Huguenot Theologian Daniel Chamier: ON THE ANTICHRIST [Part Two]

CHAPTER ONE

Whether the Antichrist is a single individual

1. In his disputation, On the Antichrist, Italian Cardinal Robert Bellarmine divides it into nine chapters: On the name; On one man only; On the time of his coming and death; On the proper name; On the people; On the seat; On his doctrine and morals; On his miracles; On his kingdom and battles. The first chapter seems to us slight, concerning the origin of the word ἀντίχριστος [Antichrist], that is, whether it is said in the sense of ἀντι- with the meaning of opposite, or rather in the sense of ἀντι- as in ἀντισρατηγός [vice-general] with the meaning of ‘vicar.’ And if Bellarmine does not grammatically treat the prefix ἀντι well, nevertheless, we concede that the Antichrist may be called by that notion which is signified by ὁ ἀντικείμενος, “he who is set against Christ.” Let Wolfgang Musculus see, let the Magdeburgians see, if they are of another opinion, for we neither ought, nor can, nor must provide all personal opinions.

2. Bellarmine’s second chapter is about one man. The question is: Whether the Antichrist is one single, individual man: that is, according to Sylvester of Valla’s interpretation; one, not like the Phoenix, but like the Sun, and Christ. For if this is the case, the conclusion follows at once: The Antichrist is not the Roman Pontiff; since he is not a unique and individual man, but rather a continuous succession of men, each following one another. This the Papists assert. But the Catholics [i.e., non-papist universal Christians] deny it. The Papists argue as follows:

3. Their First Argument is from the fifth of John, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another come, him ye will receive in his own name.” Here they contend Christ is speaking of Antichrist, and, indeed, of only one. They first cite as proof of their position the authorities of ancient Christians: Chrysostom and Cyril in John 5; Ambrose in the second epistle to the Thessalonians; Jerome to Algasius, question eleven; Augustine in his twenty-ninth treatise on John; Irenaeus in book five; Theodoret in the epitome of divine decrees, the chapter on the Antichrist. Secondly, because the Lord opposes that of another man, that is, the person of a person: not a kingdom of a kingdom, nor a sect of a sect: as is clear from those words, “I — Another; in my name, in his name; me, him.” Therefore, just as Christ was one and singular man, so too, will the Antichrist be one and singular man. Third, Christ says the Antichrist will be received by the Jews as the Messiah. Now it is certain that the Jews expect one definite and singular man. Fourth, all false prophets came in the name of another, not in their own name. Jeremiah 14: “The false prophets prophesy in my name: I did not send them.” But here the Lord speaks of a certain one who will come in his own name; that is, who will not acknowledge any God, but will exalt himself above all that is called God. Fifth, many false prophets had come before the advent of Christ and many also would come afterwards as well. Therefore, the Lord would not have said, “If another comes:” but many come if he wished to speak of false prophets.

4. I respond: the passage from the Gospel of John proves nothing because Christ does not infer that only one, single individual person will oppose him, but indefinitely anyone — which is, undoubtedly, the more usual sense of the phrase. Therefore, Dutch Bishop Cornelius Jansen notes in the thirty-sixth chapter of the Concordance that what the Lord said here has been fulfilled often and specifically in the case of the two Ben Chusibas. Spanish Jesuit Juan Maldonado: “But what he says, if anyone, is not of doubting, but rather a general affirmation: as if he said, Whoever else shall come in his own name, you will receive him: you are so perverse an example.” Spanish Jesuit Alphonso Salmeron, in the thirteenth treatise of the seventh volume: “And if this word is accustomed to be taken of the Antichrist, it can, nevertheless, be understood of anyone usurping the dignity of the Messiah under his own name.” Spanish Jesuit Benedictus Pererius: “Thus it plainly happened to them as had been predicted by the Lord. For those who would not receive the true Christ afterward received many false Christs with great destruction to themselves.”

5. As to the Fathers, I admit they fit this passage to the Antichrist. However, they were not adamant in their interpretation, for they admitted the statement is indefinite. And although it can be applied variously, it is not necessary that the one from whom it first proceeded had in mind particular individuals. Secondly, even if the ancients interpreted this of the Antichrist, they do not, therefore, signify one single, individual Antichrist. Chrysostom says, τινά δε φησίν ἤξειν τις ὀνόματι τις ἰδίῳ τὸν Ἀντίχριστον ἐνταῦθα αἰνίλλεται — “Whom does he say will come in his own name? He here denotes the Antichrist.” Cyril, “You will receive him who will not give glory to God the Father, but will try to transfer it to himself, and will attribute all things to his own name.” Similarly, the others interpret [the passage] of the Antichrist, but they are entirely silent about one single Antichrist. Only Theodoret dreamed that the Antichrist would be a demon incarnate. Granted that supposition, one must confess he understood a single individual who would be the future Antichrist; yet he did not derive that from the force of Christ’s words.

