By Daniel Chamier, Huguenot Theologian and Pastor (d. 1621)
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
State of the Investigation
1. The controversy over the identity of Antichrist. [There were many on the Protestant side who proclaim the Pope of Rome Antichrist.] The thirty-first article of the Confession of the Reformed Churches in Gaul was thus conceived in the Synod of Gap: “When the Roman Bishop, having erected a Monarchy for himself in the Christian world, usurps dominion over all Churches and Pastors, and is so arrogant that he calls himself God, and wishes to be adored, and that all power in heaven and earth be attributed to him: he disposes of all ecclesiastical matters, defines the articles of faith, and says that the authority and interpretation of the Scriptures are his own: he exercises the commerce of souls: he dispenses vows and oaths: he institutes new forms of worship of God. Then he subdues the legitimate authority of the magistrates under his feet, having given, taken away, and transferred empires: We believe, and we affirm, that he is the true and genuine Antichrist, the son of perdition, foretold in the Word of God: the purple-clad harlot, unfaithful to the seven mountains in the great city, where she obtained a kingdom over the kings of the earth. And we will wait until the Lord, as he promised, begins his battle, knowing that he will finally abolish him by the spirit of his mouth with his glorious coming.”
2. And [to list some of the Protestant writings against Antichrist], Calvinist Lambert Danaeu disputed about Antichrist. [Protestant theologian] William Whitaker’s demonstration against Jesuit Nicholas Sanders and On the Roman Pope, the fifth question. Franciscus Junius against Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s third chapter, On the Pontiff. Gabriel Powel the Briton’s disputations about Antichrist, and his Church. [German-French Protestant theologian] Daniel Tilenus in the Academy of Theology of Sedan, professor in the Exegetical Analysis of the articles of the Gallic Confession already recited. Philippe de Morney in his ninth chapter, On the Church. George Pacardus in the Description of Antichrist. [French lawyer, historian and theologian] Nicolaus Vignier in the Theatre of Antichrist. [Huguenot theologian] Andre Rivet’s treatise on the second question of the Summa Controversiarum. Many others also in their commentaries on the second Epistle to the Thessalonians and the Revelation.
3. [On the part of the adversaries disputing our conviction that the Pope is the Antichrist we have] Cardinal Bellarmine in his third book, On the Pontiff. Nicholas Sanders in his eighth book, On the Visible Monarchy of the Church, Thomas Stapleton in A Scholastic Review of the controversies, third question, third part. [Lutheran convert to Catholicism] Caspar Schoppe in a letter to a most illustrious prince of Germany. Jesuit Pierre Coton in the sixth treatise on the Sacrifice of the Mass, ninth paragraph. Silvester of Valence, a Capuchin, in his book, the Just Magnitudes of the Roman Church. [Greek Jesuit] Andreas Eudaemon-Joannis against Robert Abbot, [Bishop of Salisbury]. [Jesuit Professor] Gregory of Valencia in the fourth part of his Theological Commentaries, tenth disputation, second question, second point. Jesuit José de Acosta’s, second book, On the Last Times. [Jurist] Florimond de Raemond’s L’Anti-Christ , a book so foul, foolish, unworthy that all good men must hate it, and which hardly any sensible person reads: so much so that whether Jesuit Louis Richeome (as is believed) or the Jesuits of Bordeaux, men of the most ignorant reputation, like a leather covering, used it, having been falsely placed on this monster struggling in vain. Others incidentally, John Arboreus, On Theosophy, first book, thirty-fourth chapter. [Italian priest and jurist] Thomas Bozius, On the Signs of the Church of God, twenty-fourth book, ninth chapter. [Franciscan theologian] François Feuardent, On Irenaeus, fifth book, twenty-fifth and thirtieth chapters. [German monk] Jodocus Lorichius, in his Fortress of Faith. Jesuit Alphonso Salmeron in the second and third disputations on the latter epistle to the Thessalonians.
4. Before I begin my argument, the homonymy [“words sharing the same spelling but have different meanings”] of the word must be discussed. Antichrist, by the very origin of the name, signifies someone opposed to Christ: even children know this. But it is also sometimes a name used generally and sometimes properly. For sometimes it is attributed to anyone opposing Christ. Thus, in 1 John 2, “Even now many antichrists have appeared.” And in second John, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” Oecumenius notes that Corinth and others are understood. But otherwise, it is more properly used for a certain notable, among all antichrists; a notably distinguished Antichrist who is more truly Antichrist than all others. Just as among the Romans the name Emperor once signified all who led an army under their auspices, but later it was restricted to designate only those who held the majesty of the Republic. Therefore, it is taken not as Αντίχριστος indefinitely, but specifically, ὁ Αντίχριστος. In 1 John 2, ἠκούσατε ὅτι Αντίχριστος ἔρχεται: “You have heard that the Antichrist is coming.”
5. We agree that the coming of this Antichrist, so properly called, is prophetically foretold to the Church, both by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians, briefly, but with most emphatic words. Also, by John in the Apocalypse, sometimes under the figure of a harlot, sometimes of a beast. Indeed, even by Daniel long before Christ, but under a type; for properly and primarily it is held that he prophesied Antiochus Epiphanes, whose tyranny over the Jewish Church is considered parallel to the Antichrist’s ravaging of the Christian Church.
6. And from those places of Scripture, signs must be extracted by which we may recognize the Antichrist. However, so that we may know from those signs nothing is concluded individually, but only collectively from all, distinctions must be applied. For there are certain signs which precede, others which follow. I understand the signs that precede [his coming] to be those which will be first in that mystery of iniquity, such as the time of his coming, the place where he will sit, and whatever pertains to his person or his deeds. And these must necessarily be found in him to properly designate him the Antichrist. But the signs that follow are those which pertain to his end, as well as the destruction of his power. It’s not as if these [preceding] signs are not necessary for us to recognize. For then it would not be necessary to know the identity of the Antichrist until after his destruction, that is, after the last day of the world, which is most absurd.
7. Therefore, there is one argument among the Catholics in this controversy which, however, has very many parts. Namely, whatever man it is who possesses all the signs of the Antichrist which Scripture has outlined is the Antichrist. But that Ecumenical Bishop of theirs whom they call as such, has all the signs. Therefore, that Ecumenical Bishop is the Antichrist. There is agreement between us on the major premise. But there is controversy on the minor. Therefore, it must be proven, first concerning the Time, and then concerning the person and deeds.
CHAPTER TWO
Whether the Roman Empire has ceased
1. The first question is whether Antichrist has already come. The Papists contend that he has not yet come. For controversial German Catholic polemicist, Kasper Schoppe, confidently asserts that he will come only one thousand three hundred and five days before the final coming of Christ, as we shall see later. But other Catholics teach the time for the coming of Antichrist has long passed. Therefore, we need not wait any longer before we can assert that Antichrist has come.
2. Secondly, in the latter part of his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul says, “Now you know what will be revealed in its time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work: only he who now stands will stand until he is taken out of the way: And then the lawless one will be revealed.” By these words, “The Antichrist comes when the times of the Roman kingdom are fulfilled,” it is signified that the time for the revelation of Antichrist will be when the Roman empire has been disturbed and destroyed. Chrysostom states those who possess the gift of prophecy say that in this passage the ruler of the Romans is interpreted by some, the Spirit of grace by others, still others as the Roman Empire; that is, that which held back, what stood against, preventing the advent of the Antichrist. But he refutes the second theory because then there would be no reason for the Apostle to speak obscurely [since he spoke explicitly of the Holy Spirit in 1 Thess. 4:8 and 2 Thess. 2:13] and because this prophecy should have already been revealed since the gifts [χαρίσμτα] of prophecy would have ceased by then. Therefore, Paul speaks of the Roman Empire [or Emperor] obscurely due to the danger of speaking publicly and openly [of the destruction of the Roman Empire], thereby placing Christians in peril [of being accused of sedition]. When the Roman Empire has been removed from the midst, then he [Antichrist] will come, and reasonably so, because until the fear of this Roman rule or authority subsides no one will submit to him [Antichrist].
3. Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylact agree in their own way. But the Latins do not retreat. Ambrose says that “Antichrist will appear after the failure of the Roman kingdom.” Jerome says, “until the kingdom which he now holds is removed from the midst before Antichrist is revealed.” The same with Algasia, question eleven, “Unless,” he says, “the departure shall come first, which is called Grace, then all the nations which are subject to the Roman empire shall depart from his side. And after, “Unless,” he says, “the Roman empire shall be desolate.” Again, “Nor does he wish to say openly that the Roman empire should be destroyed.” Primasius, Sedulius, Anselm, the Glossa Interlinear, Lyra and Thomas Aquinas say likewise. Finally, not even the adversaries disagree. See Jesuit Jose de Acosta, chapter two of the second book, On the Last Times.
4. And it is confirmed from the Apocalypse, in which the dispersion of the Roman Empire into ten kings, signified by the ten horns, is described. And he places that dispersion in the thirteenth and seventeenth chapters. Hence Tertullian says, “Who will bring about the Antichrist but the Roman state who will have disappeared into ten kings”? And those who wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse agree.
5. What then remains? Clearly, that we prove the Roman Empire to be demolished or rather nonexistent. Truly, scarcely anyone would believe this can be denied. For experience and practice most certainly teach this. It is no more certain that the republics of the Athenians or Lacedaemonians have ceased. But I shall act as a witness, nevertheless. Long ago Jerome wrote to Ageruchia, “He who held the middle position is removed, and do we not understand the Antichrist to approach, whom the Lord Jesus Christ will judge by the spirit of His mouth?” From there he recounts the disasters already received at that time in various provinces to the North and West. Yet he did not say “he is made from the middle” but only “he is removed from the middle,” divining those disasters to be the preludes to the universal ruin soon to come. Nor was he a false prophet. For those times followed which compelled Salvian [of Marseilles in 440 BCE] to write in the fourth book of The Government of God, “The Roman Republic is either already dead or certainly drawing its last breath.” And the bishops of Gaul in the Synod of Rheims under Hugh and Robert, Kings of the Franks, in chapter twenty-eight, do not hesitate to name the decline of the Empire.
6. Furthermore, even more strongly. Andreas of Caesarea, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, chapter fifty-three, “Ancient Rome lost the majesty of the Empire long ago.” And more recently, in the times of our Fathers, [Italian historian] Paulus Jovius, indeed a bishop, at the very beginning of his histories, says, “After the power of the Caesars ceased by fate: which once, with all kings removed everywhere, had compelled all to obey one ruler, when the fiercest peoples rebelled against the memory of former freedom, it is clear that the most noble empire was shaken and torn apart by one and another barbarian assault, reduced to smaller realms and the dominion of many.” And in the seventeenth book, “Egypt after the destruction of the Roman name ceased to be under the Constantinopolitan Emperors.” In the forty-first chapter of the third book of Niemensis, concerning the schism, “Rome has long since lost its empire.”
7. Moreover, Salmeron the Jesuit, in the second disputation on the second epistle to the Thessalonians, says, “That Roman empire has long since been overthrown and scattered into many kingdoms and is almost extinct. For the one who now is called the Roman Emperor is a very slender shadow of the ancient Empire: so much so that he does not even possess the city of Rome itself, from which he derives his name, and for many years there have been Roman Emperors without it.” Justinianus states in the same place, “Long ago the Roman Empire was reduced to such narrow limits that it barely retains a faint shadow of the Empire.” Stapleton asks in the same place, “Where now, I ask, is the monarchy? Where is he who rules the reins of the world in it? And we see even the head of the monarchy failing. I ask, does Rome give obedience to its King, its monarch? I know not at what times a greater defection appeared.” But Baronius in the year 1476, paragraph one, when he saw that not only was the Emperor Greek, but not even Roman Consuls existed, thus said, “The Western empire” (which was Roman) “has utterly collapsed and devolved to the Barbarians.” Portuguese Jesuit Sebastian Barradas in Concordia, volume one, book four, chapter four, replying to the Jews denying Christ came because the Roman empire still stood, says, “It is answered,” he says, “that the Roman monarchy does not exist, as is known.”
8. These witnesses [are from our adversaries], but why the need for witnesses? For the matter itself cries out. First, from such a great number of provinces, not one remains subject to Rome: all have asserted themselves into freedom towards the East, West, South, and North, having established for themselves their own forms of republics, whence so many monarchies; few aristocracies and democracies. Indeed, not even Rome itself is a monarchy or part of any monarchy. Then, the name, by which nothing less or more nobly can be imagined, the very name of the Roman Empire, taken from the Romans, has passed to foreigners: the German Emperors, none of whom dares to claim anything for himself from Rome. What then is there by which one can believe that the Empire has not perished? Never was Babylon, Persia, or Greece more perfect. Certainly, today the Persian name carries far greater renown and authority in the East than that of the Romans.
CHAPTER THREE
Rome is the seat of Antichrist
1. Therefore, [non-Papist] Catholics teach that the time has been fulfilled in which the Antichrist was to be restrained lest he should be made manifest. Now we must deal with his seat. Scripture presents it as twofold: one by John in the Apocalypse; another by Paul in 2nd Thess. In Revelation 17 we read, “When the Spirit carried me into the wilderness, I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.” And afterwards, “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.” And again, “The woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
2. These words signify that the Antichrist, whom the harlot woman signifies, will sit in the city of Rome. A twofold argument is presented: first, from the seven mountains, from which Rome is called seven-hilled, known as such to poets and gardeners. Hence the poet says, “Seven citadels which one wall encompassed.” Secondly, not only is the woman said to sit upon the seven mountains, but she is also the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth. And this was Rome at that time, nor was there any other besides Rome.
3. Primasius, “therefore the seven heads are seven mountains, by using wisdom he advises the sense to be understood consequently, as signifying Rome which stands on seven mountains, whose monarchy ruled over the whole world with dominion, likening it to those kings, who, in Rome’s name, represented the power of the entire kingdom.” Ambrose, “This is clear. For we know that at that time the Romans ruled over all the kings of the earth.” [French Catholic theologian] John de Gagny, interprets “this great Babylon and harlot as ancient Rome; the waters on which she sits are the peoples over whom she once ruled; the seven mountains are those seven hills by which old Rome was distinguished.”
4. Furthermore, when John speaks of Babylon, the ancients interpreted it as Rome. Tertullian, against the Jews and in his third book against Marcion, says that Babylon represents the figure of the city of Rome, both great and proud in kingdom and the destroyer of the saints. Bishop Eucherius of Lyon in Spiritual Formulas, chapter ten, “Babylon is either the world or Rome.” In the Apocalypse we read, “And great Babylon came into remembrance before God and is given the cup of the wine of His wrath.” And before Eucherius, Jerome in his seventeenth epistle says, “Read the Apocalypse of John and what is said about the woman clothed in purple and written on her forehead blasphemy, as well as the seven mountains, many waters, and the destruction of Babylon.” According to Jerome, Victorinus recognizes these as speaking of Rome; and the series itself shows that it refers to the [Roman] Tarpeian Rock named shortly before. The same [Jerome] to Algasius in question eleven, “According to the Apocalypse of John, on the forehead of the woman clothed in purple is written the name of blasphemy, that is, Eternal Rome.”
5. Hence, it came to pass that there was no one who did not predict the future Antichrist to be Roman, even among those who held the Papacy. In the latter part of Roger Hoveden’s Annals, he states that Joachim of Fiore believed the Antichrist had already been born in Rome and will be exalted to the Apostolic See. Although John, Bishop of Chemnitz, Germany, says in The Burden of the Church that some great Antichrist will come, distinct from a certain [ethnically] mixed Antichrist that he imagines – one who does not differ greatly from the common opinion — nevertheless, asserts that this future mixed one will be Roman. In chapter forty-two, “In this Idol” (he says), “is figured the abominable Pope because of the defect of life; and he is called the desolation of the Church because through him the Church will be desolated from its proper state. This Pope of the Devil, by his administration, will place the Church of God in its present fifth state.” And again, “This mixed Antichrist by profound malice and the administration of demons, and by his own ambitious cunning will tyrannically usurp the Papacy.”
6. Indeed, by this mark, there is nothing to prevent the Pope from being Antichrist. For he has fixed his seat in Rome, which all both know and see; And hence the name of Bishop of Rome, Pontiff of Rome, Pope of Rome. Indeed, he derives his authority from that seat. Why is he not called the Ecumenical Bishop of Antioch or Alexandria? The reason is because Peter died neither at Antioch nor Alexandria, but at Rome.
7. Here Stapleton and Bellarmine dispute. First, that the harlot symbolizes the universal city of the Devil. Secondly, that it is pagan Rome. And, truly, they are not quite in agreement. For Bellarmine thinks it is better understood as Rome rather than the universal city of the Devil. But Stapleton, on the contrary, holds a much more probable and truer sense of those who take the woman clothed in purple, the beast, Babylon, the great city, not for Rome or for any one city or empire, but for the whole empire of impious men, opposing the Church of God from the beginning. But let them attend to this carefully. We, however, should rather consider it ourselves.
8. The first question, therefore, is whether the harlot is to be understood as the universal city of the impious. Their arguments for affirmation are first the authority of the ancients: Augustine in Psalm 60 and The City of God, book twenty, chapter nine; and commentators such as Arethas, Ambrose, Augustine. Then the context itself. For the seven heads, seven mountains, seven kings all signify the same: and are seven kingdoms and states which have persecuted the people of God from the beginning: Egyptians, Canaanites, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Antichrist; of which the first five no longer existed, but the Romans were; the Antichrist had not yet come but was to come; and it was not the whole beast but only a part of it, the last one, and one of the seven whether horns or mountains or kings. Finally, “And the beast which was” (says John) “and is not, is itself the eighth and is of the seven and goes to destruction:” that is, the Antichrist will soon be destroyed, being one beast of seven insofar as the beast is taken in part not in whole; and is eighth because of the greatness and enormous persecution which he will carry out against the saints. Thus far Stapleton.
9. But we have three reasons for denying their opinion. Not only the Old Testament authority rejects it, but also, and indeed much more, the context of Prophecy. For first, it is said that the harlot sits on the beast, which was to ascend out of the abyss. Therefore, John foresaw her as a harlot in the future. So how are they in the future, if you understand the whole empire of ungodly men who have persecuted the Church of God from the beginning? And what do you understand by this beast? For if it is the Devil, as some among those who favor this impious opinion say, then to say she sits upon the Devil cannot be understood unless that city is sustained by the Devil. But that has always been and always has happened: so how can it be in the future?
10. Secondly, it is said that the harlot sits upon many waters, that is, peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages. But how can this agree with that entire city? For if that woman is the entire city of the wicked, then the entire city of the wicked must be said to sit upon many waters. But what can the city of the wicked be but a multitude of the wicked? Therefore, a multitude of the wicked will sit upon many waters. But many waters mean many peoples, nations and languages. Thus, we finally conclude that a multitude of the wicked is sitting upon many peoples. And because a multitude of the wicked must be many peoples, it follows that many peoples sit upon many peoples. Behold, here you have human dreams instead of [true] prophetic vision.
11. Thirdly, the woman is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth, in Greek, ἐμφατικώτερον ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη. Rightly, Beza interprets it as “that great city.” First, this interpretation is correct. Thus, the name of the woman is indeed metaphorical and not to be understood literally. But if the city itself is signified by the woman, how then do you understand one city as the universality of empires? For this is certainly not an interpretation, but a new enigma. Then distinctly, it is not πόλις μεγάλη [big city] but ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη [that great city], so that a certain city is designated. And finally, in what sense do you say that a multitude of wicked men has dominion over the kings of the earth? For, on the contrary, the kings of the earth have a kingdom over the multitude of the wicked.
12. The arguments of the affirming side are trivial. Indeed, I know that some of the ancients lean this way, but not all; therefore, neither should be taken as law. And what wonder if even the pious sometimes err in the most obscure prophecies? For the Lord does not reveal all things to all. But those who understood Rome are of earlier antiquity; whereas those who interpret the city as the multitude of the wicked are much more recent. Why then should we not prefer the former to the latter? And indeed Bellarmine, as I said, proved more convincingly that Rome is signified. But Salmeron, in the fifth prelude to the Apocalypse, also notes that it speaks sufficiently and yet obscurely about the city of Rome, which rests on seven hills. Our adversaries are not moved by the authority of those ancients enough to depart from their opinion. Therefore, let Stapleton not hope to deceive us.
13. But neither is the context well considered. For first, who will concede to Stapleton that the seven heads, seven mountains, and seven kings are one and the same? Indeed, John distinctly distinguished the mountains from the kings: both are signified by the mountains; but not both the same. “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come.” This means these seven heads signify seven mountains; and also signify seven kings. But five of these kings had fallen, one was, and one had not yet come. Therefore, he was not the five fallen, nor the one who had not yet come. And yet the woman sat upon the seven mountains. How then could she sit upon kings who were not? Therefore, the mountains and kings are not the same but different.
14. But who are these mountains and kings? Surely, [sarcastically] the Egyptians, Canaanites, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Antichrist. Quite fittingly. But Rupert of Deutz protests, in second place should be the Kingdom of the carnal Israelites, not the Canaanites. What? Is the entire city of the wicked really contained by naming these nations? For the Persians persecuted the Church even after Christ, and their kingdom was flourishing; yet Stapleton speaks of those Persians whose kings were Darius and Cyrus. What about their omission of the far more savage kingdom of the Turks? To say nothing of the Goths, Vandals, and others. Finally, Bishop Arethas of Caesarea counts quite differently: Nineveh, Chaldeans, Persians, Medes, Macedonians, Rome, Constantinople.
15. Therefore, he who understands the city comprised of all the wicked does not interpret but evades. What about pagan Rome? Bellarmine indeed proves that is the solution thus: If Christian Rome is understood, then already at that time, that is, in the time of John, the Roman Church had degenerated. Even then the Antichrist reigned. But this is false, therefore the other is also false. Moreover, if Christian Rome was Babylon, then why did Tertullian say in the Prescriptiones, “Blessed is the Church to whom the entire doctrine of the Apostle was poured out with his blood.” And Jerome in the second book, Against Jovinian, “I speak to you” (namely Rome) “where blasphemy was written on the forehead and you destroyed the confession of Christ.” Finally, John testifies that he speaks of Rome, which held dominion over the kings of the earth, and which was drunk with the blood of the saints and of the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. But these things [our opponents declare] do not apply, except to that [ancient] Rome which, under Nero and Domitian, slaughtered martyrs. And Dr. Nicholas Sanders carries out this argument more fully: who notes from Tertullian that because of the city’s grandeur, the pride of the Empire, and the blood of the saints, Rome is called Babylon; however, these three causes have long since ceased. For there are other cities greater than Rome, such as Milan, Paris, Cologne, Constantinople, Cairo; and the Empire has entirely departed from them; it has also ceased to persecute the saints.
16. Contrary to the Catholic so-called ‘solution,’ we first have John who says: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom but will receive power as kings for one hour along with the beast.” This cannot be understood of pagan Rome: for it is far from the truth that other kings received kingdoms together with the Roman Empire; rather, the Roman Empire took kingdoms away from other kings. Therefore, it must be understood of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, during which time the Antichrist was to exercise his authority. And this dissolution happened many years, even centuries later, after which Rome ceased to be pagan. Secondly, John describes in chapter eighteen the destruction of this Babylon, and he describes it in such a way that it cannot be understood of pagan Rome: “That great Babylon has fallen and has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison for every unclean spirit.” But at first, when Rome was pagan, it was not destroyed; but if it is to be destroyed, it can only happen when it was to become Christian. Secondly, when it ceased to be pagan, it did not become a dwelling place for demons, but rather for Christians and for the Church.
17. The first argument of the opponents is misleading. First, Rome was not yet Christian when John wrote these things but was immersed in the darkness of pagan idolatry. Next, even if he speaks of Christianity, it is not necessary that as soon as it became Christian it also became a harlot. For who does not know that the Prophets did not write a Chronology which distinctly distributes the events into ages and vast years? John himself is a witness, who immediately describes the destruction of Babylon and describes it not as if it were future, but as if it were present; which, however, was to happen many centuries later. It suffices, therefore, if we say that Rome, which was first pagan, then became Christian, will at last be the seat of Antichrist, in its own revealed time.
18. Regarding the second point, we deny those words of Tertullian are specifically about Rome; for they are about the Christian Church universally which he calls blessed because the Apostles poured out their entire doctrine into it. Furthermore, we deny Christian Rome was Babylon at the time when John wrote; but that it would be so when the Antichrist was about to take his seat there. Therefore, it was as truly possible to call it ‘blessed’ in Tertullian’s time (if indeed it was called so) as well as the other Churches to which the Gospel was entrusted. It could also be said that the blasphemy written on the forehead was erased by confessing Christ because, although John does not speak of pagan blasphemy, yet it was truly blasphemy. Therefore, Jerome could allude to this passage, even if not interpreting it properly. Indeed, John did not predict that Rome would erase that blasphemy, but rather that the blasphemy would perish along with it.
19. Regarding the third point, it is true that John testifies that he speaks of that Rome which was both a great city and ruled over others and persecuted the saints. But not all these things are to be understood in the same way. The greatness and Empire must be understood as they were at the beginning, that is, when John prophesied, so that the city would be more clearly marked and there would be no ambiguity; but not as it was foretold when the Antichrist would take his seat there. For in the preceding chapter it was proven that before the revelation of the Antichrist, the Empire was to be diminished. Therefore, the sense of the prophecy is that the very city which at that time was the greatest and most powerful, after it had been diminished and lost its Empire, would be the future seat of the Antichrist. Regarding the persecution of the saints, another explanation is given. For this is attributed to the woman sitting on the seven-headed beast, that is, on seven-hilled Rome. Therefore, this persecution is to be referred to the Antichrist, not to pagan emperors Nero, Domitian, or others. This mark of having made Rome antichristian we will prove in its place.
20. Therefore, there is nothing that compels us to understand Rome as pagan or not to understand Rome as Christian, that is, to interpret this prophecy concerning the city of Rome [as future], after it had renounced paganism and professed Christianity. Therefore, Bellarmine sought another loophole to evade. “Even if,” he says, “that woman was Christian Rome, it would not conclude the argument. For Antichrist will hate Rome and will desolate and burn it. From which it clearly follows that Rome will not be the seat of Antichrist.” And he proves it from John himself who predicts that the ten Kings who will divide the Roman Empire among themselves, and during whose reigns Antichrist will come, will hate the purple-clad harlot, and will make her desolate, and will even burn her with fire.
21. Indeed, Bellarmine, in his own way, asserts that which is most false. For it is nowhere clear that Antichrist will hate the city of Rome. But he clearly truncates the prophecy of John and perverts it. It is thus, “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have not yet received a kingdom: but they shall receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one counsel, and shall give their power and authority unto the beast. These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called and chosen and faithful. Then said he unto me, The waters which thou sawest where the whore sitteth are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will persecute the harlot with hatred, and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to do what pleases him and to agree with him, and to give their kingdom to the beast, that the words of God may be fulfilled.”
22. In this passage, Bellarmine presents a sinful and foul perspective that differs from the text of John. First, he assigns the feeling of hatred to the Antichrist, while John identifies it with the ten kings. Secondly, Bellarmine describes this hatred as something directed toward Rome in the future, whereas John attributes it to the harlot who committed adultery with the beast, interpreted as Rome. Thirdly, if the harlot and Rome are considered synonymous, Bellarmine seems to conflate the different periods that John distinguishes. He maintains that the kings initially will not oppose the beast but will transfer their power and authority to it, a view supported by [anti-Protestant] Caspar Schoppe, who refers to the phrase: το θηρίο και οἱ μίαν γνώμην ἔχουσι—”the beast and they have one mind.” Later, Bellarmine asserts that these same kings will act against the harlot. Recognizing the importance of distinguishing between periods is essential in this context. It follows that the Antichrist, or the harlot, is not counted among the ten kings or horns. Consequently, John’s account does not indicate that the Antichrist would be responsible for burning Rome.
CHAPTER FOUR
On the Temple of God
1. The matter concerning the seat of the Antichrist in Rome as described by John is concluded; now from Paul, who adds a distinguishing element in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, when he clearly says: ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὸ Θεόν ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι — “so that he sets himself in the temple of God as God.” By the temple of God, however, we understand the Church. Paul also says in the second epistle to the Ephesians, “In whom the whole building, fitly joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” And in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter three, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God? For the temple of God is holy, which you are.” Therefore, the explanation is easy.
2. This is also how the Fathers understood the passage when commenting on it. Chrysostom: “He will sit in the temple of God, not that of Jerusalem, but in the temple, the Church.” Or literally, “and also in the churches.” For even in Greek, Oecumenius better says: ἀλλὰ εἰς τὰς ἐκκλησίας (but into the churches). Theophylactus: “Not only in the temple of Jerusalem but in all churches and temples of God he will sit.” Theodoret: “But he called the temples of God the churches, in which he will take the primary seat.” Ambrose: “That he may sit in the house of the Lord in the seat of Christ.” Primasius: “That he may sit in the temple of God, showing that he himself is God, that is, that he himself is the Church: just as if it were said, he sits in the temple of God, showing that he himself is the temple of God.” Anselm: “And so he will be exalted to sit and command to be worshiped in the temple of God, perhaps that which is in Jerusalem; or rather he will sit in the temple of God, that is, in the minds of Christians whom he will deceive, who were the temple of God.” Cajetan: “Nor is any specific temple meant but in whatever temple of God is dedicated, he will sit as though dedicated to himself.” Cardinal Hugh Etherianus, De regressu animarum ab inferis, [On the return of Souls from Hell] chapter twenty-three: “He will sit in the temple of God, in the Church.”
3. Therefore, the temple of God is the Church, and in it the Antichrist must sit; that is, as Thomas [Aquinas] speaks, “to rule and dominate;” or as Theodoret says, “to seize the primary seat.” In summary, the Antichrist will exercise his dominion, not as tyrants once did against the Church of God, that is, against those who professed the faith of God while they themselves persisted in infidelity and for that very reason persecuted the Church because they professed infidelity; but rather within the Church of God, that is, inside the Church: so that the war is not external but internal, and almost civil; just as all heresies, which so apostatized from Christ and attacked the orthodox, yet did not want to appear to have come from outside the Church itself. Therefore, the author of the unfinished work on Matthew, Homily forty-nine, says, “The Antichrist is expected to come and obtain the holy places of the Churches under the appearance of Christ and to desolate many of the faithful.”
4. Now who would doubt that this mark suits the Roman Bishop? For he himself professes to be Christian; indeed, he calls his body the Christian, Catholic, Apostolic Church; so that there is no authentic and, so to speak, legitimate title of the true Church which he does not arrogate to himself. It is true that the Turk is the Antichrist by its general name because he cruelly persecutes Christ in His members and hates His doctrine even worse than a dog or serpent. But he cannot be this Antichrist because he is neither of Rome nor does he desire to be called Christian. Nero was once also considered the Antichrist for the same cruelty and hatred, and he sat in Rome; but he did not sit in the Church; indeed, he was an outsider to it. Therefore, he could not be the Antichrist spoken of here. But both marks suit the Roman Pontiff insofar as he professes the faith of Christ. Therefore, if the other marks correspond similarly, he must be the true Antichrist.
5. For what shall I say about dominion? Does the Pope not claim to be head of the Church? Is he not the Bishop of Bishops? The universal Bishop? The supreme judge of all controversies? The rule of faith? Indeed, is it not asserted that it is necessary for the salvation of every creature to submit to him? Does he not himself call himself the bridegroom of the Church? Innocent III, in his third sermon at the consecration of a Pontiff, says, “He who has a bride is a bridegroom. Am I not a bridegroom? And is not each of you a friend of the bridegroom? Certainly, a bridegroom because I have the noble, rich, and exalted; beautiful, chaste, gracious, most holy Roman Church; which, God disposing, is the mother and teacher of all the faithful. With her I have a sacramental marriage. With her I have a nuptial commerce.”
6. What do the Sophists oppose here? First, let us listen to Bellarmine’s foolishness, aside from the controversy indeed. But still, from the occasion of this argument, they make idols of their own delights. For although I do not willingly admit that I will stray from the question, nonetheless, it deserves a festive recognition of the wit of the Jester, so that it is not entirely neglected. But we will immediately return to the point from which we diverged. “Antichrist,” he says, “will sit in the Church of Christ, and there will be considered her head and prince, and he will hold magistracy and offices in it. And the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist: therefore, the Pope of Rome sits in the true Church of Christ. But this is one and the same: therefore, all those who are separated from the Church which is under the Pope are outside the true Church of Christ.”
[N. B. I now cite from the translation of Bellarmine’s Book 3, Of the Pope, Chapter 13, Antichrist’s Seat, by the Jesuit Michael Walpole which is much clearer: “Notwithstanding the true opinion, that Jerusalem and not Rome, shall be the seat of Antichrist, and the Temple of Solomon, and Throne of Dauid, not the Temple of St. Peter, or the Sea Apostolic, which we can prove in two ways: First, with an argument ad hominem. Secondly, out of the Scripture and Fathers.
“First then I make this [ad hominem] argument: Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ and shall be accompted the Prince and head of his Church and shall have Magistracy and offices in it, as Melanchthon, Calvin, Illyricus and all other Sects of this time do teach: But the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, as they themselves also teach in the same places. Therefore, the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ and is the Prince and head of his Church. But the Church of Christ can only be one, as Christ is one, as Calvin also teacheth. Therefore, the Lutherans and Calvinists are outside of the true Church.”
7. Φοῦ τῆς ἀγχινοίας! [Sophist nonsense!] Others were also pleased. So much so that they sought victory through the fire. Αλλ᾿ ἐγὼ πολλῶν ἀκοδσας, οἶδαθρίων τον ψόφον. [But I, having heard many, know the noise of thieves.] The argument proceeds as follows: The seat of the Antichrist is the Church. But the Roman Church is the seat of the Antichrist; therefore, the Roman Church is the true Church. In the first place, there is more in the conclusion than in the premise. For when it was posited that the Antichrist would sit in the Church of Christ, it was concluded that the Roman Pope sits in the true Church of Christ. However, in reality it is not the Church of Christ, nor the true Church, yet such [imprecise] usage has prevailed that even certain false churches are called Churches of Christ, such as those of heretics who claim that name for themselves.
8. Next is the fallacy of agreement. For it is falsely said that the seat of the Antichrist is the Church in the matching and same sense; for it cannot at the same time be both the seat of the Antichrist and the [true] Church of Christ; but in the divided sense it is true. For what was once the Church of Christ later became the seat of the Antichrist. As with the prophet Isaiah: “How is the faithful city become a harlot?” It is absurd to join them together so as to understand it is both a harlot and faithful city at the same time. When separated, it is quite certain that what was once faithful eventually became a harlot. Thus, [the expressions] the blind see; the mute speak; the deaf hear; and many similar things. John Eudæmon [the Jesuit L’Heureux] in his first book against [Protestant Bishop of Salisbury] Robert Abbot says, “From the very words of the Apostle, it can be sufficiently concluded that it is not [truly] called a temple or Church because it would then serve divine worship, but because that which was dedicated to God is converted to profane uses: for if that sacrilegious person must show himself in the temple of God, demonstrating himself as if he were God, he will surely convert what was once divine religion to profane uses.”
9. Therefore, we confess that the Roman Church was once the true Church of Christ; from the beginning when Paul praised its faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world; and thereafter for several centuries when it retained the true doctrine, combated heresies, and even gave martyrs. And at that time, we deny it was the seat of the Antichrist; blessed would it have been if it had retained that state. But it did not retain it; rather, it suffered such corruption that it preserved almost nothing of its former integrity. Indeed, it assumed morals unworthy of Christianity and introduced doctrine alien to Christian truth. So we recognize it became the seat of the Antichrist and ceased to be the Church of Christ, unless you call it ‘Church’ homonymously. However, we say that when this change was made it did not utterly remove or destroy every aspect of what constitutes a Church; which happened to Turkey. Thus, the Antichrist would not sit in the [true, biblical] Church; but we recognize some traces preserved, as if ruins of a destroyed Church, such as the very name and external profession, and whatever else there is. As Calvin rightly said, “Just as buildings are often destroyed so that foundations and ruins remain, so God did not permit Antichrist either to subvert His Church from its foundation or to level it to the ground, but was pleased that amid the devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins” (Institutes IV, chapter 2, paragraph 11).
10. [Our adversaries respond]: “Calvin’s reasoning is without sharpness, unless he renews his acumen. If only ruins remain of the Church of Christ (he says), then Christ’s Church has fallen; and the truth, which said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, is false. Furthermore, if the Church has fallen, and its ruins, foundation, indeed, the half-ruined building itself are held by the Papists, then Lutherans and Calvinists have no Church at all.”
11. I respond to their first point: The Church of Christ is to be understood, namely as situated in a local place: that is, particular Churches; such as the Ephesian, Alexandrian, Corinthian, Constantinopolitan, and finally the Roman. And if otherwise there was doubt, this Antichrist controversy should have made it certain. How so? Is it not certain that the Antichrist would come? Did Paul not also foretell apostasy? Therefore, what Christ said—that the gates of hell shall not prevail—cannot be taken to mean that nothing in the external state of the Church will ever diminish. For Christ Himself declares that when He comes He will scarcely find faith. The Church will not completely (ὁλογερῶς) perish in a literal sense; yet there are times when it will seem to have perished: and thus, in certain places, it perishes altogether, so that in no way is the divine promise false.
To the second point I respond: Papists hold that the ruin of the Church occurs in certain locales; whereas Catholics [i.e., Universal non-Papist Christians] maintain that the Church is whole because it is not judged by places or persons but by the sincerity of faith and the sacraments. Those who hold this truth, hold the entire Church intact, while the others hold only the semblance. But this question will find its proper place elsewhere.
12. Let us come to the matter itself. First, Bellarmine denies that in the Scripture of the New Testament the Churches of Christians are ever understood by the Temple of God; indeed, what is greater, he also denies that the Greek and Latin Fathers for several centuries ever called the Churches of Christians ‘temples,’ that is, ναός, but rather called them churches (ἐκκλησίας), basilicas, or martyria.
13. But this is child’s play, not a serious solution. The Jesuit names as temples those places commonly now called churches, that is, buildings made for the purpose of exercising their religion. In this sense, you will never find the noun ‘Church’ named in the New Testament. But our argument does not concern these churches but understands the very assembly (σύναγμα) of men who profess themselves to be the Church of God, whether they are gathered in one place or dispersed throughout their own houses. In this sense, it has been proven that the Temple of God in the Scriptures is called the Church. In the same sense, it is also called the House of God: for the phrase is borrowed from the Old Church [i.e., Israel] which called its temple the House of God; there was no other name. Therefore, that passage in 1 Timothy 3, about dwelling in the house of God, is equivalent to dwelling in the temple of God; that is, the Church—not a certain place, whether large or small, but among men who profess to worship God rightly.
14. Yet again, as Salmeron states in the disputation on the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, anyone who sits within the Church of God, which is considered the temple of God, may be considered. Therefore, the Apostles and the Old Testament Fathers would also be labeled Antichrists since they occupied the Chairs in Churches, rather than being outside the Church. Stapleton agrees with this as well. Therefore, they say, It does not necessarily mean that the Pope is the Antichrist simply because he sits in the Church and claims a title for himself and his Church, any more than Calvinists, Lutherans, or any other sect—or even any true Church of Christ—are the Antichrist. Every Church, whether true or false, asserts it and its members are the true Church.
15. I respond: first, regarding the true Church, it cannot be said that it sits in the Church of God; for that would be absurd, since what sits must be different from where it sits. Secondly, we admit that the consequence “He sits in the temple of God, therefore he is the Antichrist” is not necessary. Nor do we use that; as we stated in the first chapter, our only argument in this controversy is taken from all the marks of the Antichrist together: as often happens when an exact definition of something is not given, but rather a detailed description is provided piece by piece. Therefore, we deal only with individual marks, so as to prove step by step the assumption that the Ecumenical Pontiff possesses all the marks of the Antichrist. Thus, opponents should not strive in responding to show that the first principal conclusion does not follow, but rather to demonstrate that each mark separately and by itself does not apply to their Ecumenical Pontiff.
CHAPTER FIVE
On the Doctrine of Antichrist
1. The matter of the Time of the coming of the Antichrist has been dealt with. Likewise, the matter of his Seat has been addressed, that is, first the place where he was to establish his seat; then the Church from which he is thought to depart. Now, we proceed to the remaining marks, which describe him more closely. To these I refer the doctrine, the manner of teaching, the life, and the authority.
2. And as for doctrine: Paul calls him ὁ ἀντικείμενος, ‘the one who opposes,’ which is the primary meaning of the name Antichrist. If he opposes Christ, then certainly his doctrine must be opposed to the doctrine of Christ; otherwise, if his teaching agreed with Christ, he could not be an adversary. Therefore, John marked the Antichrists by doctrine in the second chapter of the first [Epistle]: “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.” And in the fourth [chapter], “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” Moreover, the ancients called heresies the army of the Antichrist for this reason. Again, John in Revelation 13 says, “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” According to Benedictine monk Haimo of Auxerre, “Just as formerly the devil spoke evil persuasively to the woman through the serpent, by whom he deceived the man; so these also by their corrupt doctrine deceive all whom they can to separate them from the faith of Christ.”
3. Paul also says that the Apostasy must come first [2 Thess. 2:3 ἀποστασία]. And some interpret this Apostasy as a defection from the Roman Empire, such as Ambrose, Jerome, and Tertullian. However, others, indeed many, interpret it as a defection from the faith. Chrysostom calls it αυτόν καλεῖ τὰς ὑποστασίαν, meaning many are about to fall away and defect, and if possible, scandalize even the elect. He calls this a defection because he was about to destroy many and lead them to defection, so much so that if it were possible, even the elect would be scandalized. Similarly, Oecumenius says, ὑποστασίαν αυτόν λέγει τὸν αὐτέχειν, referring to a great falling away under Christ or the Apostasy itself under God’s departure. He calls this Apostasy the Antichrist itself, as one who was about to lead many away from Christ; or that very separation from God.
No different is the opinion of Theophylactus. And Theodoret says, “He called the Apostasy by the name Antichrist: for it tries to lead away from the truth, causing them to fall away.” Augustine, in the City of God, book 20, chapter 19, calls him “the one who flees: certainly, from the Lord God,” in addition to other more recent authors. And this is, truly, more probable: for Paul commonly uses this term in the third to the Hebrews: “to fall away from the living God.” And more explicitly in the first to Timothy, chapter 4, “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will depart from the faith.”
4. However, some dispute whether the Apostasy itself is understood as the Antichrist, or rather something distinct from him: namely, that Paul is said to have predicted both the Apostasy from God and also the Antichrist himself. And, truly, both meanings are admitted by the words of the Apostle. For it can either be in a general sense, as the Schoolmen say, or even individual parts may signify something distinct, indeed, even different. And to me, the latter seems more probable if we can judge anything from the event which has already come to pass. For not only the Latin Church has departed from the purity of the Christian faith, but also the Greek and Oriental Churches have defected, which, nevertheless, do not submit to the Roman Bishop. Therefore, if the Antichrist is here, then that Apostasy, which is to come before the coming of Christ, must be understood more broadly than the kingdom of the Antichrist. This is no easy matter to discern. It is certain that the Antichrist will be an apostate, or, as Augustine says, one who flees, a fugitive—that is, one who will propose a doctrine alien to the doctrine of Christ; but he will propose it not as a pagan or Turk, but as one who was formerly Christian who now teaches or embraces contrary doctrine after departing from that faith, which is true apostasy.
5. And yet, because Paul simply named it the Apostasy, which is much more than if he had called it merely a defection, we, therefore, understand not only false doctrine but also a certain corruption of doctrine, opposing the faith; that is, not as happened with the ancient heretics, who themselves were certainly antichrists, by whom only certain articles of faith were perverted—for example, by the Arians the unity of the Godhead, by the Samaritans the Trinity, by the Eutychians the duality of Christ’s natures, by the Nestorians the unity of the person—all are very different in their heresies, yet they certainly overturned the principal articles of our faith.
6. However, that is still not enough. The ancients rightly note that it is called Apostasy because not only will he himself depart from the faith, but he will also lead many others away with him. Which John signified in the thirteenth chapter, “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth.” And in the seventeenth, “With whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” Again, “Having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and the impurity of her fornication. And on her forehead was written: Mystery, Babylon the great, mother of fornications and abominations of the earth.”
7. Therefore, all these things must be found in the one whom we assert to be worthy of the name of Antichrist; and if these are found in the Roman Pontiff, we assign no reason why, without blasphemy, we should not call him the Antichrist. Truly, if we consider the kings and inhabitants of the earth, I think no one will raise a dispute. For it has long been conceded to the world that every soul is subject to the Bishop [of Rome] for the necessity of salvation. And indeed, Papists measure their Catholicity solely by the multitude of peoples. Bellarmine, in his fourth book, chapter 7, De Ecclesia militante, says: “In our time, the Roman Church, besides Italy and all Spain, besides Gaul, Germany, England, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Greece, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt—in which many Catholics are found—has Churches without admixture of heretics in the new world itself, in all four parts of the world: to the East in India, to the West America; to the North in Japan; to the South in Brazil and the outer part of Africa.” See Franciscan Bishop of Asti, Francesco Panigarola in Disputation three; and many others. Therefore, not only will the Pope be an Apostate, but Papism will be Apostasy, if this multitude of kings and peoples has been led away from the faith of Christ.
8. Therefore, what remains to be proven is that he [the Pope of Rome] has departed from the faith of Christ; and although this is the effort of our entire work, in which all the controversies between Catholics [i.e., universal Christians] and Papists are disputed, I may rightly refer readers there, so that I remain silent about so many great men, distinguished both in piety and doctrine, who have through their most praised labors brought us a torch; if from them the heresies of the Romanists are not detected and demonstrated, then certainly nothing better and clearer has ever been demonstrated to anyone. Nevertheless, it helps here to present readers with a certain synopsis of all the chapters in which the audacity of the Papists has violated Scripture piece by piece. However, diligent readers will seek proofs from the treatment of each individual controversy.
9. The first controversy is the common place called the Canon of Faith: in which the heresy of the Papists knows no end. First, they deny that Scripture is anειβή ζυγὸν καὶ κανένα ἀπτώτων, [a reliable yoke and an unerring rule], that is, “a certain and exact rule for all,” which pertains to Religion. Secondly, they regulate the Scriptures by the Church, instead of regulating the Church by the Scriptures: that is, the Church is the norm of faith. Thirdly, the Pope is the supreme judge of all controversies. Fourthly, they deny any authority to the Scriptures, as we do, except a precarious one, freely granted by the Church. Fifthly, they contend that the Church can add new books to the canon. Sixthly, they added some non-canonical books to the Canon from the very beginning. Seventhly, [they allege the] Canon of Scriptures is imperfect and contains only a small part of the truth divinely revealed. Eighthly, traditions, that is, dogmas of faith which have no foundation in Scriptures, are to be embraced with equal faith as Scripture and obtain equal authority with it. Ninthly, proposing Scriptures to the people to read and meditate upon is neither necessary, suitable, nor useful: indeed, it is dangerous and harmful. Tenth, translating Scriptures into common languages is a source of heresy, and those who do so deserve ill treatment concerning the Christian Religion. Eleventh, they deny that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New are authentic. Twelfth, they want the Greek edition of the Septuagint and Jerome’s Latin edition to be authentic. Thirteenth, [they allege] Scriptures have multiple senses in the same words. Fourteenth, Scriptures are very obscure. Fifteenth, not all faithful should interpret Scriptures, that is, inquire into the meaning of Scriptures. Sixteenth, there is no certain interpretation of Scripture derived from Scripture.
10. The second common place in which we differ greatly is about God, both triune and incarnate. Here the Papists deny:
(1) First, that the Son and the Holy Spirit is God αὐτόθεον [God of Himself].
(2) Second, they deny that God has any hand in evil works.
(3) Third, the providence of all things is certain and immovable.
(4) Fourth, predestination is an act of the divine will.
(5) Fifth, that there are any predestined to damnation.
(6) Sixth, that the soul of Christ grew in wisdom before God and men.
(7) Seventh, that Christ’s soul suffered any torments for us except out of compassion for His body.
(8) Eighth, that Christ is mediator insofar as He is God incarnate.
(9) Ninth, that He is the only mediator.
(10) Tenth, that He is the only head of the Church.
(11) Eleventh, that only God is to be worshipped; For not only δελείαν [religious worship], but also λατρεία [adoration/worship] is shared with certain creatures.
11. The third common place [in which we have grave differences] is about Man. Here they deny:
(1) that whatever is against the law of God is sin.
(2) Concupiscence is sin.
(3) All sins are mortal in themselves.
(4) that the Virgin Mary was a sinner.
(5) that human free will is not equally inclined toward both sides [good & evil].
(6) that eternal life is not earned by the merits of works.
(7) that man is not justified by faith alone.
(8) that there is no such thing as implicit faith, that is, faith without knowledge.
(9) faith is a certain assent.
(10) that satisfaction for sins cannot be made both by one’s own merits and by the intercession of others.
(11) that the whole law of God cannot be fulfilled by a regenerated man here on earth.
(12) that supererogatory works cannot also be performed, that is, those which are not required by the Law.
(13) That this postulate is a lie: after this life, not all the redeemed immediately enter eternal life but instead suffer for a long period of time in Purgatory.
(14) That this postulate is a lie: the Fathers believed that even the fully purified were not admitted into Paradise after death; but were enclosed in Limbo.
(15) That this postulate is a lie: the children of the faithful dying before Baptism cannot be saved and are cast into some unknown place called Limbo.
12. The fourth common place [we differ] is regarding the Sacraments.
(1) They assign an opus operatum [‘work done’ due to inherent grace despite the worthiness of the priest] to the Sacraments.
(2) They consider the old Sacraments empty of salvation; as if they only boasted of promises.
(3) They increase the number of Sacraments by adding five by their own authority.
(4) They make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation.
(5) They grant the authority to baptize not only to men but also to women, in cases of necessity, as they say.
(6) They burden Baptism with countless ceremonial trifles.
(7) They teach this effect of Baptism: that not only are sins forgiven but also nothing remains in man that has the nature of sin.
(8) They do not even leave the name Eucharist by which it is signified in Scripture, namely the Lord’s Supper.
(9) They remove the signs from the Eucharist, namely bread and wine.
(10) They place the real Body of Christ in infinite places.
(11) They teach that bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body of Christ.
(12) They take away the use of the other species from the laity.
(13) They pretend that the species of bread is the communion of the Blood of Christ and the chalice is the communion of the Body, contrary to 1 Corinthians 11:14.
(14) They omit most of communion in the Eucharist to be celebrated because only the Priest swallows the offerings, while the rest only look on.
(15) They consider the Sacrament outside its true and proper use for which it was instituted.
(16) They adore [worship as God] the Sacrament.
(17) They think that the Body of Christ is eaten orally, corporally, sensually and that the blood is drunk.
(18) They make that communion of the Body of Christ which takes place in the Eucharist momentary and measure it by the goodness of the stomach; whose heat, with corrupted species, they think dissolves it.
(19) They assert that the Body and Blood of Christ are eaten not only by the faithful but also by infidels and hypocrites; indeed, even by brutes.
(20) They condemn some who have truly communicated with Christ.
(21) They say the Mass is a sacrifice for sins by virtue of opus operatum.
(22) They celebrate Mass for the dead.
13. The fifth common place [in which we differ] concerns the Church. They claim:
(1) The Catholic Church is always visible.
(2) Its marks are not the Word and the Sacraments.
(3) The Catholic Church is Roman, and the others are falsely so called.
(4) The visible Church cannot err.
(5) The authority of the Church is more certain than the authority of Scripture.
These are general differences. Now I speak concerning parts of the Church, namely Laity and Clergy.
(6) They teach that Marriage is a work of the flesh and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(7) Marriage is not dissolved by adultery.
(8) Clerics, at least of higher orders, contract marriage more sinfully than commit fornication.
(9) Clerics are not subject to political authority.
(10) There should not be both a Bishop and a Presbyter.
(11) The election of Ministers does not pertain to the people.
(12) The election of Bishops depends on the Roman Pontiff.
(13) No one should be deposed for fornication.
(14) Kings do not reign except by the will of the Roman Bishop.
(15) It is the right of the Roman Bishop to give, take away, and transfer Kingdoms.
(16) Christians can be distinguished and separated by various names into different professions of various religions.
(17) These professions are states of perfection.
Now about exercises of piety.
(18) Public exercises [worship] must be done in an unknown language, for example Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin but not any commonly known language.
(19) Private exercises are also more holy.
(20) Fasting is a meritorious work.
(21) At any time, food should not be used because of Religion.
(22) Many feasts are rightly said to honor the Saints.
(23) Temples are also religiously consecrated to them.
(24) They are rightly not only praised but also invoked.
14. Do you see how great a pile of errors there is? And yet, I have not followed through on all of them in detail. For about the five counterfeit Sacraments, I said nothing: nothing about various heads of idolatry; nothing about Vows; nothing about Councils; nothing about their Judgments; nothing about various articles pertaining to the authority of the Pope. Indeed, I passed over many things; which, if God grants, may be treated in this Library of Controversies, and yet you see how great a heap has been made. Never has there been so great a one responsible for so many heresies, when all heresies were formerly pronounced and judged illegal by the Church. What shall we say today about Papism? Certainly, we can pronounce with good conscience that in the whole Christian faith, there is hardly anything sound among the Papists. Not that we condemn all things universally; and reject whatever is taught by them; which had perhaps been perversely done by [the heretical] Trinitarians and some others. But the number of their dogmas which are not perverse is small; and that they are, in a marvelous way, obscured by various fraudulent signs.
15. And indeed, it must first be noted that they do not only pervert doctrine in their teachings but also raise significant disputes concerning the very dogma and its Canon. As a result, their salvation is most hopeless. For just as it is hardly possible to despair of human life when the vital and noble parts are healthy, so too, if true principles are established, we should not hastily despair of restoring those who have gone astray. But regarding the Papists, unless we believe that God can know all things—including those things which even man cannot conceive—we can hardly entertain any hope concerning them. For even today, Jesuits so instruct their followers that when you first appeal to the authority of Scripture, they immediately object: Who knows if that Scripture is the Word of God? That word, having come from the mouth of a Heathen, surprises no one, even if it causes horror to hear it. For the Heathens once made a business of challenging Christians, forcing them to prove their religious axioms. But has anyone ever heard Christian opponents [of other Christians] doing the same? Certainly no one except those who, like mathematicians, deny their own axioms or challenge their commonly accepted notions.
16. Secondly, it is to be observed that once first principles are attacked, scarcely any part of Ecclesiastical doctrine remains unassailed; for he who has once transgressed the bounds of modesty, they say, must necessarily be shameless. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity has hitherto been the one that has remained sounder than the rest. And certainly, at first, we did not think there would be a quarrel with the Papists on this matter; and Lorichius the Jesuit in Fortalitium Fidei, [N.B. Modern scholarship now attributes Fortress of Faith to Alphonsus de Spina, a Franciscan friar], when speaking about God, says: “Omitting,” he says, “the heresy of the new Trinitarians, long ago condemned and overthrown by the whole Christian world; the other heretics of these times openly profess no heresy against the Christian faith concerning the unity and Trinity of God, and related matters.” But first [Italian physiologist Santorio] Sanctesius, then [French Benedictine exegete, Gilbert] Genebrard, afterwards many Jesuits; then [French Franciscan theologian] François Feuardent and countless others, have stirred up amazing tragedies concerning πεὶ τὸ αὐτεσίς (selfhood); and while they strive to undermine everything in Calvin, they betray themselves as new heretics who deny that the essence by which the Son is (not the person, but God) exists from Himself: in this matter Bellarmine candidly acknowledges no fault in Calvin; except perhaps regarding the manner of speaking.
17. But all the remaining parts of Christianity are, in some degree or another, polluted. There is no corruption of man that is not ingrained in them; nor is sin properly understood. Restoration and redemption are stained by various tinctures. Not even the means by which they are preserved remains unspoiled. Finally, there is nothing sound about either the reward of faith or the punishments of sins. Neither discipline, whether for private individuals of the faithful, or the Church collectively, is left uncorrupted and trampled underfoot. Once in Rome, someone in Rome stated it is certain that hardly anyone could recognize Christianity in the midst of [so-called] Christianity, until after darkness, God sent His light into the world.
18. Therefore, as far as doctrine is concerned, there is no sound reason why the Roman Bishop should not be recognized as the very Antichrist. Nor is there anything to oppose this; except that stubbornness by which they maintain that individual articles are Catholic and Orthodox: a struggle, as I said, that is perpetual in this our Library, besides the fact that others have already, most praisefully [thanks to God], departed from it.
CHAPTER SIX
The arguments the Papists use to refute the accusations of Apostasy
1. We had no opposition from our adversaries, except Dominican theologian Francesco Silvestri da Ferrara, who, being powerless, departed from us [1528] awaiting the judgment of God. Therefore, he fights against us with various arguments, none of which should be overlooked. First, he accuses us of imputing this Apostasy to the Church itself: whereas both Scripture and the Fathers describe this as occurring among those who would desert the Church and withdraw from its communion. But he argues nothing but nonsense. For in what sense does he use the term ‘Church?’ Formally or materially? [N. B. “Formal arguments are about whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises, whereas material arguments are about whether the premises and conclusion are actually true.”] For if formally, then truly, where was his right mind when he said that we accuse the Church of defection? Our good mind has never failed us so much that when we know [for a fact] Apostasy is a departure from the Church, so that we should say the Church has departed from itself, which not even [the mythological] Choroebus would believe.
2. But if he understands the Church materially, then truly let this Sophister deny that he was among them. For no Apostasy can be conceived except the Church named materially, that is, among those who were [members of] the Church: or rather, it cannot be denied that the Churches of the East have apostatized from the faith. And it is false, either according to the Fathers or according to Scripture, that there has been any contradiction to the said Scripture or Word. Therefore, in this sense we say that a departure has been made, so that what was called Christianity, indeed, is still called Christianity, and is called the Church, has departed from the faith: so that in Greece, even now, they are called churches and Christians, who are, nonetheless, said to have departed from the faith, although [they have adhered to Scripture] far more closely than in Italy. And Francesco ought to have opposed this or remained silent.
3. But he argues that the Roman Catholic Church is not guilty of this Apostasy using nine arguments. The first is that the Antichrist’s Apostasy will suppress all other apostasies and will subject the converted world to himself, and no other apostasies will arise after his, the worst of all. But nothing of this kind has yet happened. Therefore, neither has the Antichrist come, nor is the Papal Church guilty of the Apostasy of the Antichrist. The proof is largely borne out by five points. The first: because all heresies were preludes to his Apostasy. The second: because the Antichrist will subjugate the whole world to himself and will be drunk with the wine of his fornication. The third: because this persecution of the Church will be the last. Fourth: because the mystery of iniquity is composed of all heresies against the divine and human nature of Christ; even the very nature of God and the fundamental principles of the Gospel. Fifth: because the very Apostasy itself must be worse than that mystery of iniquity, since evil advances to worse, like a cancer.
4. He proves the minor, both because there are many heresies even today: such as, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Jews, and Mohammedans, and not one of these has extinguished the name of the others. Also, because if Papism were the Apostasy of the Antichrist: then the Papist faith would be the worst of all that have ever existed.
5. I respond that there are both ambiguities and falsehoods in the major premise. First, in what sense did he say that other heresies are suppressed? Heresies in the broad sense, that is, any that have appeared in general; or heresies properly so called, which retain the name of Christianity? Then, does ‘suppressed’ mean absolutely, so that no others at all exist; or relatively, that although others exist, they are of small importance compared to this one? For if he meant heresies in the first sense; we deny the major premise or anything stated from which it follows that while the Antichrist reigns nothing either now or in the future will dissent from him in the whole world; or that such dissenters are not to be considered. For the fact that heresies were preludes of the Antichrist was said in the second sense of heresies; not all human opinions concerned religion. But if he understands heresies in this second sense; and by ‘suppressed’ means ‘not existing,’ again we deny the major premise. Indeed, heresies were preludes of the Antichrist, but it does not necessarily follow that none should exist while the Antichrist reigns. For even the Papists acknowledge that there have been various heresies of Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians in the East, and that Mohammedanism was a prelude; yet Francesco admits that these very heresies still exist along with Mohammedanism. Now if he says they should be suppressed comparatively; although even here there is no necessity, yet it can be admitted by us; and indeed, it is true that before the Apostasy of Papism, all other heresies which retain the name of Christianity are almost nothing and barely named. Therefore, there is no impediment from this to the effect that the Pope is not the Antichrist.
6. We deny it is predicted that the Antichrist will subject the whole world to himself; but rather that he will sit in the temple of God; whence it follows that he will not extend himself further than the name of Christianity. We concede that he will intoxicate peoples with his wine; but Scripture does not say all. So, for him to intoxicate peoples, it is enough that he intoxicates many. This has happened. Therefore, not even from this premise is there any obstacle to our argument.
7. The Scripture does not say that after the heresy of the Antichrist, no other would arise. Although this can be understood in two ways. First, after the Antichrist; second, after the destruction of the Antichrist. And this we can concede because that destruction will be at the end of the world. Therefore, it is not yet fulfilled; hence it is irrelevant. Or it may be understood after the Antichrist, that is, after the heresy raised by him, or Apostasy. This we deny has ever been predicted. For what is established is that the persecution of the Antichrist will be the last, which is quite different: for not all heresies persecute the Church because persecution signifies external force and tyranny, not deceit or falsehood. Furthermore, even if the Church were persecuted, nothing would prevent it, provided that it is not after the cessation of the tyranny of the Antichrist. For those persecutions would cease before the Antichrist ceased to persecute. Even if they had persecuted before, still, the persecution of the Antichrist would be no less the last.
8. The Scripture does not say the future Apostasy of the Antichrist would be the worst of all; but only described it with such marks by which anything most dreadful can be described. Therefore, even if it were conceded that Turkism is no less detestable, nevertheless, the Pope would not cease to be the Antichrist. Nor would it be true that Antichristianism consists of all heresies. Who then could exist if these mutually destroy each other? Therefore, it is enough if there is hostility with some. And this has already happened: for we say that the chief foundations of the Gospel are overthrown in Papism and we prove this sufficiently at length in this whole work.
9. To confirm the lesser, the part which asserts that many heresies are present, or that it has not eliminated the names of all others: there is no need to defend against anything newly arisen. But he is truly foolish; who, in opposing what is regarded as absurd, proves it to be absurd without any argument. Why? Did he think it as certain that just as the sun shines at noon Papism is not the worst Apostasy? Or if he believed it ambiguous, indeed acknowledged it could be asserted; why is he so silent on this point? Let him be pleased with his own Apostasy: and if wrath has blinded his mind, others are therefore blind as well.
10. The second argument is a childish declamation. If Papism is the Apostasy of the Antichrist: then there was no ministry of the Word, no administration of the Sacraments, no legitimate calling of pastors.
11. But the [non-Papist universal Christians] Catholics deny the consequence. They know that all these things can exist amid heresy and among Apostates. But if we, being declared the Apostates, deny this, why did Francesco, and why did his patron, James Davius, now a Cardinal, not renounce the Baptism received among us [Protestants] (whom he claims caused the Apostasy); and why did they not order themselves to be baptized again? Let them see to that. The author of the imperfect work, in the forty-ninth homily on Matthew, writes: “All these things which properly belong to Christ truly exist, and even those heretics in schism, likewise have churches, likewise the divine Scriptures, likewise Bishops, and other orders of Clergy, likewise Baptism, likewise the Eucharist, and all other things; indeed, Christ Himself.”
12. Their third argument. The author of this Apostasy is either the Pope, or he is not. If the former, then the authority of the Pope, as it is now, was present twelve hundred years ago when he presided over the whole Catholic Church above the Patriarchs and Councils and even the entire world. This is proven from the fact that he caused all to admit his doctrine [was orthodox] against which his adversaries now dispute. Again, if the Pope is the author of this [so-called ancient] Apostasy: then he is not Antichrist. The reason for the consequence is that he was not that Antichrist prior, contrary to what our adversaries think [because his rule and doctrine was well accepted by all]. So, it is not from him, but from ancient centuries past: from the communion of the universal [Catholic] Church of the East, West, and South. Therefore, this Apostasy would be of the ancient Church, not of the Roman Church.
13. I respond that the dilemma is ridiculous, of which one part is useless to the question: for it does not conclude that the Pope is not the Antichrist; but only that his authority has existed for a long time. Secondly, the consequence of this very part is inept: nor does the reasoning favor it because he could have deceived the world by other means, not authority: just as the Arian heresy spread far and wide. Although even that is not true, when you claim he caused all to agree to his doctrine; for it was only those in the West, and not even all of them. The second consequence is also troublesome. What is the sense, I ask? If the Apostasy was not prior to the Antichrist, then it will not be that of the Antichrist? Indeed, it would rather be more his future apostasy, if it were posterior, and by him as author.
14. But we first distinguish the Apostasy itself from the dogmas of Apostasy. We must deny that all dogmas originate from him; but that dogmas invented by others can be assumed by him for his own uses: just as Mohammed is said to have taken various opinions from various sects before him and used them for his own purposes. Those who say that various heresies were preludes of the Antichrist acknowledge this: or, as Francesco says, the Antichrist received into himself all heresies, just as the ocean receives all rivers. Next, we conceive the Apostasy itself as a departure already formed, as they say, and call it the Antichrist [and his kingdom], just as a kingdom is of a king: namely, that [the Antichrist is an apostate king who] presides over his [apostate] kingdom with the highest right, whether he instituted it or received it from elsewhere. Nor does Scripture describe the Antichrist otherwise. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not say that this Apostasy speaks of the Roman Pope, over which we know and see him preside over [his kingdom, the Roman Church] as if his own; and so much his own that he does not disdain to be called by its name: for he also calls the Church ‘Roman;’ nor do the Papists hear him unwillingly.
15. But that is altogether ridiculous: “If the Apostasy is not from the Roman Bishop, then it must be from ancient centuries with the communion of the whole Church.” As if these were mutually exclusive, so that it is necessary, if it is not from the Pope, then it must be from ancient centuries; or from the communion of the whole Church. But in truth, we deny this, and say that either may be true, or both may stand well together. Certainly, there were departures before the tyranny of the Pope was formed; which he abused; and yet they were not from ancient centuries; least of all from the communion of the whole Church.
16. Their fourth argument: If this Apostasy had already occurred and pertained to the Roman Church, then the Catholic [i.e., Universal] Church would have been nonexistent for twelve centuries. But this is absurd. Therefore, that conclusion is also absurd. The consequence is proven [they claim] because this Apostasy is said to be universal [due to the teachings of] Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Vignier, James, King of Britain, Du Moulin and others. The premise is proven by the authority of Melanchthon; the Helvetic, Anglican, Belgic, Augustan, Saxon, and Wittenberg Confessions.
17. I respond by denying their consequence. For indeed, it is established and to be held as an article of faith that the Catholic [universal] Church never perishes. For this name signifies the Church formally, that is, what the Church is; we shall speak more extensively on this in its place, if God grants us to reach that point. But for the Church to perish signifies either one of two things: either (1) there is a time it has no elect of God; or (2) the elect become reprobate. But both are impossible, because of the certainty of divine election and mercy.
18. To prove the [true] consequence; the Apostasy is called universal, not absolutely but comparatively: namely, to imply it is unlike other apostasies, which invaded certain members here and there; whereas this apostasy affects the whole body itself: not only in the East, but simultaneously in the West and South. However, its elect remain with God, certain, and known. In this way it does not follow that the Catholic Church itself will perish but only the individuals who belonged to the Catholic Church; that is, those men of whom the Christian Churches consisted. Therefore, Calvin, whose name is clearly abused by the adversary, calls Apostasy “a defection from God of many, not of one or a few; but one which spreads far and wide in a greater multitude of people. For when the term ‘Apostasy’ is used without addition it cannot be restricted to a few. Now no others can be understood as Apostates except those who previously gave their names to Christ and the Gospel. Therefore, Paul foretells a general defection of the visible Church.” Nor is the mind of other Reformers different.
19. Their fifth argument: The Pope is not the head of the [Antichristian] Turks: therefore, this Apostasy of the Antichrist has nothing to do with him. The consequence is proven because it is said that this Apostasy is universal: and such cannot be said unless it includes the Turks. The reason: Because Paul names one Apostasy, not two, and the Turk Apostasy has nothing opposed to it except the Catholic Church.
20. I respond by denying the consequence. Because Turkism does not pertain to the Apostasy of the Antichrist: for Mohammedans, that is, a Church that boasts titles and arguments of divine presence, does not sit in the Temple of God [i.e., Church of Christ]; which is distinctly pronounced about the Antichrist. Regarding the universal Apostasy, what is objected has already been answered. Regarding the question of opposition, it poses no more difficulty. Opposites are said to be either (1) true to false or (2) false to false. If in the first sense; we assert that there is nothing opposed to Papism except the Catholic [i.e., universal Christian] Church, in which alone is doctrinal truth. If the second case: we deny it was ever predicted that there would be nothing opposing the Antichrist except the Catholic Church.
21. Their sixth argument: If the Apostasy of the Antichrist had happened, then its beginning would be known. But it is not known. Therefore, it has not happened. The premise is proven because others assign different times. For Calvin and Beza, [he claims], want the Antichrist to have personally already existed in the time of the Apostles; others that he began under Constantine the Great; Luther, after the thousandth year from the incarnation; others summon it from the year 666. The consequence is proven because it is necessary to show at that time there was a Church in the world. [I.e., Therefore, since there was a Church, the Pope, as its head, was not the Antichrist].
22. But it is not true that those things do not exist whose certain beginning no human can indicate. And, yes, it is customary to indicate the beginnings of those things which manifestly proceed from the very beginning. However, those things which gradually emerge: their origins are not usually numbered. Thus, we all recognize the change of languages; yet we cannot note, for example, when Latin first degenerated into modern Italian. There are infinite examples of this kind. Now Scripture does describe the obscure and unknown beginnings of the Antichrist, both by the term ‘mystery,’ which was already taking place in the time of the Apostles; and by the emblem of the little horn growing among other horns. Thus, Isaiah once cried out in chapter one, “How has the faithful city become a harlot, full of judgment? Justice dwelt in her, but now murderer.” Thus, Moses described the ultimate degree of wickedness of the Sodomites and Gomorrah but was silent about their beginnings. It is not necessary to seek out everything. Therefore, it is extreme importunity, or rather impudence, not to want to acknowledge present things because not all which occurred in the past are known. This was the reasoning of most Heathens: There was no beginning of the world because no one could assign its first day.
23. Regarding Calvin and Beza, it is a manifest falsehood: for they never taught that the Antichrist personally existed in the time of the Apostles. They knew and explained what it was that Paul meant by the term ‘mystery.’ Likewise, it is false that the other Reformers were in error assigning different times to the apostasy for they were assigning the time of the revelation of the Antichrist, which time the Spirit clearly separated from the time of the Apostasy. Therefore, various Reformers have designated this manifestation in various ways: some observed authorities and the progress of domination. For example, regarding the French kingdom, some trace it back to Pharamond; others summon it from a later time; yet no one says, due to this uncertainty of beginning, there was no monarchy of the French.
24. But, he says, it is sufficient to demonstrate that there was a Church then. Ridiculously, he says there was then, not simply that there was, but there was then. But [using his logic] this cannot be proven unless it is demonstrated at that very time is when the Apostasy began. Therefore, we deny his very point. And [it is just as similar in logic] to recognize the corruption of the Italian language, that it suffices to show that before the one now in use, there was another quite different. And just as Isaiah was content to say that in the holy city there was once justice; but later robbers, to show that a great change had taken place. Thus, it entirely suffices to compare the present times of Papism with the times of ancient Christianity, so that it is a most firm demonstration that a great apostasy has taken place; and that it cannot be excused by any artifice.
25. Their seventh argument: The Apostasy of the Antichrist will not cease before the coming of Christ and will always grow from its beginnings until the end of the world; then it will be at its greatest strength. But they say the Pope is the Antichrist and teach that his growth was finished by the time of the advent of Luther. Therefore, Papism is not the Apostasy of the Antichrist.
26. I respond that there are things involved which must be distinguished. The words of Paul are, “Whom the Lord will consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” You see here two distinct things: to consume and to destroy, and this is assigned to the glorious coming. Therefore, the meaning is that the ruin of the Antichrist will indeed be at the end of the world, but gradually, not at one moment. Therefore, first he must be consumed by the Spirit of the mouth, that is, by the preaching of the word, whose efficacy is to wound lethally; but finally, he must be utterly destroyed at that last coming. Therefore, we believe that there will be no final end to papal tyranny before the last day. Hence the words of the article of the French Confession: “And we await until the Lord, as He promised and has already begun, consumes him with the Spirit of His mouth, will finally destroy him with His glorious coming.” Which Francesco could not ignore.
25. Their seventh argument: The Apostasy of the Antichrist will not cease before the coming of Christ and will always grow from its beginnings until the end of the world; then it will be at its greatest strength. But they say the Pope is the Antichrist and teach that his growth was finished by the time of the advent of Luther. Therefore, Papism is not the Apostasy of the Antichrist.
26. I respond that there are things involved which must be distinguished. The words of Paul are, “Whom the Lord will consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” You see here two distinct things: to consume and to destroy, and this is assigned to the glorious coming. Therefore, the meaning is that the ruin of the Antichrist will indeed be at the end of the world, but gradually, not at one moment. Therefore, first he must be consumed by the Spirit of the mouth, that is, by the preaching of the word, whose efficacy is to wound lethally; but finally, he must be utterly destroyed at that last coming. Therefore, we believe that there will be no final end to papal tyranny before the last day. Hence the words of the article of the French Confession: “And we await until the Lord, as He promised and has already begun, consumes him with the Spirit of His mouth, will finally destroy him with His glorious coming.” Which Francesco could not ignore.
27. Therefore, the first part of the argument is granted: that Apostasy will not cease before the coming of Christ; for to diminish is not to cease. Although, therefore, since the time of Luther the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff has been greatly diminished, yet he is no less Antichrist. But the second part is denied. For he who is to be discerned before being abolished, and then abolished at that very coming, will not be able to thrive most at that coming. Yes, come, Lord Jesus.
28. Their Eighth Argument: The apostasy of the Antichrist will be a complete defection from the faith, a public renunciation of Christianity and of any other religion except that of the Antichrist himself. But such a renunciation is not found in Papism. Therefore, the Pope is not the apostate Antichrist. The major premise is proven because he [Antichrist] exalts himself above all that is called God and deity; he will claim to be God: according to 2 Thessalonians; he denies the Father and denies the Son came in the flesh, according to 2 John; he will profess himself to be Christ, denying the Lord, according to Matthew 24. The minor premise is proven because the Papists have never denied the Father, never denied that Christ came in the flesh, never denied the true God, never denied the Lord. Moreover, those [Protestant converts] who have departed from Papism confess that in it there remain relics and remnants of the true Church. They also agree that formerly the Roman Church was illustrious for piety and doctrine in the time of Augustine, as testified by Vignier. Yet now, however, it believes nothing that it once did, which is truly necessary for salvation.
29. The major premise is denied. For indeed, the Antichrist is not predicted as one who must abolish all religion except his own, or even the name of Christianity; rather, on the contrary, he will sit in the temple of God, that is, the Christian Church. Therefore, he will exercise his tyranny in the midst of the Christian Church; and by that very name [of Christ] he will cloak his detestable Apostasy. We shall examine what these proofs are in the next book. Therefore, it is not surprising if the Papists neither deny the Father or the Son: and our [Protestant brethren] acknowledge there are remnants of the [Christian] Church in the midst of the Papacy.
30. This is their Final Argument: If that Apostasy had already occurred, then the Catholic Church would have fallen away. But it must never fall away [according to the promise of Christ, Matt. 16:18]. Therefore, that Apostasy has not yet come. The premise is proven because the eternal kingdom of Christ has been foretold.
31. I respond that the argument is most inept. For it should have concluded: If that Apostasy were to happen at some time or other, then the Church would fall away; but the Church will never fall away because it is an eternal kingdom. Therefore, that Apostasy will never be future. The consequence is clear because never falling away excludes both the past and the future. And those who hold that the world is eternal not only deny it had a beginning but also an end. Yet the conclusion is impious because it contradicts clear Scripture which certainly predicted that Apostasy as future. Therefore, the consequent of the proposition is false. We therefore concede that the Catholic [i.e., universal true Christian] Church has never ceased and will never cease. But, nevertheless, we deny the proposition that the Apostasy has not yet come, nor will it ever come. For the fact that Christ’s Church is eternal does not contradict a defection either in the past or future. What shall we say then? Namely, the Catholic [Universal] Church does not fall away when it seems to have fallen away, because “the Lord knows those who are His.” Moreover, the Apostasy is not of the [universal] Church itself, but of those [reprobates] who seemed to be in it.
32. Rather, my opponent says, the eternal Church is understood to be that in which there are [forgiven] sinners. And he proves it from the latter Samuel, chapter seven: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever: I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he does anything wrong, I will rebuke him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men: but I will not take my mercy away from him.”
33. Indeed, who has ever seen a man so utterly lacking in understanding? For who denies that sinners belong to the Catholic [Universal] Church? Unless perhaps only angels or blessed spirits are included under that name. But we do not fail to know that whoever the faithful are, while they are on the way [here on earth], they are still sinners and yet belong to the Catholic [Universal] Church. But this adds nothing to the argument: for not all sinners are apostates, although all apostates are sinners.
CHAPTER SEVEN
On the Mystery of Iniquity
1. This mystery of iniquity is, therefore, the doctrine of Antichrist. It is also the doctrine of the Pope. Now Scripture indicates a twofold reason for teaching this doctrine. The first is from Paul; the second is from John. Paul says, “Now the mystery of iniquity is at work.” And afterward, “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” Three things are to be noted here: first, that the mystery of iniquity is said to be already at work at that time; second, it is said to be of the deceit of unrighteousness; and finally, it is said to be of power, signs, and wonders.
2. As to the first: it is conceded that a mystery is indeed a hidden thing, which is not perceived by all. But what did Paul mean when he said the mystery was already at work in his time? There is a twofold opinion. Some think he spoke of Nero, who was a type of the Antichrist. Thus Chrysostom, followed by Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrose, and others, who do not seem to have sufficiently considered the context of the passage. For the word ἐνεργεῖται [is at work] does not seem to fit a type; for ἐνέργεια signifies the inward working of something, not a sign or token. Nor can things that signify future events be said to be ἐνεργεῖται [at work]. Certainly, the Syriac interpreter rendered it, “The mystery of iniquity now begins to be efficacious.” The Spanish Jesuit theologian, Francisco Torres, in the fourth book of his Commentaries on the Epistles, chapter five, says: “the faith of love being active, that is, which flourishes and works through charity, as the body flourishes and works through the soul.” Before this he says: “What prevents us from knowing that which will be revealed in its time?” And immediately follows: “Only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” These things are said as if at that time the man of perdition was already trying to break forth into the light but was detained by those obstacles. Therefore, that phrase ἐνεργεῖται τὸ μυστήριον [the mystery is at work] does not seem properly applicable otherwise than to those attempts to break forth into the light. And indeed, this phrase is confirmed by “Only he who restrains now will restrain until he is taken out of the way,” for this only proclaims at least this one thing, namely that those attempts are hindered. This interpretation is entirely weakened if you understand “τὸ μυστήριον” [the mystery] as a type. For although Antiochus Epiphanes is conceded by all to have been a type of the Antichrist, still no one said concerning him that τὸ μυστήριον was already at work; much less that something restrained his revelation, which was to happen many centuries later. Luther’s foe, the Dominican Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, misdirects the reader of this passage by stating, “for the mystery of iniquity is now at work only so far as he who restrains now restrains.” This is bolder than plausible and, although it has some plausibility in the context of the Latin interpreter, it cannot be sustained in Greek.
3. Others have interpreted this phrase differently: “that the Antichrist himself,” says [Catholic French theologian], Jean de Gagny, “who is to come as the mystery of iniquity, is already at work and, as the Greeks say, ἐνεργεῖται, that is, exerts and displays his power in his likeness and precursors, heretics and deceivers.” Long ago Theodoret said, “I think the Apostle signifies the heresies that have arisen. Through them, many are led away from the truth, and the devil prepares the destruction of deception.” Jerome, if he is the author of the commentary, The mystery is at work: “in those who make the way for his false doctrines, who Blessed John says have gone out into the world.” And indeed, this interpretation has nothing which disagrees with the text itself; rather, it fits well. And already long ago, the author of the unfinished work on Matthew, in the forty-ninth homily, said, “The army of the Antichrist is all heresies.”
4. Furthermore, two things are drawn from this. First, Paul indicates that Antichrist will not suddenly emerge from somewhere like a mushroom but will gradually advance; and will not be completed until centuries have passed; so that his work will be accomplished, even if he does not yet exist. For it cannot be otherwise, since Paul testifies that his mystery is already at work in his own time. For certainly Antichrist had not yet appeared, nor had he been revealed before the dissolution of the Roman Empire: but this dissolution began four centuries later, or perhaps a little later. Therefore, that mystery has been carried out over a very long time.
5. And this mark is not found in Muhammad (whom some impose as the Antichrist). For he, indeed, came about the sixth or seventh century, but so that no mystery of his can be said to have already preceded from the Apostles’ time, indeed, not even from the year before his birth. But to not take note of the progress of the Roman Tyranny, by not observing what took place in ecclesiastical history—I would call such a one as this more blind than a mole, and deservedly so. I will prove it by some examples. For it would take too long to include everything. Besides, the learned will be content with a few because they can easily add the rest themselves, and also because here the saying, “From one crime learn all,” holds true. I will treat of Images; of Communion under one species; of the authority of the Roman Bishop; of Monasticism.
6. In the first century of the Christian Church, there was pure silence among the faithful concerning Images: so much so that not even the Papists cite anything from that time for their cause; nor from the second century either. Finally, in the third century, Tertullian found an Image of a shepherd carrying a wandering sheep, but formed on a chalice. From here they leap to Constantine, from whom the cross was first made; but had not yet been placed in any temple, rather on a standard and helmet. Later, in the time of Jerome, Epiphanius was offended by a hanging veil in the Church, on which was the image of a man, and he tore it as unworthy of Christianity. Not long after, Paulinus of Nola adorned his own Church with pictures representing histories of the Old Testament. Augustine mentions that the Apostles were depicted somewhere on walls. Henceforth, the use increased and began to be questioned as to its good and purpose. Therefore, in the century of Gregory, Serenus of Marseilles, when he saw it degenerated into idolatry, broke Images, which actions Gregory did not approve; saying they should be retained for historical use, not for adoration. Finally, at Nicaea it was defined that Images were to be adored [i.e., worshipped]; which the great Synod at Frankfurt in the West opposed, but in vain. And so, what was at first nothing gradually crept in, prevailed, and obtained use among Christians.
7. The second kind is the diminished communion of the Eucharist, [i.e., forbidding the cup to the laity] which those who today vehemently defend find only the slightest and most obscure traces of its origins. For example, they cite the instance that Christ disappeared at Emmaus after the bread was distributed. They note Paul proposed only bread to be eaten on the ship. Yet none have any command or example from a public assembly; indeed, none at all: for it is certain that there was no celebration of the Eucharist in those places. On the contrary, there are very clear commands both among the Evangelists and Paul; also most clear examples from the Church that followed thereafter. Therefore, they miserably snatch any slight or very subtle thing into argument as if from a flame. And in the third century, [Bishop of Antioch] Serapion received a dipped particle of the Eucharist. From Cyprian, they have a woman holding a relic of the Lord in an ark. From Ambrose, a satyr shipwrecked wrapping the Sacrament in a cloth. From the monk Evagrius, boys consuming relics of the immaculate body. And they scrutinize similarly small things in every age with all possible curiosity. Which, even if they were examples of diminished communion, are nevertheless so few and private that they ought not to be opposed to so many, so public, so continuous, perpetual, and solemn customs of the Church. And yet it happened somehow that Thomas Aquinas noted in the sixth of John that whereas formerly all communicated under both kinds, in his own time some few Churches retained this custom. Finally, at the Council of Constance, this custom of diminution was said to be praiseworthy and approved; and from then on it became solemn.
8. What of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, which arose from such slight beginnings? Certainly, there is no mention of this in Scripture, although many pastors of churches are mentioned. On this, they wish to rest the whole Church on Peter as upon a foundation. Peter, truly, is often heard named, but always as an Apostle, never as a Bishop, much less as the Bishop of Rome, much less as Ecumenical. However, the Roman Church became known to the world; its Bishop also became known, as did those of many other churches. But some honor was conferred upon him, whether due to the dignity of the city or the sanctity of the man himself; yet moderately and to many others. At last, he, whose name had not even been heard at the beginning, began to be counted among the Patriarchs, and he was placed in the same number as the Patriarch of Constantinople. From this arose ambitious contention that mixed everything; and it advanced so far that he who was formerly called brother and colleague of other bishops was called Ecumenical Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, Head of the Church. You can already see how much he has been promoted; yet ambition was still in check within the Church and the Bishops of Rome were subject to Imperial authority. But even this barrier was finally broken; and he who once said that he was simply Bishop of Bishops now claimed to be King of Kings, usurping both swords; and ever since Constantine expressed the term, ‘our city,’ that is, Rome, which he called the Emperor’s city, the Bishop of Rome afterward arrogated this city to himself; while his followers patiently heard that kings do not reign except as he permits.
9. What shall I say about Monasticism? Around the time of Constantine, authors of the Eremitic life are observed, St. Paul of Thebes [the first hermit] and following him, St. Anthony the Great [the founder of desert monasticism]. Before those times Christians had not heard the name of Hermits. From this beginning the order gradually increased, into which men of great reputations gathered themselves. This custom prevailed in the East. In the West, however, St. Benedict of Nursia [the father of Western monasticism] first introduced it; then Francis of Assisi and others followed to such an extent that you might number nearly as many men practicing this ascetic superstition among Christians as among others. Indeed, it happened that whereas formerly Hermits and Monks were only different names, now they are considered different orders. Moreover, those Monks who once lived in the woods now fill the richest cities. And those who were counted among the laity now comprise a third of all Christians, whereas previously there were only two groups: the Laity and the Clergy. In short, those who lived for themselves, hidden and in leisure, are now the chief pillars of the Roman Church.
10. What if I inquire into the history of Transubstantiation? And of the Sacrifice for the living and the dead? And of the invocation of the Saints? And of works of merit? And of Purgatory? And of Indulgences? And of Celibacy? And many others? I would compose an Iliad. And so it is thus: No one suddenly became most wicked. One does not immediately leap from good beginnings to a bad end; but step by step, one gradually descends. Rome, whose faith Paul praised, to whom without doubt the whole doctrine of faith was entrusted, did not and could not possibly plunge into the abyss of corruption in a short space of years. Therefore, it must be drawn out gradually. Hence, the mystery. But not so the Christian Church: the Church, I say, the Catholic [Universal true] Church which had all its dogmas immediately from the beginning. And it wished for this progress for itself; which would truly be progress, not change; to use the words of Gallic monk, Vincent of Lérins: “For it [the Church] ought to grow, and greatly and vehemently advance, both in individuals and in all; both in one man and in the whole Church, through stages of ages in understanding, knowledge, wisdom: but only in its own kind, namely in the same dogma, the same sense, and the same judgment. For the diligent and cautious Church of Christ, guardian of the deposited dogmas with itself, never changes anything in these, never diminishes anything, never adds anything; does not cut off what is necessary; does not add what is superfluous; does not lose its own nor usurp others.” But indeed, who does not see a total change of dogmas made in the Roman Church? Or who can defend the proposition that it is the same dogma for those who administered both the cup and the bread equally to all, as those who gave the cup to none of the laity? Certainly (as I said) Thomas recognized a change in the sixth reading of John’s Gospel, lesson seven: “According to ancient custom of the Church, all used to communicate both body and blood.” How much better had he said ‘antique’ than ancient! For truly it is antiquated among Papists. What about Gregory I, who was, nevertheless, far removed from the beginning; did he not disapprove the adoration [worship] of Images? But afterward it was defined that they were to be distinctly adored. Therefore, I say it was not progress but change.
11. But nothing is more remarkable than that insane heap of infinite ceremonies, which from very small beginnings has grown into such a heap that many, I believe, marvel at it. Augustine, in Letters 118 and 119, testifies that God has subjected us to a light yoke and a light burden: that is, he willed religion to be free with very few and very clear celebrations of the Sacraments; but this is not well suited to the multitude of ceremonies instituted by bishops, although it is not against the faith. But these ceremonies of the Papacy – how numerous they are and how severely they are required—who does not see? Certainly, Augustine was complaining not so much about his own century as the Papists now have reason to complain about their own times. For many things that are most salutary precepts in the divine books are now less cared for; everything is so full of many presumptions, so that a man who eats lard during Lent is more gravely reprimanded than one who buries his mind in drunkenness. A cursory study of Church history will make it evident that all these ceremonies did not invade the Church simultaneously at once but were instituted by various authors at various times. And, truly, the Roman Bishops have especially bent their efforts toward that end.
CHAPTER EIGHT
On the various heresies promulgated by the Antichrist
1. Therefore, thus, gradually from the smallest beginnings to little by little greater progress, Antichrist advanced to his perfection. Thus, from a latent mystery, he became revealed as the Man of Sin. But from the same words of Paul, the ancients suggest another note: which, although it might seem a slight conjecture, nevertheless, had a verisimilitude that was not to be despised, and by its very origin, if not from necessity, certainly acquired a greater probability. The ancients, therefore, signified that heresies served the Antichrist, which were already then rushing into the Church; and that through them he was able to exercise power.
2. This can be understood in two ways. First, because so many and so manifold heresies have accustomed the world to admitting and receiving various dogmas, even those which were not originally proposed by the Church. And it generally happens that the intellect, tired of long and frequent battles, first weakens; then finally gives in completely: as if from the despair of resisting. Indeed, it often happens that those most intent on repelling open force are the less cautious against hidden treacheries. Therefore, it is no wonder that after so many, so great, and so open conflicts with the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, and other ancient heretics, the Antichrist, sneaking up secretly, deceived the watchful, as well as the soldiers stationed at the post: and at length he captured the entire camp.
3. Secondly, the Antichrist is able to turn past heresies to his own advantage; not even rejecting their dogmas, however exposed they may be. Just as impostors, repeatedly issuing the same counterfeit coin, eventually wears out resistance towards it; so also, the ministers of Satan, imposing false doctrine a second or third time, cause it to be not rejected by all, or at least not always rejected. And they add artifices: those which terrify by being too openly absurd are more easily accepted when interpolated. [N. B. i. e., the absurd blasphemy that the breaden wafer is truly Christ.]
4. Now, if this is any mark of the Antichrist, I will say boldly: either there is no Antichrist or the Bishop of Rome is he. For besides the fact that in so great a body of [unbiblical] dogmas it could not be otherwise, the matter itself also teaches that very many things have been retained from ancient heretics, which, indeed, when first imposed found their adversaries, but with the Churchmen’s zeal waning and growing sluggish with age, could not be overcome; or if they could not escape the prejudice of truth, yet they bent and thus, having changed color a little, insinuated themselves. Truly, faith is lacking in words if deeds do not also prove them.
5. Images, as I said, were at first non existent in the Church. Shortly after, Simon the heretic, indeed, the father of heretics, imposed his own and of his Helen, “and those who were deceived by him worshiped these,” as Epiphanius testifies. Carpocratians are noted by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Augustine. They had Images painted in colors, some perhaps with silver poured on the lips or other material, which they said were images of Jesus. To these Marcellina added representations of Paul, Homer, Pythagoras. For a long time, this principal crime of the human race was restrained; then it was raised up for the sake of ornament and history. Gregory the Great protested that they were not to be adored. But the Second Council of Nicaea clearly proposed and decreed that they were to be adored. Thus, the barriers were broken; nor was there any limit thereafter. For although the great Synod of Frankfurt under Charlemagne vigorously opposed it, its efforts finally burst at the seams. Indeed, the religion that God be depicted in outline was finally driven out. For the Papists have thoroughly perverted and usurped this very thing. The Jesuits also defend that it be done lawfully. Similarly, the Armenians, whom Nicephorus testifies in book eighteen, chapter fifty-three, had Images of the Father and Holy Spirit. And Euthymios in the second part of Panoply of Doctrine, chapter twenty, claims they made an Image of the Trinity.
6. Marriage among the Manichaeans was condemned, especially among their elect. Later, Eustathius blamed marriage, disparaged weddings, and asserted that no one in the married state has hope before God. This was restrained by the Synod of Gangra, which condemned those who refused to partake in communion with a married priest. And in the Council of Nicaea, shortly before, some wanted to forbid priests from having wives; but this was severely reproved by Paphnutius, whose authority influenced the Synod not to impose any burden on consciences. Nevertheless, the matter remained contested in various ways and judgments; some permitting, others forbidding. Finally, the zeal of Siricius of Rome inclined toward the worse part of forbidding; and from then on, due to the rivalry of the Roman Pontiffs, even that liberty was taken away from Latin priests, while the Greeks, at least, held it legal to marry before entering the priesthood; evidently so that the species of the Elect might be shown among the Manichaeans.
7. The Manichaeans wrongly babbled much about foods. The followers of Eustathius condemned the eating of meat, and for this reason were declared anathema by the Synod of Gangra. For the command of Paul was well known, ordering to eat whatever is sold in the market without question for conscience’s sake. Nevertheless, sincerity was gradually corrupted; and although no kind of food was simply condemned, the Christian people were so entangled with superstition that whoever ate meat on Friday or Saturday (although some use on Saturday was somewhat relaxed) or throughout Lent was called a great heretic. Indeed, the Carthusians forbade themselves perpetual use of those foods. Therefore, the heresy of the Eustathians flourishes in an interpolated form. But those called the Minimi, like the Manichaeans, avoid eating all living things, even fish, feeding on the fruits of trees, legumes, vegetables, and milk.
8. That man is justified by the merits of good works was taught immediately from the beginning by some, against whom Paul seriously drew his pen in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. The Papists have revived and interpolated this heresy and impose it. For although they do not establish any cause for justification alone in these merits, yet they necessarily want there to be some cause, so that it can truly be said that a man acquires eternal life by his own merits. Not only this, but also that one may merit for others: that is, that there is such a heap of good works in the saints that they have not only enough for themselves to be saved, but also enough to supply for the defects of others.
9. The worship of Angels, τίωτω ἀγέλων θρησκείαν [the worship of angels], was condemned by Paul in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians. Yet later many heretics claimed them as creators of the world; and therefore, without doubt, worshiped them. The Synod of Laodicea found it necessary to enact a canon concerning this matter. But the Papists also accuse the Catholics [i.e. non-papist Christians] of error for forbidding the worship of angels. Let us acknowledge this to be their interpolation; since with the removal of creation from work the angels, worship still remains.
10. Paul did not lightly stir up those who introduced the use of unknown tongues in Corinth. And thereafter the Church handed down the worship of God to be celebrated in Syriac by the Syrians, in Greek by the Greeks, in Latin by the Latins, and differently by others. Some, however, only from the number of the Gnostics, used barbarous words, as if more musical [μυςικωτέρας]. Hence Abraxas, Caulaucan, Ialdabaoth, and several others. And the Papists have no public office that is not performed in a language unknown to the people.
11. Concerning the faculties of free will, who does not know the tragedies of the Pelagians? First, they simply urged that by solely his own powers any man could prepare himself for salvation and that he could even be holy and free from sin. But when the Catholics were convinced that the grace of God was necessary, they conceded this very thing, but they fraudulently understood grace to mean the very nature which God had freely bestowed upon every man. But the Fathers opposed it and taught that grace should be understood as that power of the Holy Spirit which the faithful receive freely from God, so that, having been converted from unbelief, they might believe, and do well. So, they conceded something here as well: a certain general grace given once. But the Fathers taught that grace is given through individual acts. What do the Papists say? Man has free will in morals: indeed, he can sin or not sin. Bellarmine, in book five, On Grace and Free Will, chapter fourteen, and book six, chapter fifteen, says concerning works that follow conversion, both internal and external, that is, works of repentance, by which we prepare for justification, no new grace seems to be required; but only continuous direction, protection, and preservation of the divine seed already conceived and formed. But these things, if not rightly understood, as the populace of Papists scarcely understand them, are, if not Pelagian, certainly semi-Pelagian.
12. The first Collyridians instituted the worship of the Blessed Virgin; on this account Epiphanius vehemently condemns them and calls them an idolatrous heresy, a diabolical attempt. And Greek historian, George Cedrenus, for the 23rd year of Constantius II testifies that the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Peter Gnapheus, first established that the Mother of God should be specifically invoked at each prayer. The Papists will deny having anything to do with these; they will deny worshiping the Virgin; denying invoking the Virgin. Indeed, they will deny attributing to her anything outstanding above all the Saints, except that by the name ὑπερδέλιος [most beloved] is signified.
13. Leo the Great, by this mark, signifies that he had discovered many heretics in Rome, who, in Communion, having received the body of Christ, abstained from the chalice. Who can deny by this mark that all Papists today are heretics? Gradually, therefore, this custom of heretics prevailed, and at last it was sanctioned among the Papists.
14. Mark, in the ninth chapter of the first book of Irenaeus, boasted that in the consecrated Eucharist he drew forth the blood of Christ into his cup. How far is this from Transubstantiation? [……..]
CHAPTER NINE
Papists are the authors of fraud and deceit
1. And thus far the mystery of iniquity. But Paul also called it πᾶσαν ἀπάτην τῆς ἀδικίας [all deceiveableness of unrighteousness], every deceit of injustice, or every kind of imposture, by which those who make no distinction between right and wrong operate. For imposture, fraud, and deception, are a kind of injustice. Nor do I praise Primasius, who noted here [2 Thess. 2:10] that there is a certain seduction of truth. Let him see whence he drew this. Certainly, τὸ ἀπατᾶν [to deceive] I have nowhere observed to be said in a good sense; least of all in the Scriptures. Although Paul once said in 2 Corinthians 12, “δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον” (I caught you by deceit), indeed in a good sense but ironically.
2. What is pleasant appears good. One chooses this as good. In common speech deception seems to occur through pleasure: for it appears good when it is not. Therefore they choose pleasures as if they were good. The woman was deceived in her transgression. Namely, because the serpent maintained that the use of the tree was best, and he persuaded her to eat.
3. Therefore, there are two parts of deception: one, that something which is not good is presented as good, whether it be the effect or end; the other consists in the means by which that end is reached. For since truth never consents to falsehood: if ἀπάτη [deceit] sets for itself a false end, it is altogether necessary that the means by which it is achieved is not truthful but only φαίνόμενα [has the appearance of], that is, having only the appearance of truth. Thus, the serpent was an impostor not only because he persuaded Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, but also because in order to persuade her, he feigned that he was moved by love for her to warn her; and that God out of envy forbade it. And when he tempted Christ Himself, He objected to the Devil’s advice using Scripture; an argument nothing more powerful for persuading the conscience. Although those who do evil that good may come are never excused, nevertheless, those who use certain means which approach deception but yet produce a good effect seem to sin tolerably. Thus, we commonly persuade children and the sick by various promises, even false ones, to do that which they do not wish; and yet it is useful. Certainly, I am far from calling many Church Fathers imposters who, in defending the truth of Christian dogmas, often used many passages of Scripture improperly. But deceit is perfect when truth and falsehood concur; that is, both the end is evil, and the means are not good.
4. If there is anything among these deceits that cannot be imputed to the Pope and Papism, then certainly let him not be a deceiver; and since deception is a mark of the Antichrist, let him not be the Antichrist; in which case, Catholics [non-Papist Christians] do him an injustice by forcing upon him so dreadful a name. But if, on the contrary, there is hardly any kind of fraud by which men have not been impiously and insolently deceived by him, then certainly, at least in this regard, there will be no reason why he is not truly the Antichrist whom we say he is.
5. Who will deny that the end to which Papist doctrine leads is most wicked; when, instead of the true Church, a flood of heresies is embraced and imposed? Human traditions for substituted for divine, apocryphal books for canonical; a mortal man for the head of the Church; a notable apostate for one who cannot err; religious servitude to relics of the Saints and Images; indeed, worship of certain creatures as the greatest part of Christian piety. When they preach and teach even thick ignorance commends implicit faith; and not all that contradicts the law of God is a sin; and eternal life is owed to the merits of works and can also be attained through the merits and intercession of the saints; that a priest cannot live chastely in lawful marriage; indeed, that the married priest sins far more grievously than a fornicator; and that brothels are permitted among Christians. I say, if one knew or saw that all these things are truly handed down as certain pious dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church, how could he doubt that fraud and deception reigns among the Papists?
CHAPTER TEN
On the Papists’ fraud through fallacious reasoning
1. This concerns the Papists’ faith in citing witnesses, and how they use faulty reasoning. For the Jesuit Alfonso Salmeron, in his treatise #3 on the second epistle to the Thessalonians, attributes sophistical wisdom to the Antichrist. But there is nothing sound among the Papists here. There is no kind of faulty argumentation that they do not diligently seize upon [as proof to make their points]. One might say they are children testing their strength with scholastic dust; therefore, attempting all kinds of fallacies. I will refer to common places and say a few things about each, in my own way.
2. By way of expression, there are two kinds of orders. The first is when what is figurative is taken as τὸ ῥητὸν [as literally expressed]. “Beware,” says Augustine in the third book, chapter five, Of Christian Doctrine, “that you do not take figurative speech literally.” But here they often err. They stop the communion of the Eucharist under one kind only, departing from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter two. They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles in fellowship, in the breaking of bread; yet German monk Jodocos Lorichius in Fortalitio; and also, Bellarmine On the Eucharist, book four, chapter twenty-four and others, do not recognize a part for the whole, although not all agree that this concerns the Eucharist. Long ago, Augustine so clearly admonished that to eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood is a figurative phrase, yet these good theologians persist so vehemently in the literal interpretation that if anything is lost from the sense which the words primarily and simply signify, it would concern the chief mystery of Christianity. What shall I say about the words, “This is my body”? The Fathers testify they signify, figure, sign, type, antitype. Yet they sing to deaf ears; no less, therefore, does τὸ ῥητὸν stand firm; and whoever thinks anything figurative is [according to Papists] devoted to all evils: they are, truly, too charitable, these Seraphic ones. Thomas long ago taught that the Eucharist was called the sacrifice of Christ in two ways; first, because Images are usually called by the name of the things of which they are images; second, because through that sacrament we become partakers of the fruits of the Lord’s passion, Summa Theologiae Part III, question eighty-three, article one. And yet nowadays, whenever they read among the Fathers the name ‘sacrifice,’ they strive to prove that the Mass is so truly and properly a propitiatory sacrifice that there is none more so.
3. The other order, contrary to the first, is when τὸ ῥητὸν is taken figuratively and the literal sense is abandoned; the mystical is sought. παντα ἀλληγορίας δειται, “All things are to be allegorized,” says Epiphanius, ἀλλ’ ὡς κεται: “but as they lie”: not all things require allegory, but as they are set down. Yet here, too, they could not moderate themselves, so that they would willingly or unwillingly follow allegories and use them as proofs in debates with the Catholics [non-Papist Christians]. This is all the more impudent, or rather wicked, since they openly confess that allegories have no force when used in arguments. Thus, Alphonsus de Castro, Against Heresies, book one, chapter three; De Capite Fontium, Actio Prima in Sacramentarios, chapter three; Bellarmine, On the Word of God, book three, chapter three; and several others.
4. Do the angels order Lot to flee from Sodom and save himself on the mountain, Genesis 19? Jesuit Jerome Platus, chapter 7 of book 1, On the Happiness of a Religious State, understands Sodom as the world inflamed with various lusts and desires, from whose dangers, snares, and treacheries one must flee. But to what mountain? The summit of perfection, the religious state. But what religion? This interpretation is not given from the viewpoint of the Christian religion: for these kinds of men long ago did not consider themselves worldly if they were pagan, nor faithful if infidel. For among the Papists, Christian religion has so progressed that those who formerly heard that they were not of this world are now commonly called secular. [N. B. There are secular clergy and religious clergy.] Therefore, Father Jerome understands the religious state as monastic or something similar: in which salvation is found only within the Church itself, that Roman Catholic Church which they all call Holy, yet will be devoured by fire from heaven [due to the Sodomites within that Church]. Let me explain this is a more refined [wink] manner: nor do I believe Moses thought otherwise; and how he rejoiced when he foresaw those ‘good’ little brothers all longing for that mountain, the highest and above the earth, surpassing earthly things, closest to heaven and heavenly things: in which place there is absolutely no room (so it is lawful to believe Plato who swears) for so many evils of the world.
But I proceed to other matters. Much is disputed whether Peter was ever in Rome: and concerning this controversy certain Catholic Papists undertake this business. But how well this is shown (says Franciscan controversialist, Francesco Panigarolla, in his sixth disputation, part two) by what happened with Luke in chapter five: when Christ orders Peter “to bring a little fish from the earth,” then “to put out into the deep,” that is, to set his seat not far from the earth, from the promised land, that is, Antioch: and there remain a little while, that is, seven years; afterward to put out into the deep, cross the vast sea, go to the queen of the Gentiles, and establish his seat upon seven hills. Do you not applaud? [wink] Do you not exclaim with the monk, “Happy Rome! Happy Rome!” But Stapleton resounds in A Scholarly Review of the Doctrinal Principles of Faith third controversy, first question, second article, who on “Put out into the deep,” says, “that is, into the depth of disputes.” Very well said [wink]. But Stapleton proceeds and explains the walking on the waters in Matthew 14 in this way. First, Peter trod upon the waters, that is, he will tread upon all waves of heresies and persecutions by the seat of Peter alone. Secondly, the walking on the waters signifies that the whole Church is subject to Peter’s power; who comes not in an uncertain little ship and particular, as other bishops in a certain diocese, but indeterminately upon the waters themselves to Christ. What could be more certain? [wink] Or why not the same thing by which heresies and the Church are simultaneously signified? But this is much to be lamented: that by God the face of things has been changed so that when Peter trod upon heresies and presided over the Church, today the Roman bishops, who call themselves his successors, tread upon the Church and preside over heresies.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
On the Deception surrounding the Saints
1. I would now like to introduce another kind of deception, somewhat more remote from those we have already enumerated: but certainly all the more impudent, insofar as it is testified by all how much a mockery of the souls of men there is in Papism, and how little regard is paid to the honor of [truth in Christian] religion by those who preside over religion. These concern the Saints and relics, on which [their] religion mainly consists. It is astonishing how much horror there is! How great the desperate insolence! Men are so utterly unrestrained: they have no fear of God. For from the moment Idolatry once took root in human minds, superstition arose, which gradually degenerated into stupidity: so that nothing was proposed so new, so ridiculous, so false, that it was not immediately admitted, consecrated, and worshiped. And, truly, so much so that no reasoning was able lead one away from the superstition once conceived. Hence, so many Saints were fabricated; hence, so many of the most impudent legends; hence, so many counterfeit relics.
2. I have exhibited examples concerning the Saints in the second book of my first volume, on St. Catherine [of Alexandria], St. Christopher and St. George, whose names are both recent and fabricated, or should I say, ‘deities?’ Both: for they have no testimony from the antiquity of the Church. I add others. The Papists have now begun to be ashamed of their ‘Three Kings,’ at least those who have become a little more reasonable. [N. B. The controversy swirls around several issues: were the Magi actually Kings? Were there only Three? Do we know their actual place of origin?] Dominican Bishop and theologian, Melchior Cano, in his book eleven, chapter five, leaves undecided whether they were truly Kings or not: denying that those who assert this rely on historical authority which they have not proven, but rather only rely on some probable conjectures. Thus, Jesuit Juan Maldonato, in the ninth chapter of Jansen’s Concordia, on Matthew 2, denies it as certain. On the contrary, long ago German historian and monk, Gobelinus Persona’s ‘Cosmodromium,’ that is, the Universal Chronicle, in the sixth age, chapter sixty, wrote that the bodies of the three holy Kings were revealed to the new Archbishop of Cologne, and having obtained them from the Emperor he brought them to Cologne in the year of our Lord 1165. And lest you doubt the truth of this, the authority of the legendary accounts is widely preached and accepted. Indeed, also of the Painters, [N. B. They include the legend of St. Luke painting the Virgin and Child] whom the Jesuit Salmeron did not think unworthy of using their names in the thirty-eighth treatise of his third volume, when he embraces this opinion as more probable. It is also agreed upon by Genebrard in the Chronographia. Baronius, at the year one of Christ, holds those who called them Persian Kings to be certainly in error, yet he acknowledges that they were Kings, held so by pious tradition of the faithful which he explains thus: that Kings are understood as lords of individual towns, as Maldonato does. Franciscan theologian, François Feuardent, truly like a man on fire, in Theomachia, book nine, chapter eleven, counts those who hold the contrary opinion heretics; against which Stapleton also argues in his compendium for the Feast of Epiphany [another unproven legend].
[Chamier then lists recognized Church scholars who are in dispute over these legends.]
4. Give arguments! But what arguments? Rather, monsters of madness. For they do not even deserve the name of probable conjectures. What then, if among the Persians the Kings were Magi? But not, on the contrary, all Magi were Kings. I say not all Magi were Kings. Leave aside others: speak of these: whether these three or more bore a scepter. They were esteemed, valued, venerated. Let it be so, indeed. But were there not Gymnosophists among the Indians? Druids among the Gauls? And yet not Kings? Therefore, those who are esteemed are not all Kings. But they administered public affairs: surely as counselors to Kings; yet not all of them. What do the kings of Tarshish and Arabia do here? For first, whoever assigned Magi to these peoples? But then the Magi came from the East to Judea. But Tarshish is rather to the North, because it is in Cilicia, and above the thirty-sixth degree of latitude. While Judea scarcely exceeds the thirty-third degree to the North. Arabia, however, is to the South: for it is not that desert, but Petra. For what else is it but nonsense that Salmeron places Arabia in the eastern winter region? For the geographic maps stand against this. […………..]
8. Their tale of Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Maximinus is quite lengthy. The first three belong to the same parents; their dominions included Magdala and both Bethanys and a large part of Jerusalem. They were also of royal lineage. After the martyrdom of Stephen, the Jews placed them all on a ship without oars, rudder, or sails; which, carried to the province, Magdalena preached and converted many; and obtained offspring for the Prince of the province. The Prince placed his pregnant wife with him on the ship to go to Rome to Peter; a fierce storm arose: the woman gave birth and died. The Prince, having no other course of action, placed the corpse on a hill; and with the son applied to her breasts, covered them with a cloak. The Prince proceeded to Rome; then to Jerusalem with Peter; after visiting all the holy places, he returned to Rome and then to his homeland. On that hill near the riverbank, he stumbled upon a little boy playing with stones; who, seeing the sailors, fearfully sucked at his mother’s breasts; who herself returned to life and gave thanks that Magdalene had [miraculously] served as a midwife in her place after her death. After this, Lazarus became Bishop of Marseille. Magdalene went into the desert where she lived for thirty years taking no human food but was daily lifted by angels to a great height above the earth. Martha, who was in a forest near the Rhone, tamed a huge dragon (which was killing those who passed and sinking ships) with the cross and blessed water, making it more docile than any lamb. Maximinus became Bishop of Aix. These tales are from Peter de Natalibus and Jacobus de Voragine. For what reason should one investigate these claims with strict examination? Could it be for the claims of their royal lineage and dominion over the holy city itself, concerning which, if investigated, they may reveal deceit? I had forgotten Martilla the servant girl, ingeniously named from Martha, as Petronilla from Peter. And at that time, evidently, the holy places of Jerusalem were being visited, which are not even mentioned until several centuries later. For who would be ashamed that a virgin was midwife at childbirth when the mother is said to have given birth before death in the presence of her husband and other carriers? Then what concern had Magdalene to be lifted into the air by angels? Or to whose advantage? As if she would thereby become closer to God. Of the other miracles I say nothing. They surpass all astonishment. Concerning Martha, I can hardly contain myself; lest I call forth the origin of superstition from Marius, whom Plutarch relates to have led around a Syrian woman named Martha, a sorceress. That Marius was in those regions for not a short time is attested by the Marian springs, whose source is a little below the town of Tarus. But a monk once dreamed of dragons seen in the Rhone; like poets dream of hippocentaurs and Pegasus.
[Chamier continues with several more examples taken from “The Golden Legend.” The legend of Magdelene is found in chapter 96.]
CHAPTER TWELVE
On the Deception of Relics
1. Those shameless in regard to the Saints have been brazen-faced prostitutes concerning the relics of the Saints. For since that voice was heard, “We adore not only the cross, but also all things that belong to Christ,” in Thomas, third part, question twenty-four, article four; and “he who has affection for someone venerates even those things which remain of his after death,” article six. “And we always worship whatever is connected to God,” says monk and theologian, John Damascene, in the Treasury, book four, chapter twelve. From that time, I say, the reins were loosened, not only of Idolatry, but also of its partner, deception, so that afterward neither could be restrained. Hence that immense numbers of rubbish with which the world has long been burdened, and which dull minds are saturated. Certainly, there are many more relics than there are flies, even when it is the hottest.
2. And who would doubt that these are fabrications, which repeated from the earliest centuries nevertheless deserved no mention, not only in Scripture but not even in the whole Church, except after Images were brought in, that is, after at least eight centuries had passed. Great, indeed, is the faith of Gunther, who in the history of Constantinople testifies that Martin the abbot brought to Germany a small stone on which Jacob had slept. Or was it the most foolish credulity of idolaters among the Jews that this stone was preserved? What then? That a small bit of earth from which Adam was formed exists in Corsica at Saint Catherine of Sisco, we learned from Antonpetro Philippino, archdeacon of Mariana, book 12 of the history of Corsica. From the treatise Of Wonderful Things which are in Rome, the Ark of the Covenant and the rod of Aaron and Moses are shown, which, however, it is certain were not seen anywhere for several centuries before Christ.
[Chamier enumerates numerous other fables concerning so-called relics.]
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
On the Deception of Revelations
1. I add another kind of deception: Revelations, whether from dreams or extraordinary visions, if not true, at least charming, elegantly adorned, and confirmed. These nonsensical things were imposed upon the people. What kinds of nonsense do I say? Even sacrilege. If anyone were to reread the fables of these revelations, even though astonished, would not fail to immediately detect the fraud, even without a guide. I will add a few examples.
Baronius, at the year twenty-four of the eleventh century, notes that Benedict VIII appeared after his death in the form of a nocturnal vision to John of Porto, Bishop, and two others whose names are unknown, to the great prejudice of Papal dignity [wink], whose sanctity could no longer be established by two or three witnesses. Yet he nevertheless signified that he was to be delivered from purgatory by the venerable merits of blessed French monk and Abbot, Odilon: for so it was decreed in the heavenly judgment. Therefore, Odilon ordered that psalmodies and prayers be made by all in the entire Cluniac order, both publicly and privately, alms to be given, and sacrifice to be offered. Truly, it was expected that this vision would be announced in the Church; but nothing seemed to be done unless the outcome was certain. Therefore, provision was made to confirm it as truth:
A certain monk named Hildebert saw, in his sleep, (for then, I suppose, monks are most illuminated by divine rays when they snore the most), that a certain handsome and serene man, conspicuous by a certain solemn brightness (and those ‘Innovators’ [i.e., Protestants] laugh at the power of purgatory, whence souls come forth so brightly), crowded with a great host of candidates in the monastery cloister (and the dreamer forgot to say whether they were delivered from purgatory with him, so that, as Christ’s rival, he might also lead captivity captive; or perhaps they came from heaven to meet the recently purified head of the Church), entered the chapter house where Odilon was sitting with his brothers. He saw him go to his knees, humbly bow his head and give thanks. But when he asked who this so new and splendid guest was, the answer was that it was Benedict, Bishop of the highest See, who had escaped the tortures of Tartarus (Behold how suddenly from one extreme to the other extreme, from Tartarus to heaven! And will heretics deny this? And will heretics attack the infinite power of intercessory prayer?!) and was to rest with the blessed citizens of heavenly Jerusalem having deserved entrance. Applause. The story is complete. Do the detractors of the Supreme Pontiffs not blush? Such a hardened people!
[Chamier continues to narrate several more instances of alleged visions.]
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
On Miracles
1. Another mark of the Antichrist is constituted by miracles. Paul says, “whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders” [2 Thess. 2:9]. John, in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, speaks of great signs, so that he even “makes fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men. And he deceives the inhabitants of the earth because of the signs given to him to perform before the beast.” And our Lord in Matthew 24 says, “False Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”
2. It is, therefore, both certain and clear that the Antichrist will secure authority through his deceptions by adding prodigies and miracles; which experience has long since shown that the minds of men can be exceedingly astounded and driven in all directions. Thus, not only did many crowds follow the Lord who truly performed miracles, as well as His Apostles, but also through the ages various impostors brought forth works which, although not miracles, were nevertheless wondrous, and imposed them not only on private persons but on entire peoples: hence the statue of Simon Magnus was placed as a God in Rome. Therefore, this prophecy greatly concerns us so that we might not say that we perish through no fault of our own, if we perish by Antichrist, since we have been well warned – and not just once. Truly, Christ secured authority for Himself and His Apostles by true miracles, as I said. But this was at the beginning when it was necessary to strike the resistant hearts of men with great force to accept the new doctrine; indeed, a doctrine often contrary to what they had imbibed. But having thus sufficiently confirmed the Gospel, gradually He withdrew this gift so that it is now either nonexistent or very rare. But the Antichrist, as if he must begin preaching a religion which had never before been heard, will resort to miracles.
3. Furthermore, Paul teaches twelve marks. First, the coming of the Antichrist will be by the power of Satan. Certainly, Scripture usually attributes the origin of all good to God, and that of all evil to Satan. Here especially, when the state of affairs most contrary to the [true] Christian Church is described, just as God worked through the Apostles and other ministers in calling men to true salvation, so, too, through the Antichrist and his satellites Satan will exert all his powers, seducing them from salvation to eternal destruction. “In the midst of him [the Antichrist] the Devil will do all things,” says Oecumenius; or rather, through him as a means and instrument. The teaching that the Devil will be incarnate in the Antichrist is truly a fable, but a fable, nonetheless. Therefore, rightly Anselm says: “He will do all things instigated by the Devil.” As it is said in John 13, the Devil put into the heart of Judas to betray the Lord; and in Luke 22, Satan entered Judas; and in Acts 5, he filled the heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Spirit. Although τὸ κατ’ ἐνέργειαν [according to the working] does not only signify the incentive or temptation by which someone’s will is moved to do evil, but also the efficacy which is present in the agent; so that the Antichrist will be not only the author but also the συνεργός [co-worker] of Satan in his most wicked works.
4. Then Paul said not simply say δύναμη [power], καὶ σημεῖα [and signs], καὶ τέρατα [and wonders], as Luke speaks of Christ in Acts 2:22 and of the Apostles. But “power, signs, and lying wonders.” For those of Christ and the Apostles were of truth. Although in Matthew 22 [sic: Matt. 24] this particle is not added. Moreover, those signs called ‘lying’ teach this fact for a twofold reason: either because they themselves are false, not true miracles, such as (says Theodoret) ψηφοπεικτῶν [juggler magicians] who show gold that is not truly gold; or “because by illusion it will work and deceive the eyes,” says Oecumenius. Or because they lie to “lead into deception.” See Augustine, book nineteen, chapter twenty, City of God.
5. Both heads can, indeed, be true. For the doctrine of Antichrist, which if not proven true, certainly gains accreditation by all these miracles. Yet because they teach the opposite of the doctrine of Christ, must necessarily be false. For true miracles are performed only by divine power; who alone first created, so also can subsequently change nature. Hence, neither angels nor Apostles performed any miracles except by that power of divine potency, which the Apostles attested in Acts 3, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” And afterward, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you fix your eyes on us as though by our own power or piety we made this man walk?” So undoubtedly the Antichrist will perform no true miracles: not by his own, nor by the devil’s power, which is not so great; nor even by God’s power. For who would think – without blasphemy – that God would lend his own power and virtue to a lie?
6. But what is false is not always immediately recognized as false. For Pharaoh considered the works of his magicians to be equally miraculous as those performed by Moses. And indeed, he saw all things alike; and Moses himself bears witness that they did likewise. Men are accustomed to rely on their senses when judging and to give credence to them. Wherefore, when deceived a wholly false judgment must necessarily follow. If, therefore, the senses, being deceived, report a miracle, the common people will certainly believe it a miracle. Add to this its being prone to fallibility due to proximity. For since all miracles are wondrous, very many wondrous things are taken for miracles. Thus, generally speaking, you can rarely persuade the masses that gods do not perform those so-called miracles. Finally, Augustine, in the City of God, book ten, chapter sixteen, calls such things taken from the histories of the Heathens miracles of the pagan gods: images of household deities moving from place to place; Tarquin shaving with a razor while dividing bread; the serpent accompanying the Roman ambassadors at Epidaurus; a ship moved by a woman and the water drawn out by a sieve: these, I say, Augustine calls miracles of the pagan gods, which sufficiently appear to be done by their force and power. And for this cause, without doubt, Christ said that false prophets would do miracles, and such great miracles that they might even seduce the elect. However, what could prevent this from happening is if falsehoods could be easily recognized as false.
7. Therefore, it is most prudent that, leaving aside the prior question whether the miracles themselves are true or false (let that belong rather to another chapter), and let us attempt to judge all of them from the doctrine to which they are referred. Thus, Moses in Deuteronomy 13: “When a prophet arises among you or one who dreams a dream and gives you a sign or wonder, and that sign or wonder comes to pass which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us follow other gods, whom you did not know, and serve them’—you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer.” And Paul in Galatians 1: “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Therefore, this must be known to us as one and the same rule according to which Christ’s doctrine, once preached by the Apostles, guides us. For Augustine used it in book twenty, chapter ten, of the City of God, comparing the miracles of the gods with the miracles of martyrs. Demons performed those miracles so that they might be considered gods; whereas the martyrs performed wonders so that there might be one God who provides power, not themselves gods. Therefore, the pagans immediately built temples and erected altars to their gods, appointed priests, and offered sacrifices; but Christians did not build temples, but erected memorials to the martyrs, and to those memorials they offered sacrifices, not to the martyrs, but to God.
8. Now the Papists so frequently trumpet miracles that no doubt can arise as to whether this mark signifies the Pope the Antichrist — and indeed they ascribe them to no one else. For no religion, true or false, ever presented such a harvest of miracles to the world. Simon Magus first produced or feigned some wonders by his nefarious arts, but scarcely one or two were handed down by the ancients. Marcus the Magician came after to impose his art on the people. Muhammad, having tried great powers in turning blood into wine consecrated by himself, merely feigned an ecstasy that was a disease. These are mere childish babbling compared with our Papists. Moses confirmed his calling by many prodigies: his rod was changed, he struck Egypt often with plagues, he parted the sea, brought forth water from a rock, fed the people with heavenly bread and quails, had by day a guiding pillar of cloud and by night a fire, and other things besides. After him, Gideon, Samson, and some judges did a few things. Prophets, apart from their prophecy, gave a few signs; Elijah, Elisha, and others. Christ countless, and the Apostles also. But if all these are gathered into a pile, they will scarcely make a hundredth part of those things that the Papists boast of in a single century after Image worship was introduced.
9. What? Do they also openly argue with us about miracles, making this issue the focus of our disputes? The Jesuit Louis Richeome wrote an entire treatise in French to prove that miracles are continually wrought in the Church. Catholic theologian Richard Bristow devoted the tenth place in his Motives to this. The Jesuit Francis Coster, in chapter two of the Enchiridion, wished to prove from these that his Church is holy. But Bellarmine, in book four of The Church, chapter fourteen, would establish the eleventh mark of the Church by miracles in themselves and separately; and Italian theologian Tommaso Bozio in book five of On the Signs of the Church, chapter one. Finally, you can scarcely find a preacher whose sermons to the people do not emphasize miracles as chief proofs [that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ], beating the simple peoples’ ears with a great number of miracles and dismissing them as ‘astonishing.’ Indeed, they repeatedly object to our lack of such [miracles], so as to conclude from this that not only the calling of our pastors is not authentic, but that there is no Church among us at all.
10. These things are of such a kind that no one reads them without immediately thinking of the great confidence the Papists place in their miracles. But this thought will be far surpassed by actual observation. For who does not know that the lives of the saints are altogether occupied with such things? Who reads the books of historians and does not notice that the latest accounts are the most superstitious and curious when it comes to collecting marvels? And, indeed, their supporters try so hard to please that they have begun to displease even the patrons of superstition themselves. Melchior Cano, in book eleven of De Locis theologicis , chapter six, says, “We cannot deny that men, sometimes very serious men, especially when describing prodigies, have received and even recorded in writing, for future generations, scattered rumors. In this matter, it seems to me either they have been too indulgent to themselves or, certainly, to the common people: that the crowd not only easily believes those miracles but also yearns for them eagerly. And so, they have displayed some signs and prodigies, even on the memory of the saint, not because they believed them willingly, but so that they would not seem to fall short of the wishes of the faithful.” And shortly after, “Nor do I excuse the author of that book titled, Speculum Exemplorum, nor even its history called the Golden Legend. For in it you read marvels that are more cunning than true miracles. A man with an iron mouth, or leaden heart. Certainly someone of little seriousness and prudence wrote that.” What you hear is a free voice: which if it belonged to all Papists, I would praise; and I would wish it to be proclaimed more widely. For not only cannot Peter de Natalibus’ The Conformities of Francis, and similar monstrous books be praised, although this repentance would seem too late. For who does not know that they were received not only without disapproval but even with great applause? [………….]
11. But lest I seem to accuse the Papists of so great a matter in vain or lightly, I will briefly cite some examples of their miracles in my own way, and distinctly by common places. First occurs Transubstantiation, or the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Anthony of Padua proved this to a certain denier by the testimony of a starving beast, to whom, when offered barley on one side and the consecrated host on the other, he said, “By the power and name of your Creator,” said Anthony, “whom I hold in my hands, though unworthy, I command you, animal, immediately to come humbly and show it reverence.” It was said and done: the beast left the neglected barley, ran to Anthony, bowed its head, and knelt. Applause. Bellarmine records this in chapter eight of book three, On the Eucharist, and approved a certain manner of beasts adoring. Christian Massaeus in his Chronicles, book twenty, in the year 1492, “Jews in the town of Sternenbarch, on October twenty-second, obtained from Father Peter a sacred host which, having been pricked with knives and spat upon, poured out much blood. And not only there. For the people of Divion preserve another; and the Parisians a third: three at Brussels, witness Bristow. Perhaps others elsewhere. The same Massaeus, six years earlier, reports that “at Cambrai on the twentieth day of May, on the feast of the Sacrament, the host itself descended from its place upon the altar.” At Baronius in the year 1192 you read from some Helmold the Abbot, that some priest, visiting some girl at Herford, having given her the viaticum, washed his fingers in a drinking vessel and left that water to drink. The woman, of sound mind, ordered the water to be covered because she had perceived that a particle of the Eucharist had fallen from the priest’s fingers into it. Hence, the whole water was changed into blood and that particle of the Eucharist into bloody flesh. A dove came, sat upon the drinking vessel without overturning it, by which sign it is detected not to be a corporal dove, but rather spiritual. Why all this? To dispel the error of unbelievers, or to strengthen the faith of the faithful, by divine clemency the Sacrament which is blessed under the species of bread and wine was shown by most evident signs to truly be His own flesh and blood. Is this not a small miracle? But alas, what was done was made ineffective. For the Archbishop with a great procession led prayers that what had thus been changed might again be transformed into the prior substance of bread and wine. Ill done, but done, nevertheless. And the Archbishop with his people exhorted all to thanksgiving and cried out, “This is the work of the Lord, and it is wondrous in our eyes.” And thus, the ‘heresy’ that arose in that century denying that water mixed with wine could be changed into blood was refuted.
12. The intercession, adoration, and invocation of the saints produced many [miracles]. Polish chronicler Martinus Polonus, for the year 400, says, “Donatus, Bishop of Epirus, was held to be eminent in virtues, who, vomiting out a great dragon from his mouth, killed it — which eight yokes of oxen could scarcely drag to the place of burning, lest the stench of its putrefaction corrupt the air.” The same author, forty-four years later, relates that Leo I, first Bishop of Rome, felt a great temptation in his flesh after he had offered his hand to kiss a woman at the feast of Easter, therefore, he amputated that hand and was not able to celebrate Mass. When the people took this grievously and there was a near tumult, he committed the matter to the Blessed Virgin who appeared visibly with the hand, returning it and restoring it. Benedictine chronicler Sigebert, for the year 552, recounts that a certain Jewish boy who had taken the Body and Blood of the Lord [during Mass] was cast into a burning furnace by his father and came out unhurt, and said that the woman painted with the boy on the wall of that church where he had been led had fanned the flames with her cloak and driven them off. The same is read in the historian, Johannes Nauclerus, but twelve years later. Again Polonus, under the topic of Pope Stephen V: when the body of Martin of Tours had been carried to Alise-Sainte-Reine and placed in the church of Saint Germanus, the monks began to quarrel over the offerings and they wrote in their accounts the miracles that were done by their own saint. The matter was judged in this way. A leprous man was brought and set between Martin and [a statue of] Germanus. He was healed only on the side that faced Martin. Returning the next night, the side not healed turned toward Martin and was straightway healed. A great experiment: “not, however,” says Polonus, “because of the impotence of Germanus, but because he honored his host.” And Baronius did not deem this fable unworthy to insert in his Annals under the year 553 of the ninth century. Serious at the time, but now ludicrous. The same author says this for the year 756: When Gingolphus had been killed by his wife’s adulterer, his wife, drawing on miracles, said, “If [dead] Gingolphus works miracles, my anus will sing.” This was soon fulfilled: for she always spoke, and her anus sang. Nor do they [Papists] deny honor to the nostrils.
13. Images, too, had no little power. To be sure, Jesuit Louis Richeome takes his third argument from them to prove they should be honored (chapter thirty-five). Thus, that crucifix, whose story is attributed to Athanasius—though Sigebert notes it much later—was ill-treated by the Jews and shed blood. Damascene saw his severed hand restored while sleeping, after having prayed before an image of the Virgin. He adds a most impudent story of a certain boy who, having not long before vowed himself to the Virgin who is worshiped in a certain image at Mondevis, in waking saw feet had grown which before were nonexistent. He cites a place in our Dauphiné, a town called Mura, and two witnesses, anonymous, however. If they exist, they are certainly impostors. For nothing of this sort was ever done, seen, or heard in that place, from which we are scarce two days’ journey as we write. But I proceed. Rigord, in the deeds of Philip Augustus for the year 1187, writes at the castle of Ralph that the image of the Blessed Virgin was struck by a certain knight with a stone so that the arm of the boy he held in his lap was broken; and immediately much blood flowed from it; the soldier, driven by a demon, suddenly expired. The same is in the deeds of Louis of France for the year 1247: a bear, lifting its leg over a crucifix, urinated, and immediately expired before all who saw. But these are only mockeries concerning an image of the Virgin, which Matthew Paris records for the year 1204. I will summarize a few more examples: a certain matron of Damascus, having moved to the village of Sardenai, built a little chapel in the name of the Virgin. She begged a Constantinopolitan monk going to Jerusalem to bring back to her an image (the author calls it an icon) of the Virgin. He promises. He goes, visits the places, returns having forgotten the image. But he is warned from heaven and returns, buying one that was offered by merchants. Again, he sets out; he meets a fierce lion, a devourer of men, before whom he sees his feet licked humbly. Again, he falls in with robbers, but they, terrified by the voice of angels, scarcely moved. This monk realized he owed his deliverance to nothing but the icon he was carrying. Clearly, he had a new Isis, not God, but he was bearing a goddess. So, he decided to keep that treasure for himself and concede it to nobody. Having entered a ship, a storm soon raged causing all to throw many things overboard. However, he himself was forbidden by an angel and ordered to lift the little image vigorously to the Lord; when this was done the sea calmed. Then he returned to the matron, who herself, having forgotten, inquired nothing about the image. When he wished to depart with the image, he could not see the door of his lodging: having placed the image on the altar he sees the door; goes out, relates the matron’s story, and departs to his companions. The image yields the most limpid oil, by which many diseases were healed. It even emitted breasts and thence was clothed with flesh to the feet. A certain soldier, having some of that oil in a small vessel, marveled that it had changed into flesh—but it was divided. He wished to join it with his knife. A wondrous thing! Although what here is not wondrous? But when the blade first touched it, the oil incarnate emitted drops of blood before many witnesses who were astounded. And, after such a miracle, who would not adore it as Juno’s divinity?
[Chamier continues to narrate several more examples of ‘divine miracles.’]
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
On Antichrist’s Cruelty
1. And thus, we have followed Paul in what pertains to the Antichrist, whether doctrine, the manner of teaching, the mystery, impostures and miracles. Now from John follows Cruelty. For in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation, “οἶδα ὅτι ἡ γυνή μεθύει ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν μαρτύρων Ἰησοῦ”: I saw that woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. By these words it is agreed among all that the immense rage of the Antichrist against the Church is signified, in which alone the saints are, and which alone knows martyrs, and no martyrs other than saints.
2. But more at length, in chapter twelve, a woman is described as being in labor and bearing a male child; and a dragon waits to devour the birth. Then the woman flees into the wilderness, yet the dragon pursues her; and afterward it spews from its mouth a great flood of waters to swallow her up. When this did not succeed, it turned and made war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and bear the testimony of Jesus Christ. These two things indicate that these pertain to the Antichrist. First, because the dragon is described as having seven heads and ten horns, which is similar to the beast upon which the woman sits in chapter 17. Second, because to the woman in the desert is assigned “a time, times, and half a time,” which is the same period as the duration of the Antichrist.
[N. B. Rev. 12:14 interprets Rev. 12:6; i.e., 1260 days = time, times and ½ time. Also, the beast Antichrist of Rev. 13:5 reigns for 42 months = 30 days to a month X 42 months = 1260 days.]
Indeed, some interpret the woman as the Blessed Virgin and the birth as Christ. But Methodius denies this (as reported by Andrea of Caesarea), moved by the argument that the Nativity of Christ had already been fulfilled; for John, however, speaks either of present things or of future things.
[N. B. In Rev. 4:1 John is told the angel will show him future things. Also, the Woman is not the Virgin Mary because John was given guardianship over her by Jesus. He knew exactly what she looked like, so it would be no wonder or mystery to John if it were her.]
This reasoning is not necessary: rather a far surer one is that what is said of this woman and her childbirth cannot be explained of the Virgin herself and of the person of Christ. Therefore, Haimo is compelled to say that the woman here bears the figure of the Church, “Nor,” he says, “can all things related here, according to the letter, be specially applied to the Blessed Virgin, but to the Church of the elect.”
3. The woman, therefore, is interpreted as the Church by Methodius, Andreas and Primasius, who daily, as it were, brings Christ forth in each faithful; in whom the enemies of the Church pursue. According to that, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [I.e., to persecute the believer is to persecute Christ.] Thus, Satan in the Antichrist, or through the Antichrist, will harass the Church with such great persecutions that he will reduce it to a wilderness and compel it into desolation; that is, he will force it to be banished from those most populous places in which it formerly was splendid and magnificent. For in Revelation 11, “The beast ascending from the abyss will wage war against the saints, and will overcome them, and kill them.” And in 13, “It was given him to cause that whoever does not adore [worship] the image of the beast shall be killed.”
4. But so that everything becomes clearer, the times must be distinguished. First, he will not only persecute, he will conquer. Namely the time granted him to invade and establish his domination over all. Then, when that time arrives in which it is necessary that he be finished, he will, indeed, retain his savagery, exerting it as much as he can; but he will not be allowed to conquer again, that is, to drive the Church once more into solitude and desolation. For God will bless the martyrdom of His faithful: so that the more the Antichrist exerts his cruelty upon them, the more ardently they will invoke the divine name and lead others by their example: so that the proverb will be true which says the ashes of the martyrs are the seedbed of the Church. Therefore, in Revelation, chapter 15, is sung the triumph of those who have won victory over the beast and its image. Indeed, in chapter 17 the kings are praised who, out of hatred, will persecute the harlot and eat her flesh and burn her with fire. Whence it is sufficiently clear that his cruelty will not endure forever. Yet who will doubt that it will be of long duration? Or who does not readily see that the Man of Sin will strive to maintain authority by the same arts with which he prepared it?
5. But in these events there is nothing difficult to wonder about. Rather, the wonder is how much cruelty the Roman tyranny has long indulged toward those who moved, even slightly, against its frauds. It is astonishing how much they have surpassed themselves in dispensing cruelty in recent times. For who does not know that no kind of cruelty has been omitted? That no monstrous act of deception has been left undone? And the memory of their past deeds is not blotted out, nor ever can be. But lest we seem to declaim in vain, let us consider selected examples of its cruelty. And indeed, omitting the Greek tragedies in the business of Images — and why should we not ascribe to the Latin tyranny, which at that time vigorously carried out the work of Idolatry and thus, claimed credit from the Greeks as healers [who healed through their idols]? — all know to praise Irene who blinded her own son and snatched away his scepter. Omit also the most savage wars undertaken and waged against the Latin emperors, which do not pertain to the blood of the saints, although they pertain to the cruelty of this beast, and will not be of no use to us in this place. Rather, let us look at those things which more closely touch the Church itself.
6. In the eleventh century the Waldenses were stirred up, freely and publicly reproving both the most depraved morals of the Roman clergy and their most deceitful doctrine by citing many examples. Against them (they were called Albigenses in Southern France) the Roman Bishop raised the classic cry; a good shepherd, indeed. Paul Aemilius, in book six of the Deeds of the Franks, says that Pope Innocent was the author of undertaking a holy war against them and sent legates abroad to stir up minds against the nefarious sect. Robert Gaguin, [historian and minister general of the Trinitarian Order] in his History of France, under Philip Augustus, relates that Innocent III, having sent Cardinal Gallon as legate, urged Philip by papal authority to arm against the heretics, promising remission of sins to those who should take the sign of the cross for that war. Surely Christ had commanded the Apostles to go into the whole world to gather armies! [wink] Certainly, in former times [non-Papist] Catholics were armed against the Arians, against the Nestorians, against the Eutychians; against heretics. Although the Albigenses were numbered in the series of heretics, they were charged only with the one wickedness which even today cannot burden heavenly truth with calumnies. Therefore, the most shameless lies were heaped upon them so as to weigh them down with unjust hatred, against whom there was no accusation of true crimes. But it came about that those who called themselves Christians, driven by a spirit of madness, forgot they were Christians and put on morals not as much inhuman as savage. The first expedition was to the city of Béziers. William Brito, in the eighth book of Philippides:
“How little force was necessary in the time of the Catholics to break (them) — and when they entered, they slaughtered both sexes, thousands, two or three times ten thousand.”
Then they went to Carcassonne, where the terrified inhabitants of the whole region had taken refuge from the destruction of Béziers. At last, they were compelled to go away completely naked, “that those who had committed the most shameful things,” (says Gaguin) “might be shown to public disgrace.” A sight truly worthy of the Apostolic Legates, and a notable example of Roman gentleness! Yet Paul Aemilius writes that each was granted a garment – covering, I suppose, the Legates’ shame; and adds that “those impious captured by force, were delivered to the flames, nor was mercy shown the women.” Girard, the leader of that town, was thrown into an open pit and crushed with stones. John Chassanion, using manuscripts as his source, described the history of that war and reports that at Minerve captured men and women were both thrown into the fire when they refused [to recant], despite the Abbot of Valence’s exhortations to return to the Roman Church. These were the beginnings of Roman lenity in those times.
7. Somewhat later, Wycliff was raised up: whom God preserved alive, and granted security from the plots of his adversaries; whose severity afterward vented itself upon his bones, which were dug up from their tomb and burned. But since that time, it scarcely ceased: indeed, it grew worse. The horrible perfidy and the monstrous cruelty of the Council of Constance are known to the whole world in the case of the excellent John Hus and Jerome of Prague, whose spirits, so mighty, when so many of the Papists’ arguments could not prevail against them, came to that point—whence one must reach only by the extreme wickedness of desperate men—that they were publicly consumed by fire for their faith publicly pledged. Their deaths provoked a great commotion in Bohemia and open wars. Even then, God made clear that the savagery of the Roman princes would not always go unpunished.
8. A far greater change followed thereafter: a greater light of truth arose with the coming forth of Luther, whose intrepid spirit, most ardent zeal, and greatest learning awakened many who armed themselves against the errors and superstitions commonly received — among whom were Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, and countless others, whose efforts God did not suffer to be vain or their labors idle. Thus, a great departure was made from the Roman heresy not only privately but publicly: so that there was no corner of Christendom where there were not many eager for reformation, many detesting papal superstitions, many dissenting. This matter moved the Pope and his followers. Princes were variously urged — the Emperor, Kings, nobles — to put down the newly arisen heresy, (for so they called it), by whatever right or wrong means to suppress the heretics themselves. By these arts hatred was stirred up without limit, the reins of hatred were loosened, and it reached extreme fury: rage against all alike, regardless of sex, age, or condition, so that Christianity seemed to be nothing other than universal butchery. Nothing just, nothing equitable, nothing holy. Not only was the sense of common humanity stifled, but force was applied with natural savagery, so that nothing was lacking to the heap of monstrous deeds. What ropes were used? What crosses? What waters? What fires were supplied for the tortures of the saints? In all Germany? in England? in the Low Countries? in France? in Spain? in Italy? It would take too long to recount the names of individual martyrs, to describe the martyrdoms of each, which others have done, and done usefully, so that there remain forever examples of the invincible constancy of the saints and of the infinite cruelty of the Papists. I will not omit one that others have omitted: the more remarkable because it occurred in the papal dominion at Avignon.
In that city even to this day a tower is called Guillot’s Tower in memory of our man because a cage was erected on its summit, like those in which wild beasts are enclosed, into which was cast a certain Guillotus apprehended by the Papists for dissenting. He was detained for several months, making only one assertion, namely, that a device be permitted which would be used to prevent the injuries that could befall him due to the extreme volatility of the wind – by being carried this way and that. From that cage he was at last led to the fire.
[Chamier continues to cite historians accounts of Papal cruelty.]
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
On the Crimes of Antichrist
1. Now follows the life of Antichrist in its order: his crimes and lavish living. First, Paul calls him τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ἁμαρτίας — ‘that man of sin,’ that is, that wicked man, or rather, as Beza notes, ‘pure crime,’ from the force of the Hebrew phrase. μύρια δ ἐργάσεται, καὶ παρασκευάσει ἑτέρας ἐργάς — “for he will do countless things himself and will be the author compelling others to do abominable deeds,” as Chrysostom and Oecumenius say, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς πλεῖστα ἁμαρτήσει, ὡς ἄλλους εἰς τὸ ἄναγκαζει. “And he himself will sin greatly and will compel others to do likewise.” Theophylactus calls him ‘the originator of all crimes and a seducer of others to sin.’ Nor is he called ἄνομoς [lawless] for another reason, the Old Latin translates it in that sense, as does the Syriac. Beza explains it well: namely, because ‘he will not submit himself to the Divine law.’ And, truly, that term is commonly used for one to whom nothing whatever is imposed but his own concupiscence, so that whatever pleases him is allowed. Moreover John calls him a ‘whore.’ Why not? For his most impure life, and also on account of false religion, and, indeed, especially so. Thus, it happens that those who do not embrace the truth are delivered by the Lord into a reprobate sense to do things most unbecoming.
2. Crimes are a clear mark. But does it pertain to the Pope? Nothing more so. Both to his condition and to his person. As to the condition, there are witnesses recent, middling, and ancient. Long ago, truly, they declaimed against the corrupt morals of the Church. And when they spoke of the Church, they had in mind those who, as if by their own right, arrogated to themselves, after the clerical title, even the name of Church: that is, in general the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops — in short, all Prelates. Already, Peter Damian had written the Book of Gomorrah, against them to Leo IX, “against the four-fold pollution of carnal contagion,” as Damian himself says in a letter found in Baronius under the year 1049. And, indeed, Damian named them specifically as clerics: “Clerics, of whose most filthy life you so lamentably and rightly argued by your prudence: truly and altogether truly they do not belong to that inheritance’s lineage, from which they divert themselves with voluptuous delights.” And Leo praised the book, but Alexander II suppressed it; so that it has lain in Vatican dust until now. Baronius pleaded the cause due to the obscenity of the words, but he forgot what he had testified in the tenth paragraph. I quote the words, “He touched upon the four-fold vices of the flesh by which the Church was overwhelmed, as became fitting, as decently as he could.” If so decently: whence now such sudden obscenity of words? But if it is true, why not the praises of Leo? Or is Alexander more chaste? Or what hope was there that the foulness of morals would be suppressed by suppressing the obscenity of words? Indeed this is the point: those good men were more solicitous to silence satyrs than to cleanse morals. Thus, today the Spanish Index Expurgatorius deletes from Albert of Strasbourg’s Chronicle “On the power and pride of the Apostolic See, and of the Preachers and Friars.” The same, in the Belgian edition from Erasmus’s Augustine, “What probity today you will not by chance find in Priests and Abbots.” And countless other things that lacerated the depraved morals of the clergy.
[N. B. The following is an excerpt from Damian’s Letter 31, A.D. 1049 to Pope Leo IX: “The befouling cancer of sodomy is, in fact, spreading so through the clergy or rather, like a savage beast, is raging with such shameless abandon through the flock of Christ, that for many of them it would be more salutary to be burdened with service to the world than, under the pretext of religion, to be enslaved so easily under the iron rule of satanic tyranny.” The entire letter may be found on the League of St. Peter Damian’s website.]
[After listing pages of crimes committed by the Papacy through the centuries, Chamier answers the objections of Francesco.]
And yet Francesco found things to counter such a great flood of crimes. I will follow the order of his six chapters separately. First, he objects: All these things are not sufficient to show that the Pope is the man of sin. For it would be necessary that all Popes be of that sort; but this is false: for there have been many more good ones, for example martyrs, saints, confessors. And these suffice to show that the Pope is not a man of sin.
I respond: Either nothing will ever be enough; or the continuance of many centuries will be enough to prove the Pope to be the man of sin. For what, by God, do we await further? Or within what bounds shall we circumscribe the esteem of good men? Do we await that there remain no crimes in hell, no impiety and whatever else can be said further? Nay, that we should not see a man of sin, but Satan himself, and not even incarnate, as some have divined? But would it be necessary that all be of that sort? Or would you call any popes you please ‘Pope’? Not even excepting Peter himself? But this is the impudence of the Roman harlot to claim at least a feigned communion by name with those with whom she has nothing at all in common. Yet we deny that the sanctity of the first bishops of the Roman Church can benefit their successors. Were those first ones holy, confessors, martyrs? But those who succeeded them in place and time did not have even a hair’s worth of that sanctity by office. Therefore, the first are not, because of the later unholy ones, not saints; nor are these latter, because of the earlier saints, not Antichrists.
His second argument: And if it were conceded that there had been wicked Popes, it would not follow, nevertheless, that the Church of God had perished or that one ought to have withdrawn from it, as was once determined against the Donatists.
I respond: Indeed, I say, even if we concede that the Church of God has never perished and that one should never have withdrawn from the Church of God, it nevertheless follows perfectly well that such a class of men, wholly given over to crimes, can in no way be compared to God, much less be His equal; since he is ἄνομος, [lawless] or the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας [the man of sin.] Pay attention to the issue at hand.
[His third argument is, quite frankly, indiscernible.]
The fourth chapter is entirely devoted to elevating the credibility of those witnesses from whom we have those crimes recorded in writing: partly by the diligence of the parties; partly perhaps by the calumnies of princes.
His fifth argument: This serves to turn our speech, after the crimes of the Popes have been recounted, toward the Turks: or toward others who themselves have either very grievously sinned or still sin.
I respond: We most strongly disapprove of Muhammad as well; nor do we at all conceal, or in any way lessen, that others have sinned as much or even more. But now we treat of the Antichrist—an evil that is present and at the door. It should therefore not surprise an Apostate if we do not have the leisure to merely to speak of evils far removed. Formerly, the Prophets did not ignore the fact that idolatrous peoples sinned far more, and yet they were assiduous in reproving the Jews. Although we hate the Turks, nevertheless we cannot endure the Antichrist, even if he were to have a Christian name and assume the title Catholic. If we strip that mask from him, then we will see what may be advanced against the Turk. And we know that in this way we may incur the thanks of Francesco, now an Apostate, and of his patron and of the Vatican; but we, in turn, know what necessity is imposed on us.
His sixth argument: Many sins are noted even in Peter himself; and it was allowed by the ancients to be observed that those who are in great dignities should learn to be mild and easy.
I respond: Are you not? But in Peter I see certain weaknesses; in the Papists many crimes. In Peter also serious repentance; in the Popes desperate wickedness. In Peter something human; in the Popes a diabolic disposition. And will you hold up Peter to me to excuse the Popes? Do you think the crimes of many centuries are compensated by the faults of one man? You do not act the part of a good man. But I am mistaken. For no one expected this from you, nor did you yourself promise it.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
On the Riches of Antichrist
1. I now come to the opulence of the Antichrist, described by John in Rev. 17, for Paul does not touch on it. “And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold, and precious stones, and pearls.” Namely, because she is a prostitute. For prostitutes are wont above all to consider external adornment, upon which they expend whatever they have of possessions and time; hence chapter 18: whatever opulence is, the instruments of it are called the fruits of Babylon’s soul’s desire. By contrast, the adornment of the [true] Church is wholly inward, consisting in faith, hope, and charity; which are valued as nothing in the world, so that whoever abounds most in them is held lowest. Therefore, not only did Peter deny having any gold or silver, Acts 3, but Paul in 1 Corinthians put his vocation before the Corinthians’ eyes, namely that there were not many powerful, not many noble. History also testifies that from Christ to Constantine hardly anything was more alien to the Church than riches. Thence it became somewhat more opulent, especially in the time of Charlemagne. For he seems, through his example, not only to have preceded posterity in enriching the Church (so they speak), but also to have invited the clerics themselves to seize wealth. And so it came about that those prelates were considered best who increased the resources of their Church the most.
2. And although all labored vigorously in this, yet before one Roman Bishop the rest may rightly be called inert. For if you bring together the cunning, arts, and deceits of all, they will, nevertheless, be far inferior to the craft of this one: who at last acquired for Peter a vast patrimony — so they call whatever secular goods the Roman Church possesses. How great a wonder is here! For he who possessed nothing at all while living, his successors were enriched so much that compared to them Kings and Emperors may be called mean beggars. But Peter would never admit his patrimony, which is by nature foreign to the Church entrusted to him, and which had produced no crimes; nor would he acknowledge it for his successors, were he alive, who, except for the outward form of man, have nothing in common with him. I mean those whose luxury born of riches surpasses all [the decadence and debauchery of] Sardanapalus and Heliogabalis: those who tyrannize Kings, who are objects of universal hatred and burden. Truly, it cannot but be said of the Patrimony called Peter’s that by the same deed, to use a detested sarcasm, holy poverty is reproached and the holy Apostle is made immortal. But let us see what and how great are the riches of the Popes: and likewise by what arts, that is, by what sacrileges, they have been acquired.
3. Wealth is best judged by luxury, which in the Roman See is so great that it is found nowhere greater, rarely equaled, even among the profane. Certainly, the forged Donation of Constantine supposes the Roman See to be exalted more gloriously than the Emperor’s: and consequently everything is conceded to it that Emperors use for their greatest pomp. And that Donation reeks of so many follies that it breeds disgust even in the more sober, although its patrons’ lips never lack fulsome flattery. At least Baronius was ashamed of it — or I am greatly mistaken — who, though he usually defends even the slightest things where any plausibility can be found, here he tempered his style and referred readers to others. One would call him a modest, devout author. However, not so much when he declaimed against the King of Spain in his eleventh volume. Or against Cardinal Benno. Or as often as honor diminishes the revenues of his Church. Clearly, his aim was not his own fame but the advantage of the Antichrist’s See. But back to the matter. What if they do not hold the Donation as authentic? At least they display it in practice. And when they display it, there is nothing that in any King’s or Emperor’s pomp which can be observed more magnificently. Let anyone look, if he will, at chapter twelve of the first book of the Roman Ceremoniale, and reckon for himself how far from Christ, how far from Peter, is that solemn equestrian pomp which Valisarios counts which includes the families of the Cardinals and the other Prelates. A barber, a tailor, attendants, shield-bearers of the Pope: then nobles, barons; then the papal ladder, that is, the anabarrum by which he mounts the horse and will dismount — but it is covered in red and the horse is decked with phaleræ. Twelve outriders with red standards; nobles bearing the banners of the city, of the Pope, of the Church, of the Cross; twelve white horses empty for the riders; four shield-bearers of honor; agents of kings and princes; a fiscal officer, advocates, secretaries, chamber-clerks, auditors of the Rota; magnates, barons, envoys of kings; apostolic subdeacons. And all this is only the first pomp to which the Pope’s Cross succeeds, with two doorkeepers, and twelve foot clerks or laymen with lighted ropes, that is, burning torches; two chapel clerks with silver lanterns within which candles burn. Then follows a white horse with a bell hung at its neck, bearing the Sacrament, under an umbel (they call it a baldachin) which noble citizens carry, with many candles added. The Cardinals come near; at last the Pope proceeds, with a mitre or with the tiara — thus they call the triple crown — borne on the white horse, led by some Prince with a rein, unless it is more convenient for him to be carried on the shoulders of princes in a saddle under the canopy. Near the Pope are private chamberlains, the Dean of the Rota, two Physicians, a secretary, the Almoner scattering money among the crowd; armed servants, one wholly armed save for his helmet, guardians of his person. The procession is ended by a Patriarch, Orators, Prelates, Archbishops, Bishops, Protonotaries, Abbots and all the Curials. Clement VIII recently displayed this pomp when he came to take possession of Ferrariam. Behold the evangelical simplicity! Behold Christian modesty! Behold Apostolic humility!
[Chamier continues, drawing upon the accounts of historians favorable to the Papacy.]
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
The Antichrist presents himself as God
1. The final mark remains. The authority the Antichrist is foretold to usurp for himself Paul indicates to the Thessalonians: τὸν ὑδραργυρισμὸν ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεόν — he says, “exalting himself, or lifting himself up against whatever is called God,” δεικνύτα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι Θεός, “showing himself to be God,” or bearing himself forth as God. Optatus of Milevis excellently opens the meaning of these words in his third book, reproving the temerity of Donatus of Carthage: “Thus his heart was exalted that he seemed no longer a man but God.” And after a few interjections: “To whom God follows, saying, ‘You said, I am God.’” Therefore, although this word is not used, yet either implicitly said it or allowed it, in order to fill up the lack of this word. He lifted up his heart so that he judged that no man was to be compared with him; and by the swelling of his mind he seemed greater than men because whatever is above men is like God. Then, since bishops ought to serve God, he exacts from bishops that they should venerate him with no less fear than God; that is, that he seemed to himself to be God.” Again: “When he had not yet shown such pride, all who believed in Christ were called Christians; but he dared separate his people from God, and those who followed him were no longer called Christians but Donatists.” Finally: “While the bishop was not among his fellow bishops, nor wished to be a man among men, it is manifest that he lifted up his heart and seemed himself to be God.”
2. From this gather: there are distinct questions about the mere sound of words and about the thing signified by those words. Thus, someone may, without saying in as many syllables that he is God, nevertheless, carry himself as if he were God. Chrysostom therefore, in his third homily on 2 Corinthians, explained, “He shall show himself as God,” yet he noted, “He did not say ‘saying he was God,’ but ‘attempting to show himself’.” Next, he that sets himself above both Church and Empire acts as if he were God. Let the future dispute therefore be threefold. First: whether the Bishop of Rome behaves as if he were God. Second: what authority he usurps in the Church. Third: how he subjects the Republic to himself.
3. The first point: Although we may anticipate the rest, and press the accusation upon those very syllables, in French historian Jean Froissart’s volume four, chapter ten of his Chronicles, you read plainly: “As there is one God in heaven, so there can or ought to be another God on earth.” And so it was written by the Cardinals of Avignon to the King of France. Nor does the distinguished Doctor of Law, Lælius Zecchius, much differ in De Republica Ecclesiastica, in the chapter on the estate of the Pope, article twenty‑eighth: “He is called Christ’s Vicar, and as it were God on earth, and what he does seems not to be the work of a human prince, but of God.” These things can be evaded, I admit, under the pretext of I said, ‘you are gods’ [Ps. 82:6]; but besides that this saying was never applied to an ecclesiastical dignity, but to a secular one…….. Stapleton in the dedication of his work, On Principles, greets Gregory the Thirteenth as “plainly the supreme divinity on earth.” Yet let us speak chiefly of the thing itself. Thus, the Pope, although he does not use this word [openly pertaining to himself], nevertheless, either has done or has allowed what fully supplies the lack of that word. For to what purpose do we refer these things, which the Glossator of the Decretals, in the chapter title concerning the Translation of a Bishop, “How much diligence is taken describing every aspect of his person.” For when Innocent III said, ‘The Roman Pontiff bears not the office of a mere man, but of the true God on earth,’ the Glossator added that it follows from this he has heavenly jurisdiction, that he can change the nature of things by applying the substances of one thing to another so that another can make that which is nothing of value; that in those things which he wills to be by the extension of his will, he may [not] be asked, Why do you do this? and that he can dispense above the law, make justice out of injustice by correcting laws and changing them; that he can obtain the plenitude of power; and these several heads he confirms in the cited places, both from the Decretals and from the Decretum. Similarly, the Elect Cardinals, in their council, noted that there had arisen theologians who said that the will of the Pontiff is whatever pleases him and is, therefore, permitted. And quoting Paul again, Platina, in his Lives of the Popes, writes: “Thus you recall us to judge, as if you did not know that all laws are placed in the archive of our heart. Thus, the judgment stands: let all yield place, let them go where they will, I delay them not; I am Pope, and it is lawful for me, at my will, to annul and approve the deeds of others.”
[Chamier continues to cite Roman Catholic authorities who submit to the Pope as God on earth and is worshiped as such. Another mark of the Antichrist is that of receiving worldwide worship (Rev. 13:8). Antichrist is to be worshiped by the world just as the Pope is now worshiped. Therefore, the Pope is the Antichrist.]
“Now let us see how far Francesco distinguishes the worship of the Pope from the worship of the Antichrist. First, he says, whosoever of the people believe in him [Antichrist] will also worship him [Antichrist] throughout the whole world [Rev. 13:8]. But no Papist bows down to the Pope unless he can see him, and those who see him are very few in number.” [N. B. Francesco admits the Pope is worshiped by those he visits in person].
Chamier responds: “O impostor! O shameless man! So you think all worship is contained only in these external testimonies? Indeed, you later deny it yourself: even your Cotonus writes about this to me now. So the matter is clear. Therefore, first, I deny that the Antichrist is to be worshiped in such a way that peoples everywhere who believe in him shall bow their bodies or kiss his feet from the Far East to the uttermost West. I know that he is said to be worshiped by all the nations of the earth; but I deny that his feet are to be kissed, nor knees to be bent to him, even when absent from view. Then, by the same reasoning he is said to be worshiped throughout the world, I say that the Pope is worshiped even by those to whom the Pope has not been seen [in person]. For you, I say, Francesco, worship the Pope even though you have not yet enjoyed him with your eyes, and even though it is not with the same gesture as your patron, who, falling prostrate to the ground, sang, “Have mercy on me, even to the calves.”
Again, Francesco argues that “those who worship the Antichrist will say that he alone is worthy of worship, asking, Who is like the Beast? For they will believe him to be the true God as he will present himself, and they will worship him as the true Christ: therefore manifestly denying the Christian religion.”
21. Rather, none of these things, I say, does Scripture teach. It does not teach that some one person only is worthy of worship, while conversely commanding to worship the first beast. It does not teach that one should believe him to be the true God, but only a god. It does not teach that he is to be worshiped as the true Christ. The denial of Christianity is asserted either by word or by deed. If by word, Christianity is clearly denied. If by deed, it, too, is an affirmation of denial: for, in truth, no Papist is a [true] Christian [because they deny Christianity in both word and deed]. Nor can you be ignorant, Francesco, that should you leave the Papists you would be considered an apostate. Moreover, the Pope is the only one judged by Papists worthy to be adored in a manner that is not visible; yet who cannot but see that he is worshiped in that manner? And who does not notice that No one is like the beast because there is no one equal to him and because all kinds of men are placed under his feet? Who does not remember he is given greater honor than the angels?
22. Francesco’s third argument: “Those who worship the Antichrist worship the Devil joined to him. But the Papists worship the Pope for Christ joined to him.”
23. I agree: they will worship the Devil joined to the Antichrist. That is, not directly, as if they had that in mind as their purpose, but by consequence, or, to use the Papist phrase, by ‘concomitance.’ And so it is a necessary consequence for the Papists. For, since the Pope is the Antichrist, he has the Devil joined to him, by whose operation he is made powerful. And it is not contrary to worship the Pope for the sake of Christ, as well to worship the Antichrist for the sake of the Devil. For that phrase “for the sake of Christ” here signifies nothing but a monstrous deception that cloaks itself with the name of Christ; just as kissing the Pope’s foot is truly kissing [the Devil], though under the pretext of the sandal attached to the cross.
24. Francesco’s fourth argument: “Whoever will worship Antichrist is also to be damned, since they are all reprobate. But not all Papists are reprobate.”
25. Nay, that is false, nor was it ever previously asserted. Nay, it is contrary to the very doctrine of the Papists, who expect Enoch and Elijah to be restored to convert men’s hearts, Rev. 11:3— which cannot stand with your oracle. I admit that those who will follow the religion of the Antichrist are eternally to be damned; but how is John’s saying to be understood, “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is already condemned,” when yet it is most true that many who once did not believe [in Christ] afterward believed and were saved?
26. His fifth argument: “Antichrist will order that all who will not go to worship him be killed. But the Pope does not order those who do not go to worship him be killed.” [N. B. Rev. 13:15 specifies “image.”]
27. Behold the crafty Sophist, who hopes by a small declension of words to deceive sensible men. The Pope does not command those be killed who will not go to worship him. Be that as it may. But where have you read that the Antichrist will command those who will not go to worship him are to be killed? For you play with the word “go.” We, however, speak plainly and know that the Pope has commanded all who do not worship him to be killed. Whence such immense persecution? Or in that persecution, who can count the thousands of men slain? Greek historian Plutarch, in his description of the animosity between Callisthenes and Alexander the Great: τὸς μὰν Ἕλληνας αἰχμαλώτας ἀπήλλαξε μέγας, Σπoτρέψας τίω προσκυνήσειν, αὑτὸν ἢ ἀπώλεσεν — “He rescued the Greeks from great shame when he refused to bow as did Alexander, though he himself perished.” Likewise, we have endured immense shame in Christianity, for we alone refused to worship the Pope: but in doing so, we expose ourselves to great dangers. God will provide.
28. His sixth argument: “The Devil has never threatened as punishment that God and Christ be worshiped.” [I.e., The Pope commands they be worshiped, therefore, he is not the Antichrist tied to the Devil.]
29. Perhaps, I say. But Francesco claims that in the Antichrist the Devil will rule openly, that is, with every pretense of equity removed and under the cloak of piety. This, however, he does not prove. Besides, we know it to be false, although we will not deny that the Devil openly rages among the Turks, where [their] God is commanded to be adored. However, Christ is deprived of all honor, at least by their great Prophet.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
On the authority of the Antichrist in the Temple of God
1. Now to be seen is the second point in question: the authority which the Bishop of Rome usurps in the Church, in which Paul predicted he would sit, that is, would rule, and exercise supreme authority. Proof is hardly needed, since he openly professes this very thing. Nevertheless, so that all may more easily understand what breed of monster is nursed here, I will speak of that authority first by which he touches Christ Himself as head of the Church, and then by which he reaches forth to its members. Thus, I say the Bishop of Rome usurps for himself the honor due to Christ and proper to Christ alone.
2. For he usurps the name of Christ. Thus, Bernard in the second book, chapter nine, Of Considerationes calls Pope Eugenius III “anointed as Christ.” Gregory VII in the second bull of excommunication against Emperor Henry: “The kings of the earth and the secular princes, and the ecclesiastical, courtly, and common people, have stood together as one against the Lord and you, his Christs, saying, Let us tear off their bonds and cast off their yoke.” And yet this very thing could be excused if the word were taken broadly, as Scripture calls kings and priests “christs.” But this is not the meaning. First, they define it as applying to themselves in such a way that it hardly applies to others. For Bernard showers praise upon Pope Eugenius as is seen from the whole passage. And Gregory abuses Psalm 2, where “Christ” is used not for any anointed one but for the anointed head, the Son of God. Second, not content with the word itself, they attribute to the Pope that which the force of the word expresses, which is not allotted to any anointed one besides the Son of God.
3. Bellarmine, in the preface to the Third General Controversy of book one, ascribes to the Pope the prophecy of Isaiah: “Behold, I lay in Zion a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation” [Isaiah 28]. That same stone is called in chapter 8 “a stone of stumbling, a rock of offense.” Both passages, and Paul’s in Romans 9 and Peter’s in 1 Peter 2, are interpreted of Christ. Yet “not unreasonably,” says the Sophist, “we think it fitting to apply it to the vicar of Christ.” Nay rather it only applies to the vicar, not to Christ: for if it were truly a foundation laid in a foundation, it could be nothing but a foundation after a foundation, a secondary foundation, not the primary one. For certainly Christ is not a [secondary] foundation of that sort, as even the Sophists who confess Him admit. Thus, that passage then could not be understood of Christ; Thus, Paul would be false and Peter false. But it is rather deception and fraud. For Isaiah did not say “laid in the foundation.” He said a stone “laid for a foundation,” that is, a stone which is the most foundational, that is, most firm.
4. What shall I say about the Church’s bridegroom? Certainly in Scripture this name is never given to anyone besides the God-man. And yet the hermit Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona openly argues that the Pope is the bridegroom of the Church — and indeed alone, that is, so that no other Bishop shares in that honor — in article 1, question 19, On Ecclesiastical Power. Innocent III in his third sermon in the Considerationes Pontificis: “He who has a bride is a bridegroom. Am I not a bridegroom? And which of you is not a friend of the bridegroom? Surely I am a bridegroom; for I have a noble, rich, exalted, comely, chaste, gracious, most holy Roman Church as my bride; by which, God disposing, she is the mother and teacher of all the faithful.” Catholic Prelate Antonius Puccius, in an oration to Leo X at the ninth session of the Lateran Council: “Surround Zion, our mother and your bride; embrace her.” And Leo X himself in the bull Concordatorum with Francis I, King of France wrote: “Recently, indeed, so that the Church as our bride might be preserved in a holy union.” Who can bear such blasphemy? What then does Paul say? “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I have betrothed you to one husband, as a pure virgin, to present you to Christ” [2 Cor. 11:2]. Do you hear the Church betrothed to one husband? Do you hear her betrothed to the man Christ? And the Pope [is alleged to be] a husband of the Church? Unspeakable. Yet Innocent said, “Whoever has a bride is a bridegroom.” Is that so? Are eunuchs also husbands? Nonsense. To “have a bride” is said of him to whom she is married, not of him who keeps, guards, adorns, or cares for her. Therefore no Bishop has the Church as a bride; much less the Roman one.
5. Christ says all power in heaven and on earth has been given to him by the Father. And this vile little man did not hesitate to claim it for himself. Antonius Puccius, at the ninth session of the Lateran Council under Julius, “Do not be ignorant, all power in heaven and on earth has been delivered to you by the Lord: so that you need not fear to judge causes of the common good, not only against spiritual men but also against the earthly powers of this world.” In the same council, tenth session, Stephen of Pavia, “Bind kings in the fetters of greatness of the great king, and restrain nobles in iron manacles of censures: for to you has been given all power in heaven and on earth.” And long before, Bernard to Eugenius, as to the highest hierarch in heaven, the Church’s husband, in whom all power above all powers both of heaven and of earth was, rightly wrote, “To you has been given all power,” in which expression, since whoever says “all” excludes nothing. In the first book of the Roman Ceremonies, title seven, in the blessing of the sword, “Finally, this pontifical sword signifies the supreme temporal power bestowed by Christ on his pontifical vicar on earth, according to that saying, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,’ and elsewhere, ‘He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.’”
[Chamier continues to cite several more instances where the Pope is addressed as one with the powers and authority of Christ.]
CHAPTER TWENTY
On the secular power claimed by the Roman Bishops
CHAPTER TWENTY ONE
On the trampled Empire
END OF THE SIXTEENTH BOOK