nes his sonne, came of the stocke of Seleucus Nicanor, much like as the Mahumetes the Turke, and Solymannus, came of the stocke of Ottomannus. Wherein this is to be noted and pondered, that lyke as of the sayd Seleucus issued xij. Syrian kynges one after an other of that generation which reigned ouer the Israelites with much seueritie and tyranny:MarginaliaThe familye of the Turkes. so of this deuelish generation of Ottomanus, haue come xij. Turkishe tyrauntes, whereof this Solymā is now the twelfe: God graunt he may be the last, and as the ij. laste Antiochi, being sonnes of ij. brethren, did fight together for the kyngdome, and in fightyng were both slayne, and shortly after the kyngdom fell to the Romaines: so the Lord graunt for Christes sake, þt the bloudy broude of this old Solyman, (whiche had reigned now 46. yeares may so fight together, and perishe in their owne bloud, that the bloudy tyranny of theirs may come to a finall end for euer. Amen.
[Back to Top]And that the truth, hereof may the better appeare to such as bee disposed to meditate more vpon the matter, I thought good and profitable for the reader, to set before hys eyes, in tablewise, the catologue of both these Antichristian families, with the names and succession of the persons, first of the xij. Syrian kynges, then of the xij. Ottomans, in lyke number and order.
These two tables are intended to demonstrate the parallels between the Selucid rulers of Syria (the villains of the books of Macchabees) and the Ottomans. The purpose of this was to depict (and link) both families as 'figures' of Antichrist. The first table is taken from Johannes Lucidus, Chronicon (Venice, 1570), fo. 39r. The second table is taken from Bartholomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenberg, 1560), sigs. A5r-B2v.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaResemblance betwene the Syrian kinges, and the Turkes.
¶ The Syrians. | ¶ The Turkes. | ||||
1 | Seleucus. | 32. | 1 | Ottomannus. | 28 |
2 | Antiochus Soter. | 19 | 2 | Orchanes. He slue his two brethren. | 22 |
3 | Antiochus Theos, who killed Bernice hys mo- ther in law, and his yong brother. | 15 | 3 | Amurathes. He put out the eyes of Sauces hys owne sonne. | 23 |
4 | Seleucus Callinicus, with Antiochus Hierax his brother, which two brethren warred one a- gaynst the other. | 20 | 4 | Baiazetes. He slew Solymannus his brother. | |
5 | Antiochus Magnus. | 36 | 5 | Calepinus. The Greeke stories make no mention of this Calepinus, the Latin storyes say that Calepinus & Orchanes were both one, & that he was slayne by Mahumetes his brother. | 6 |
6 | Seleuchus Philopator. | 12 | 6 | Orchanes. Whom Moses his vncle did slay. | |
7 | Antiochus Epiphanes, or rather Epimanes. | 7 | Mahumetes. 1. He slue Mustaphas his brother. | 14 | |
8 | Antiochus Eupator. | 2 | 8 | Amurathes. 2. He slue Mustaphas his brother. | 34 |
9 | Demetrius brother of Epiphanes, who killed Eu- pator his cosin. | 9 | Mahumetes. 2. He slue his two brethren Turcinus an infant, and Calepinus. | 73. | |
10 | Demetrius Nicanor, whome Antiochus Sedetes his brother repulsed from his kingdom. | 10 | Baiazetes. 2. He warred against hys brother De- mes, which Deme was afterward poysoned by Pope Alexander. 6. | 33 | |
11 | Antiochus Sedetes. These two last beyng brethrē had two sonnes. | 11 | Zelymus. He poysoned Baiazetes his father, & his two brethren, Acomates and Corcutus, wyth all their children his owne cosines. | 7 | |
12 | Antiochus Grypus, and Antiochus Cyricenus. These two striuing together for the kingdō, were both slaine: and so not long after the king dō of Syria came to the hands of Tigranes K. of Armenia, & so being taken from hym, came to þe Romans in the time of Pompeius | 12 | Solymannus. He slue Mustaphas his own sonne and was the death of Gianger his seconde sonne. | 2 |
MarginaliaThe tyme of Antichrist examined by prophesies. These ij. pestilent families and generations, rysing out (doubtles) from the bottomles pitte, to plage the people of God, as in number of succession they do not much differ: so in maner of their doynges and wicked abhominations, they be as neere agreeyng, beyng both enemyes a lyke to the people and Church of Christ, both murderers and paricides of their owne brethren and kyndred, both blasphemers of God, and troublers of the whole worlde. Wherin we haue all to learne and note by the way, the terrible anger of almightye God agaynst sinne, and wickednes of men.
[Back to Top]Furthermore, who so is disposed to consider and cast the course of tymes, and to marke how thinges be disposed by the meruelous operation of Gods prouidence, shall finde the times also of these two aduersaries, in much lyke sorte to concurre and agree. For in considering with our selues both the Testamentes and Churches of God, the first of the Iewes, the second of the Christians, looke what tyme had the Syrian kynges to rage then in Hierusalem, the same proportion of tyme hath now the tyranne of the Turkes to murder the Christians:MarginaliaOne Antichrist prefigureth an other. so that the one Antichrist may well represent and prefigure the other. For as by the booke of Machabees may appeare, Antiochus Epiphanes was about 191. yeares before the passiō of our Sauiour, and day of our redemption: so now casting the same number from this present yeare backward, we shall finde it to be about the same yeare and tyme, when Baiazetes
Actually it was Murad I who moved the capital in 1375.
And thus much for the tymes of Antiochus and hys felowes. Now what crueltie this Antiochus exercised agaynst the people of God, it is manifest in the history of the Machabees:
1 Macchabees 1:43-67.
1 Macchabees 1:43-67.
Daniel 9:4-27.
MarginaliaAntiochus a figure of the turke By consent of all writers, this Antiochus beareth a figure of the great Antichrist, which was to folow in the latter end of the world, and is already come, & worketh what he can agaynst vs: Although as S. Iohn sayth, there haue bene, and be many Antichristes,
1 John 2:18. This is an excellent example of the tendency of Foxe and Protestant writers to see Antichrist as a spiritual force and not as an individual.
Foxe cites the great fourteenth century theologian Nicholas of Lyra as his source for this passage but he is really drawing on a summary of Nicholas's views on Antichrist made by Mathias Flacius. The marginal motes made by Paul de Santa Maria, archbishop of Burgos, in a copy of the celebrated 'Postilla' of Nicholas of Lyra, which the arch-bishop sent to his so, were posthumously publuished. These amplifications of Nicholas's work were criticized and largely rejected by Matthias Döring, the provincial of the Franciscans in Saxony. Foxe is drawing this summary of the comments of the three on the identification from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 553.
[Back to Top]