6. But the antithesis does not conclude either: for although Ego [“I”] and Alius [“another”] are opposed. And Ego may signify one, certain, and individual person: nevertheless, it is not necessary that Alius be understood likewise as one individual person. Thus, in John 21: “When you were younger you girded yourself; but when you are old another will gird you.” A manifest opposition between Peter and another. And yet, although Peter signifies an individual, certain person, Alius is only indefinite. Similarly in 1 Corinthians 3: “For I laid the foundation as a wise architect; another builds upon it.” In 2 Corinthians 11, though not the same words, is a similar opposition: “If one comes and proclaims another Jesus than that which we proclaimed,” — yet it is not signified that only one person is coming, but whoever, even many. Many similar examples can be collected here and there from the authors. Briefly, I say Αλλος & Alius, never denotes a certain individual, unless either the article is added or from an explicit circumscription. Examples of the first kind: Matthew 5: “Turn to him the other cheek” — that is, another one. John 21: ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής — “and that other disciple.” Revelation 17: ὁ ἄλλος ἔπω ἦλθε — “the other has not yet come.” Examples of the second kind: Matthew 4: εἶδεν ἄλλος δύο ἀδελφὸς — “he saw two other brothers.” John 19: καὶ τῆ ἄλλο τὸς συαυρωθέντος — “and the other who was crucified with him.” Revelation 6: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἄλλος ἵππος πυῤῥός — “another horse went out, fiery red.” I would add a third kind from the understood repetition of the preceding, if examples occurred. But here none of those things are here.

7. Nor is it true that the Jews will receive the Antichrist as the expected Messiah. For Christ did not say that, but only that if anyone comes in his own name, he will be received. And, besides, the odds are against it. For by the very assertions of the Papists, the Antichrist will worship idols and abolish Jewish rites. Neither of these could ever be persuading arguments to the Jews, nor is there greater hope for this occurring in the future. Do you not see the enigma? Paul predicted the Jews would at last be converted to Christ [Romans 11:26]. How then can you say they will accept the Antichrist?

8. When speaking of those who “come in their own name,” I do not see what force there is in proving their point. First, who taught that all false prophets would come in another’s name? Certainly not Scripture. For Jeremiah [14:14] speaks not of all, but of some. Then, what does it mean by “coming in their own name” or “coming in another’s name?” Does it mean this applies only to their profession? Then are we to understand that whoever says they come in God’s name are actually sent by God? But contrarily, Jeremiah said: “The false prophets prophesy in my name: I did not send them.” Note three things. First, those prophets claimed in their profession to prophesy in the name of the Lord. Second, they professed falsely. Therefore, they did not actually prophesy in the name of the Lord. Whence it follows that someone may profess that he prophesies in the name of the Lord and nevertheless not prophesy in the name of the Lord. Third, whoever actually prophesies in the name of the Lord is sent by the Lord. And therefore, no one not sent by the Lord truly prophesies in the name of the Lord. Thus, nothing prevents the Antichrist from prophesying in his own name and yet, in public, professing the contrary. Finally, if, as Bellarmine says, all false prophets come in another’s name, it will be necessary either that the Antichrist will come in another’s name, or else he is not a false prophet.

9. Many false prophets had come before Christ. I admit it. And many would come afterwards. I admit that, too. Therefore, Christ ought to have said, “Many come,” not, “If another shall come.” So, I ask, from which school of logic do they reach their conclusion? Perhaps some little Jesuitical logic has been invented unknown to anyone until now. For what is the force of their argument? The particle ‘If’? Or the word [pronoun] ‘Another’? But ‘Another’ is also spoken indefinitely of many: as Paul, “I laid the foundation; another builds upon it.” In Acts 2:7, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, “saying one to another.” And ‘If’ is often said of a certain thing. In 1 Corinthians 15, “If Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how do some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?”

10. The second argument is taken from the second epistle to the Thessalonians: “That the man of sin, the son of perdition, that lawless one shall be revealed.” Paul speaks of the true Antichrist. But also, of a certain particular person. That is certain. This is proved from the force of the Greek articles, ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ μέσ, ὁ ἄνομος. For, according to Epiphanius in his ninth heresy, the Greek articles constrict the meaning to one definite thing: so that ἄνθρωπος signifies man in general, but ὁ ἄνθρωπος a singular man. [English priest, scholar and polemicist] Nicholas Sanders adds Chrysostom in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. Cyril in his first book on John, chapter four.

[Chamier continues to argue the same points for several pages.]

21. Since these things are so, we conclude that Paul rightly used the article; and yet he did not signify one single individual man to be the future Antichrist, but rather that among many Antichrists to come there will be that one to whom, κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, [par excellence] the name properly belongs; and who would readily be known to Christians due to the many predictions which precede his appearance. There is no other reason. Moreover, why should we not call one “Antichrist,” as one “Emperor of Germany,” one “King of France?” And how, moreover, one “Pope?” And, to use the words of Sylvester of Valla, “one Phoenix?” For the article is likewise used in that way. 1 Samuel 8: “This shall be the right of the king who will reign over you.” Who is so brainless as not to understand Samuel is speaking of any king of the Jews? And yet the article is expressed: since in Hebrew משפט המלך, and in Greek δικαίωμα τοῦ βασιλέως.

22. Their third argument is taken from Daniel 7, 11, and 12, where the speech is about the Antichrist, as witnessed by Jerome, Theodoret, Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin, the Magdeburgians, and Beza. He is not called a kingdom but a certain one King. It must be added that this prophecy is of the Antichrist under the figure of Antiochus, as witnessed by Calvin, Cyprian and Jerome. And since the illustrious Antiochus was a definite and singular person; therefore, the Antichrist, he says, is likewise. A similar place is found in Revelation 13 and 17.

23. I answer: first, to name one King, as with other monarchies, does not mean that only one man reigned therein. [N. B. Daniel 7:17 – The four beasts = four kings = four kingdoms with successive kings.] As for Bellarmine, whom we a little earlier wondered why he claimed to boast linguistic skill, it is not surprising he did not notice the force of the article; nor should we wonder that deceived by his Latin version in which he both commonly and gladly errs, he did not see the four monarchies called four kings. For those words in Chaldean are ארבעה מלכין, in Greek read τέσσαρες βασιλεῖαι, in Latin “four kingdoms”: which are “four kings.” Not that “kingdoms” is a bad sense, but Bellarmine wrongly, by syllabic craft from ‘king’, concludes an individual. Concerning the figure of Antiochus, the consequence is denied: for even if Antiochus is one figure of the Antichrist, it cannot be concluded that the Antichrist is a single solitary man. For the kings of the four monarchies signified the individual beasts, yet they were not single. And why should you infer from the unity of the figure to the unity of the thing figured rather than from plurality to plurality? Because many paschal lambs existed, shall we therefore maintain that there were many Christs figured by them? Nonsense.

24. The fourth argument, found in Sanders and Spanish Jesuit Alfonso Salmeron, is that Revelation 13 expresses a number by which the name of the beast will be confirmed. But proper names are not given except to definite men and persons. [Thus, the Antichrist must be a single individual.]

25. But what, or in what sense, is a proper name so called? Is it, in the way we name Plato, Socrates, Cicero — the rest of those we are accustomed to — nothing but to signify individuals? But John named no such name. For he said, “the name of the beast or the number of his name” [Rev 13:17]. By whose authority did Salmeron or Sanders determine from “the name of the Beast” we can then presume the name of one individual? Not so Irenaeus, who thought the Latin meant not the name of one man, but of that people in whom was the sum of things. But if a proper name is defined as nothing other than that which is properly assigned to signify one particular thing, then the consequence is ridiculous. For by that notion “Frenchman” is a proper name, and “Pope” is a proper name, and countless others: yet there is not but one Frenchman, nor one Pope, Gregory VII. As to the number of the name, that will be discussed elsewhere.

26. Fifth argument: the Antichrist is “the man of lawlessness.” [2 Thess. 2:3.] Therefore, a single man. The consequence is proved because Christ called Judas a single man, John 17: “And none of them perished except that son of perdition.”

27. I answer. The consequence is denied: precisely for the reason that Christ called Judas by that name — for by that term many men are included. Thus, because Aaron and Eleazar and Caiaphas and Annas were all commonly called ἀρχιερεύς [High Priest], it was necessary that this name did not signify a single individual because it is said of many individuals, although not of all.

[Chamier continues arguing against the opinion that the Antichrist is one, single, individual.]

CHAPTER 2

The Antichrist is not a single individual human person

1. Therefore, by no arguments of the Papists is it proved the future Antichrist will be an individual person. On the other hand, the Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians] argue from two lines of reasonings. Their first is: If the mystery of the Antichrist was already at work in the time of the Apostles, then the Antichrist is not the individual person of one man. First, the antecedent: for if Paul in the second epistle to the Thessalonians said τὸ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας — “the mystery of iniquity already works,” so that it was necessary to restrain it lest it be revealed: μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄτι, ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται — “only he who now restrains will restrain until he be taken out of the midst” — then the consequent is true. The reason for the consequent is that no man can be cited who could live from the time of the Apostles until the end of the world.

2. Bellarmine answers that the Antichrist began to work secretly in the Apostles’ time, not in his own person, but in his precursors. Just as Christ began His advent from the origin of the world in the patriarchs and prophets who went before and signified Him, so, too, the mystery of ungodliness may be said to have begun to operate from the world’s beginning. This exposition of his he confirms in two ways. First, because all interpreters understand the mystery of iniquity to mean either Nero’s persecution or the heretics who deceitfully lead many astray. Second, because if the Antichrist was born in the time of the Apostles, and the Antichrist in the proper sense is the chair of the Roman pontiff, then Peter and Paul would have been Antichrists, albeit hidden ones, since they alone were the Bishops of Rome — Irenaeus explicitly affirming in book three, chapter three, that the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul and that they were its first Bishops. But that Peter and Paul were Antichrists is false. Therefore, it is also false that the Antichrist was from that time.

3. But the interpretation is denied: for no reason could bear that τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ ἀντίχριστος [‘the mystery of the Antichrist’] is said by Paul to be already at work if he had understood it only by means of figures. For first, τὸ ἐνεργεῖν [‘to be at work’] is a contradiction: that word is never used of figures; which are only some sort of species or even something less than δύναμεις, [‘powers’] which can be called ἐνεργεία [‘working’]. What is said of Christ [i.e., ‘the mystery of godliness’] is not similar: for truly, from the beginning His mystery was being accomplished by working, not merely in figure; for the promise was made to Adam, and worship was commanded to Abraham, and the ceremonial laws instituted by Moses were truly mysteries of Christ. This cannot be said of any figure of the Antichrist. Moreover, the Apostle did not say merely that the mystery is being carried out, but ότι ἐνεργεῖται, “is already being carried out now.” And Victorinus in his rendering of Revelation gave it, “The secret of evil already arises.” Ridiculous, if of figures. For whoever heard of any temporal moment being in figures? And why would he speak so when Antiochus had preceded long before?

4. What is said about Nero is undoubtedly nonsense. For if Paul wrote this Epistle at Athens — and Baronius notes that he came there in the fifty-second year — how could he say that the mystery of the Antichrist was already being carried out; that is, that Nero was already reigning, who nevertheless began five years later? [N. B. Scholars agree Nero began his reign in AD 54. Many agree with the date of the Epistle to be AD 51-52.] And if Beza’s opinion that it was written to the Corinthians is better, scarcely a different judgment follows. [N. B. Many scholars agree it was written at Corinth.] For the same Baronius notes that Paul’s arrival at Corinth happened in that same year. And thus, this very Epistle was written in the following year. What then? That the Neronian persecution was raised at the end of his empire, that is, about eighteen years after this Epistle was written? [N. B. Scholars agree Nero’s persecution began in AD 64.] And yet that persecution is noted by those who assert Nero to be a figure of the Antichrist. Therefore, that persecution would have had to be already in force when Paul spoke thus, [which it was not].

5. Concerning heretics the matter is easier to refute. For the author of the imperfect work on Matthew calls those men the army of the Antichrist: which is by far anything other than a figure. Sedulius Scottus on this place of Paul: “The Antichrist operates through his members, as John says: many have become Antichrists. In them therefore the mystery of iniquity works, who make the way open to it by their false doctrines.” Theodoret: “I think the Apostle signifies the heresies that have arisen. For through them, many led away from the truth, the Devil prepares the ruin of deception.” Thus, the mystery was being carried out; indeed, it was signified; therefore, already then, the Antichrist was operating effectively, though mystically, that is, secretly. Therefore, the Antichrist is not one man.

[…………………]

13. As for the Pope — where is that going? — It does not follow, he [Bellarmine] says, that the Pope is the Antichrist, even if there has been a general falling away lasting many years. But Calvin did not argue the Pope was the Antichrist; he only attacked those who believed that one certain man would be the future Antichrist. If he proves that these men are delirious and err willingly, then he satisfies his argument; and he also satisfies the Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians]. Therefore, this argument [that the Antichrist is not one single individual] does not teach a proof that the Pope is the Antichrist. Other arguments demonstrate that fact. Although the truth that the Pope has departed from Christ is no longer doubted by anyone, save the Pope himself: that is, the Pope and his members. For what he [Bellarmine] adds — that he will easily prove Catholics [universal non-Papist Christians] to be apostates because it is certain that they [the Protestants] have departed from the Papists — he will persuade us when he proves those who leave Babylon are apostates; or when he shows that those who remain in it, participants in its future plagues, are Christians. Meanwhile, Catholics [Protestants] certainly believe that the Papists have departed from Christ to Antichrist; while they [Protestants] have instead departed from the Antichrist to return to Christ because they are admonished by this severe denunciation, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues,” Revelation 18.

CHAPTER THREE

On the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world

1. The third part follows Bellarmine’s division: concerning the time of the Antichrist. In it he tries to prove that the Antichrist has not yet come by six arguments, based on as many signs, of which two must precede the Antichrist, two must accompany him, two must follow him: he calls these arguments demonstrations.

2. Bellarmine’s first argument: Scripture testifies that the Gospel must be preached throughout the whole world before that final persecution comes, which will be raised by the Antichrist. Matthew 24: “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations.” And this passage is to be understood as proof: first, because at the time of the Antichrist the cruelty of that final persecution will impede all public exercises of true religion. Second, from the testimonies of the Fathers: Hilary, canon 25, On Matthew; Cyril, in the fifteenth catechesis; Theodoret, on the second epistle to the Thessalonians; John Damascene, book four, chapter twenty-eight. Third, from the text. For it is said that the Gospel will be preached before that great and final tribulation comes, by which Augustine in the twentieth book of The City of God, chapters eight and nineteen, teaches that here the Antichrist is meant. But the Gospel has not yet been preached throughout the whole world: therefore, the Antichrist has not come.

3. I respond: what you said — that the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world precedes the coming of the Antichrist — can be understood in two ways: either indefinitely, as all things that are before in time precede those that are after; and thus Abraham preceded Christ; or immediately, as John the Baptist preceded Christ by a short time and was the sign of Christ’s imminent coming. In the first sense that preceding preaching is conceded; in the second sense we deny it; and therefore, we deny that it has not yet happened. For Christ said that such preaching would precede the destruction of Jerusalem: and since that has long since occurred, it is necessary that that preaching itself has in fact been fulfilled. [N. B. Chamier is interpreting Matt. 24:14 as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70.]

4. The series of the context itself teaches this, if one pays attention. For when the apostles asked, “Tell us when these things will be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age,” three topics truly seemed to be present, as Hilary also observed, but in truth there were two, because the coming of Christ and the end of the age coincide. Therefore, Christ speaks at length about the first topic, that is, about the destruction of Jerusalem: to which, in one spirit, whatever is said about wars and persecution and false prophets, and the preaching of the Gospel and the abomination of desolation pertains. This is proved because immediately He adds, “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” Afterwards He begins to speak of His own coming, “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There,’ do not believe it.” And the rest, whose sequence is manifest.

5. This is proved, he says, by the authority of the Fathers. Hilary himself, whom Bellarmine cites on the 25^th chapter of Matthew, says: “When the work has been carried through all parts of the world the truth of the Gospel will be preached, the Apostolic men being dispersed. And when the knowledge of the heavenly mystery has been made known to all, then the fall of Jerusalem and the end will press on.” Eusebius, in the second book of his History, chapter three: Οὐρανίᾳ δυνάμει τις συνεργίᾳ ἀθρόως οἷα τῆς ἠλίου βολῆς, τίω συμπάσαν οἰκουμένην ὡσωτήριον κατίναζε λόγον — “By a heavenly power and divine assistance, suddenly, with almost no delay, as by a ray of the sun, the saving word of God shone forth and illuminated the whole inhabited world with its radiance.” Chrysostom, in a lengthy manner, on that passage of the Gospel, added: “And this Gospel will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come, the consummation of Jerusalem. For since he so said, and the Gospel is preached before the destruction of Jerusalem, hear Paul saying: “Their sound has gone out into all the earth,” and again: “The gospel is preached to every creature under heaven.” Indeed, you see him running from Jerusalem to Spain. If one man occupied so great a part of the world, consider what others have done. Nay, writing elsewhere to others Paul again said of the Gospel that it bears fruit and increases in every creature that is under heaven.” Against the Jews, book three: “If these evils had now been brought in, when the preaching had taken root and been planted through all parts of the world.” After Paul: “Christ not only described the form of life but also planted it everywhere in the lands.” And after many things interposed, “What impostor prepared so many Churches throughout the whole earth? Who from one end brought forth his worship to the far ends of the world? Who had all under him? And that, when there were countless obstacles? No other one certainly. Is it not therefore plain that Christ was not an impostor?” To the people of Antioch, homily nineteen: “The disciples of Christ—fishermen and tax-collectors and tent-makers—converted the whole world to the truth in a few years.” Chrysostom, with Theophylact as a summarizer, adds: “And then the end will come: not of the world, but of Jerusalem. For before the destruction of Jerusalem the Gospel was preached; as Paul also says, the gospel is preached to every creature that is under heaven. For if he is speaking definitely of Jerusalem it is manifest from the sources.” Anselm: “Because the Lord knew the hearts of his disciples and to console them about the destruction of his people, he thus alleviated their concerns so that they would know that many more companions of eternal gladness would be gathered from the whole world before the destruction of the city should happen. Which Mark intimates, because he places it first: saying thus, ‘And first the gospel must be preached to all nations.’” The Ecclesiastical History also relates that all the Apostles, before the devastation of Judea, were dispersed throughout the whole world to preach the Gospel.” Lyra: “That before the destruction of the city by Titus and Vespasian the Gospel of Christ was preached in three parts of the world, namely Asia, Africa, and Europe, is clear.” The same opinion is held by Euthymius and Zacharias of Chrysopolis, and of Victor of Antioch, in the thirteenth of Mark.

[………………….]

8. Therefore, since it is clear from both the sequence of the context and from other places of Scripture and from experience itself and so many witnesses that this preaching pertains to the preceding destruction of Jerusalem and has been fulfilled, so there is no reason for us to be moved by the Papists with their argument so as to disbelieve that the Antichrist has come.

9. Nor are Bellarmine’s reasons against this effective. His first argument was that the coming of the Antichrist will obstruct all public exercises of piety. And this reason might have some force if one maintained that the preaching would be future after the Antichrist, or even with the Antichrist, or at least immediately before the Antichrist — which we deny, and which the Fathers, as we have seen, deny. We concede, however, that it will precede the Antichrist: but by a long time; namely, because the destruction of Jerusalem, which itself followed that preaching, must also precede him. Therefore, this reasoning is useless against us.

[…………………]

15. Since this is so, there is nothing difficult in Christ’s words. For truly long ago the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world. Which Paul attests to the Colossians: “You heard the word of truth, the gospel, which came to you even as it has gone forth in all the world.” What then, if the recently discovered parts of the earth were not formerly accustomed to so great a benefit? For they do not pertain to τῆς οἰκουμένης [‘the inhabited earth’] of which Christ spoke. Although that, too, is said only by conjecture, and a ridiculous one at that. “There is no memory of the Gospel” among them, he says; no traces even in writings. For if you conclude necessarily from this that the Gospel never reached them, you may likewise infer that it never reached the posterity of Adam — which is most absurd. And yet those who went there report that something is told of a certain bearded man who, many months before, having come to them, preached something not unlike what they had heard from our people. Lerius testifies the same.

[……………..]

20. As to the third, again the consequence is not necessary. For who will teach that the seventy-second Psalm must be fulfilled literally in this world? And if he died for all, why should one rather conclude anything about all the nations without exception than about individual men? Finally, this has nothing to do with the passage in Matthew, which we showed pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem. And although all nations ought to serve Christ, and Christ died for all, yet it was not necessary that the Gospel be preached to all the nations before the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that πᾶσαν οἰκουμένην [‘the whole inhabited world’] must be understood without figure, or that this prophecy of Christ has not been fulfilled.

21. According to Bellarmine’s fourth rationale one must necessarily suppose this axiom: Whoever has not heard the preaching of the Gospel can excuse his unbelief by the pretext of ignorance. If that is so, what then will become of those Indians who perished before the time of Constantine? What of the Poles, Moravians, Vandals before their conversion? Therefore, it must rather be said that it is a testimony to all nations of the immense goodness of God: which will be most certain, even for those to whom it has never been preached. Although these things are not to the point: for even if we concede that the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world without figure before the consummation of the age, it does not follow that it was preached before the rise of the Antichrist; nor does it follow that the preaching of which Christ speaks has not been fulfilled; nor does it follow that the Antichrist has not yet come.

CHAPTER FOUR

On the desolation of the Roman Empire

1. Bellarmine’s second argument: the total desolation of the Roman Empire [must be proved]. Sanders’ argument: “Let it be necessary that the Roman Empire be removed from the midst before the Antichrist is revealed. But today the Roman Empire has not yet been removed from the midst; therefore, the Antichrist has not yet been revealed; much less could the Roman Pontiff be the Antichrist.” In this argument we cannot deny the first proposition, which we even set forth as an argument in the second chapter of the preceding book, Part One. And so, even if from Paul it is necessary that the mystery of the Antichrist began to work while the Roman Empire stands and flourishes, yet the revelation of that same Antichrist would be delayed by that very state of a flourishing Empire; so that it is inferred not only from Paul but is also demonstrated from John and confirmed by the Fathers. Therefore, Bellarmine, or Nicholas Sanders, or Caspar Shoppe had no need to dispute at length about this proposition.

2. What then? Surely the controversy will turn on the assumed meaning of the Empire’s removal. And indeed, we have already shown that the Empire has been taken away from the midst. But the Papists now dispute against this, holding that what must be understood is a total desolation; that is, one in which neither the thing nor the name of the thing survives; so that there would not only not be an Emperor in fact, but also no one called the Roman Emperor. Bellarmine proves this because the Roman Empire must be divided into ten kings, of whom none will be or be called King of the Romans: although all will occupy some provinces of the Roman Empire. Irenaeus teaches this in book five from Daniel 2 and 7 and from Revelation 15.

[N. B. “The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire occurred on 6 August 1806, when the last Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, abdicated his title and released all Imperial states and officials from their oaths and obligations to the empire.” Bellarmine confuses the Holy Roman Empire with the ancient Roman Empire.]

3. Bellarmine continues his argument: For Daniel describes the succession of the greatest kingdoms up to the end of the world by the statue whose head of gold is first the kingdom of the Assyrians; the breast of silver, the second kingdom of the Persians; the belly of bronze, the third kingdom of the Greeks; the legs of iron, the fourth kingdom [the kingdom of the Romans], most long and divided. From those legs arise ten toes, and on them the statue ends. These toes signify ten kings into whom that Empire was to be divided. None of them, however, is to actually be nor even called King of the Romans; just as no toe can be or is called a shin. Again, Daniel designates the same four kingdoms by four beasts: from the fourth of which there come out ten horns; which signify the same final ten kings, truly arising out of the Roman Empire: but not as Emperors; for the horn is not itself the beast.

4. Bellarmine continues: John, however, describes a beast with seven heads and ten horns, upon which a woman sits. And to explain: the woman is the great city on seven hills, namely Rome; the heads are as many mountains, and likewise as many kings — that is, all the Roman Emperors. The horns are ten kings who will reign together and hate the woman, that is, the city, and will desolate it; whence it is evident they will not be Roman kings.

5. Having established these things Bellarmine denies prophecy has been fulfilled because the succession and name of the Roman Emperors remain: and by the wonderful providence of God, while the Empire in the West failed, it remained unharmed in the East and though the Eastern Empire was to be destroyed by the Turks, an Empire arose in the West through Charles the Great, and endures to this day. This is proved, first, because the Emperor precedes all Christian kings, even those greater and more powerful. Second, because it is agreed that Charles the Great was created Emperor with the consent of the Romans and was hailed as Emperor by the Greek Emperor through legates. Finally, in Germany there are Electors of the Roman Emperor.

6. These are the Papists’ points. But in reply. First, it is denied that Scripture predicts a total destruction of the Empire, which would not only overthrow the thing itself but would leave not even the name. And the contrary is evident from example: for Daniel predicted the removal of the Persian Empire, yet its name has not always been insignificant down to these times. Also, not once did one of the Fathers declare this so absolutely: indeed, none of those authors whom Bellarmine cites did so. For Irenaeus only speaks “of the ten kings into which the empire that now rules will be divided,” book five, chapter twenty-six. Cyril, in the fifteenth catechesis: “The aforesaid Antichrist will come when the times of the Roman Empire are fulfilled.” Chrysostom, in 2 Corinthians: “When the Roman Empire shall have been removed from the midst.” Finally, all speak of a desolation; but they are ignorant of a total desolation.

[………………….]

CHAPTER FIVE

On Enoch and Elijah

1. Bellarmine’s third argument centers on the advent of Enoch and Elijah. If the Antichrist is revealed, then Enoch and Elijah have come. But they have not come. Therefore, the Antichrist is not revealed.

[N. B. This argument assumes they are the two witnesses noted in Rev. 11:3-7.]

The consequence is proved because those two still live to oppose the coming Antichrist, to preserve the elect in the faith of Christ, and finally to convert the Jews. Malachi 4; Ecclesiasticus 48 and 44; Matthew 17; Revelation 11. The Fathers testify the same. Concerning Elijah: Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Chrysostom, others, in Matthew 17. Concerning both: Bede, Richard, Aretas in Revelation. Damascene, book four, chapter twenty-eight. Hippolytus, On the End of the World. Gregory in book twenty-one Of Morals, chapter thirty-six, and in book nine, chapter four. Augustine in book nine of On the Literal meaning of Genesis, chapter six. It is also confirmed by reason. Otherwise, there can be no reason why those two were rapt before death and still live in mortal flesh to die someday.

2. I answer: that alleged advent of Enoch and Elijah in the times of the Antichrist is mere fable — indeed, believed by many and great men — but a fable, nonetheless. My argument is most certainly the true one because no place in Scripture speaks of such an advent. Therefore, those who have persuaded themselves of it manifestly abuse Scripture, for whatever they have thus divined cannot but be vain, however great their name. I will first treat the passage in Ecclesiasticus, then the remaining places.

3. Therefore, from Ecclesiasticus chapter forty-four: “Enoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the Gentiles.” From chapter forty-eight: “Of Elijah. Who was taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in fiery chariots. Who was ordained for judgments in their times to soften the anger of the Lord, to reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.”

4. And truly, the authority of this book is much less, being outside the Canon, so that nothing can be confirmed authentically from it. Yet the Greek has it otherwise than the Latin. Ενώχ δεῖπεν τῷ Κυρίῳ, ὅς μετετέθη ὑπὸ δεῖγμα μετανοίας τοῖς ἔσχατοις — “Enoch pleased the Lord and was translated, as an example of repentance to the generations.” Changing the words by adding what is added after “translated into paradise,” yields two [erroneous] chief senses. First, [the Greek version states] ὑπόδειγμα μετανοίας, “an example of repentance to all generations.” [While the Latin version states “to give repentance to the Gentiles.”] But what does it mean to “give repentance?” or what author has ever spoken so? But ὑπόδειγμα, “an example of repentance,” is easily understood — namely, according to Bishop Cornelius Jansen’s interpretation, “so that by his translation all should understand God’s care for those who strive to please him, and themselves be turned from their evil life and perform repentance, striving to commend themselves to God.” Or in another way, “that, when he lived, he was an example of repentance to all: namely, because his holy life taught men of his age repentance and drew them to it.” Jesuit Benedict Pereira in Genesis chapter five: “It seems to be the sense of the Greek reading that God translated Enoch, a most holy man, so that by him innocent and pious men might be understood to be in God’s heart and care, and the wicked might be moved to repentance by so marvelous an example; or it signifies that Enoch was translated because while he lived he was for all an outstanding example of repentance.” So how then does this pertain more to the Antichrist than to the whole course of human life? The second issue is the sin “of the peoples.” Yet generations are meant, signifying a long series of the human race. But if Enoch is to come against the Antichrist, then it cannot be said that he gives repentance, much less that he is an example of repentance to the generations. Rather his purpose would be for a single generation. Those who assert this teach he will come to preach for only three and a half years. However, it is manifest that the author’s intention was to teach that Enoch’s example would be useful for repentance to generations after him. Also, [Bellarmine’s cited] interpreters added a third error: for when the author conceived him translated so as to be an example of repentance — that is, whether by his past life or by the translation itself after that life, or finally that he being thus translated is an example of repentance — these [misguided] interpreters so understood it as to refer the repentance to another imagined coming: that is, they did not believe he was translated so as simply to be an example of repentance, but that from that translation he would be brought back again to the earth to preach repentance.

[……………….]

6. From Malachi 4: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.”

7. I answer: Malachi prophesies nothing about the Antichrist, nothing about Elijah the Tishbite, but about Christ and his forerunner, John the Baptist. This is proved from Luke 1: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.” It is proven even more plainly from Matthew 17: “And his disciples asked him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?’ And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things.’ But I say unto you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased.’” And Matthew 11: “And if you will receive it, this is Elijah who was to come.” Therefore, by the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ, we hold that that prophecy of Malachi about the coming of Elijah was fulfilled long ago. