trow, requireth that this Tyriā should pronounce the self same very words. False therefore it is, that Antichrist should in word profess himself to be God. Notwithstanding because your Pope had liefer abound with tokens, than barely and slenderly to be furnished with such as are necessary only: we forgive you the proposition, and pray you to think with yourself, whither the very thing proclaimeth not quite contrary to that which you deny in the assumption. For what, I pray you, did P. Sixtus acknowledge himself and the other Popes of Rome to be, when he said; Whosoever accuseth the Pope, it shall never be forgiven him: because he that sinneth against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this life, nor in that which is to come. Council. Tom. 1. in Purgat. Sixti. What did Boniface the 8 when he said, We declare, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to salvation, for every creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. Extrav. de Major. & Obed. unam sanctam. I forbear to cite more witnesses; I appeal to yourself; why do you dissemble? Doo not such speeches often sound in your ears? But say you, he doth not acknowledge himself God, because he acknowledgeth himself his servant. I am ashamed of your proofs; as if out of the same mouth there could not come blessing and cursing, horrible blasphemy, and counterfeit obedience. You know that in words, he is sometime servant of servants: but again when he list, he is King of Kings,

The fourth point is, that he shall extol himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, 2 Thes. 2.4. that is. say you, he shall not suffer any God, neither true nor false, nor any Idols. To this argument we have answered in part before, in handling Antichrists name; where we shown that the Apostle meaneth not the heavenly God, but the earthly, that is, the civil Magistrates, which are venerable: as also that in Daniel 11.37. And he shall not esteem the God of his Fathers, nor care for any God, because he shall rise up against all. Jerome interpreteth this sacrilegious pride, to be a kind of immoderate power over all religion; for thus he saith: And Antichrist shall war against the Saints, and overcome them, and shall be puffed up with so great pride, as he shall attempt to change God's laws and ceremonies, subjecting all religion to his own power, Com. in Dan. cap. 7. In which words he finely painteth out Antichrist & the Pope of Rome, although he was far from this your comment. For, shall a false Prophet lift up himself above every God? A Prophet is always the Prophet of some God: needs therefore must he profess himself subject to some God, whom the Scriptures note out by the name of a False Prophet. Again, when he shall sit in the temple of God: whither shall this be in the temple of another God, or in his own? If of another, then he acknowledgeth a superior: but if in his own, then the Apostle speaks improperly, and should not have said, so that he sitteth in the temple of God as God; but rather, so that he sitteth in his own temple as God. But by this manner of speaking, what fruit had redounded to the Saints? For what manner of sign had this been of this Monster; when it was nowhere known what manner of Temple he should have, or where? But thus ar they wont to err from the right, which reverence their lusts for truth.

As touching the Idols, which you say Antichrist shall despise, hereby perhaps you might show that the Pope is worse than Antichrist; but it is also false, that Antichrist shall despise Idols. Whoredom in the Scriptures is Jdolatrie: and the City of Rome the seat of Antichrist, is that Queen Jezebel, the chief whore, the great Babylon, the mother of all the whoredoms and abominations of the earth. Shall Idolatry have dominion in his throne, and yet himself not be an Idolater? By whose authority doth the whore worship Idols, but by his on whose shoulders she sitteth, and by the majesty of whose name she is sustained? Shall not Ahab follow the God's of his Jezebel? They which are killed by the four Angels loosed at Euphrates, do suffer those evils because of Idolatry, Apoc. 9.20.21. But the Angel of the bottomless pit, King Abaddon with his subjects suffereth that slaughter by the Euphratean Angels, whom he hath fast behind him, Apoc 9.11.12. &c. And therefore the Angel of the bottomless pit, is an Idolater, who is all one with this Beast, as Apoc. 11.7. & 17.8. But most plainly, where Antichrist biddeth an Jmage to be made, and compelleth all the inhabitants of the earth to worship it, Apoc. 13.14.15. Doo you think this mā will be a breaker down of Images? You are so far from defending your Pope by this argument, as this is one of the chiefest signs, that he is the very Antichrist. These therefore be trifles and guegawes, even as the other things which you have disputed of Antichrist. If you would have more certainty of his doctrine, remember the things which we have often mentioned out of this Apocalypse. Here first you shall see, that Antichrist is Balaam, and his seat Jezebel. chap. 2.14.20. And he, how crafty a knave was he? She, how Idolatrous a whore, and Prophetess; not defacing all religious worship, but only promoting and stablishing false worship? Then, you may perceive that the Gentiles occupying the utter court and holy city, (while the Saints in the mean time lie hidd in the temple,) are Antichrist himself and his subjects; chap. 11 1.2. And therefore that Antichrist is most nearly joined in outward show, to Christ: so as by his neernes he shall deceive many. Besides, the great Antichrist hath two horns lik the Lamb, chap. 13.11. Wherefore he shall not every way be contrary, but shall put on his Image, & sit as his Vicar: whereas he would rejoice doubtless to be most unlike him, if he should show manifest hostility. Finally, seeing he is also a false Prophet, he will not boast himself to be the only God but shall do more harm by lying, than by force; and not show himself to be such as in deed he is. These few things (to keep me within the limits of the Apocalypse,) may teach you the true nature of Antichrist; unless you have leifer willingly to be ignorant, that you may the more confidently serve him.

Chapt. 15. Of Antichrists Miracles.

CONCERNING the Miracles of Antichrist, three things. you say, are found in the Scriptures: first, that he shall do many miracles: secondly that they shall be lies: thirdly that there are three examples set down: all which I easily grant unto you. But why add you not somewhat to make it plain that the Pope is no kinn to Antichrist, as that the Pope neither doth many miracles, nor lies, nor those three exemples which you mention by name? It seems you feared the trial: but you must needs be brought unto it, though against your will. That he well agrees with Antichrist in multitude of miracles; neither can you, neither doubtless liest you to deny: seeing this is one of the chief notes, wherein your Church glorieth. Of this first branch therefore, there is no controversy. But whither those signs be lies, which are doon by the Popes & their Ministers, since Antichrist first began to show himself, let us briefly consider: that thereby also may appear, whither the crime be true or false, which our men do charge you with.

I will not use that argument, which the Spirit maketh to be a sure token of false miracles, namely, that whatsoever is doon for to confirm error and superstition, is to be counted for a fraudulent sign: (for you do not acknowledge your errors, although this should be a sufficient argument, unto them that have learned the truth:) but I will bring such as even yourselves cannot deny. Let us therfote examine a little those famous miracles of Pope Sylvester, to whom are attributed chiefly three. One that by sacred Batpisme he cured Constantine the Great, of a leprosy. An other, that he raised up again a bull that was killed by Zambri a Jewish sorcerer. The third, that he bound a Dragon after a marvelous manner: As touching the Leprosy, every mā may easily smell it to be but a stinking fiction by this, that the ancient writers that lived either next after Constantine, or together with him, speak not any one word of the same. Eusebius who so diligently wrote his life and heaped up solemly unto his praise, whatsoever could anywhere be gathered: would not have concealed this singular benefit of God. It must needs therefore be that the later writers drew all this out of the third ditch, namely from the Romish fables framed for this purpose only, to increase the Popes authority. Again, seeing the curing of this Leprosy depēdeath on Baptism, and it is certainly known that he was baptized, not by Sylvester at Rome, but by Eusebius at Nicomedia, and that not in the beginning of his reign, but in the latter end of his life: who seeth not this cure to be altogether feigned and false? Eusebius telleth that he was baptized at Nicomedia a little before he departed this life. Jn Vita Constant. lib. 4. Wherto agree Socrates lib. 1. cap. 39. Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 32. Sozom lib. 2. cap. 34. Ambrose lib. De obitu Theodosij & Hieron. in Chronicis. But you on the othet side object Isidorus, Zonaras, and Nicephorus, who being but late writers in respect of those ancients, what credit deserve they in this thing? Could these later men know the truth more certainly, which were further off from all means to find it out? But let us see in a word, what ground every of them do rely upon.

Isidorus in his Chronicle, because perhaps he knew that the Romans boasted of Constantine's baptism; and knew withal what the ancient writers had said of this matter: that both might be thought to be true, he will have him baptized at Rome, but rebaptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia the Arian. But he marketh not well the ancient History, which with one consent reporteth that he deferred his Baptism unto that day, because he desired to be baptized in Jordan. How did he defer it, if he had received it before at Rome? Moreover he rashly & injuriously chargeth the godly Emperor with the grievous crime of violating his faith: who neither Eusebius of Nicomedia, nor any other Arian could ever lead away from the truth; seeing while he lived, he so restrained them all by his authority, as they neither could nor durst move anything against the faith established. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Ariminine synod abundantly testifieth in an Epistle to Constantine his son, that he persisted constant in the true Nicene faith even to his last end. We have judged it absurd, say they, even then so soon as he being baptized is departed from men, and gone unto his due rest, after him to mind for to go about a new thing, and to contemn such holy Confessors and Martyrs. These things agree not to a man fallen from the truth. And after that again; And this moreover we entreat you, that nothing be either taken away from the things which were before ordained, nor anything added: but that all things may remain intyre & unviolated, which through the piety of your Father, are kept unto this very day. Theod. lib. 2. 19. Sozom lib. 4. 18. Far be it therefore that we should think he made shipwreck of faith, and desired a second baptism of an Arian. Zonaras mentioneth but one Baptism, and that by Sylvester; but his tale agrees not with the truth. For he will have it that Constantine thē first forsook the worshiping of Idols, and was cleansed from his leprosy by the Baptism of Sylvester, after that, Licinius being slain, he alone had the sovereignty. But Eusebius a witness then living, telleth how straight after that miraculous sight in heaven, he called the Christians to him, and by them was taught the whole way of salvation, that he gave himself to the reading of holy Scriptures; had the Priests in great estimation, & promised that he would worship no other God thenceforward. Euseb. in vita Constant. lib. 1. and his promise he indeed performed, as appeareth by those Edicts in the behalf of Christians, which he together with Licinius that reigned with him, caused to be promulgated. Euseb. lib. 10. ca. 5. And was not he made a Christian, until Sylvester entered him into that profession; when he made war with Licinius, because he uncourteously and ill entreated the Christians? And whereas he relateth that Peter & Paul by night appeared in his sleep, and bade him send for Sylvester: and that he asked of him whither Christians worshipped the God's called Peter and Paul: it is very ridiculous. Who are witnesses, I pray you, that Peter and Paul appeared unto him by night? To whom did Constantine report this? Was it to Sylvester, and not to Eusebius? Or how could he be ignorant of the Christians God, who had before now so exactly learned of Christians, and himself read the holy Scriptures, and also vowed, that he would have no other God beside Christ, as we shown even now from Eusebius? And strange it is that he should not send for Sylvester, but when he was bidden by revelation, who from his first conversion, so familiarly used the holy Ministers, as he had them for companions, even making the Priests of God assistants to him: Euseb. in the same place. Rashly therefore did Zonaras prefer the Romish Legends, before the more ancient faithful History. Nicephorus was moved by the authority of the Church of Rome; & the Font which Constantine is said to have made at Rome: as also for that the Emperor was admitted into the Nicene Synod, which the Fathers, he thinketh, would not have doon, unless he had been before baptized. But as concerning the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Font, they shall be of some moment, and have their weight, when the Church of Rome shall have proved that she feigneth not in very many other things. And that third thing, of place in the Synod, it is too light for to discredit so sufficient witnesses. For why should they not admit him into the Synod, whō they ought to admit unto public prayers, and the preaching of the word? A synod is as it were an assembly of Prophesiers, from which, by the Apostles rule even infidels ar not to be excluded. But if all, saith he, prophesy, and there come in one that is an unbeliever, or an unlearned one, he is rebuked of all, he is judged of all: and so the secrets of his heart are made manifest, and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, saying plainly that God is in you in deed. 1. Cor. 14.24.25. But Constantine had obtained like precious faith with the other Saints, & therefore also might be partaker of the Spirit, as they on whom it fell before Baptism, Act. 10.44. &c. And whereas he delayed his Baptism: the Fathers knew he did that not of contempt, but of a kind of religion; (of what manner, I dispute not.) They might also think, that neither Moses counted his children aliens from the covenant, though they were not circumcised at the appointed day: neither were the Israelites forbidden to offer sacrifices, and do other service of the Tabernacle, although they were not circumcised in the wilderness. Wherefore there was no cause, why entrance should be denied him into the Synod: seeing all deferring of the outward sign, taketh not away from the faithful the right of children, either with God, or with men in the common duties of godliness. Forasmuch then as it is certain that Constantine was not baptized til the last part of his life: it is a lying fable, that Sylvester should cleanse him of his Leprosy by fotce of baptism administered 20. years before at the least. And in deed so Jacobus de Voragine freely acknowledgeth, in the Legend of the finding of the holy Cross, speaking of Constantine's baptism; It is doubtful, saith he, whither he deferred his baptism or no: whereupon there is likewise more doubt of the Legend of Saint Sylvester. And a little after, It is evident that there are many things in the History, which are recited in the Churches, which are not consonant to the truth.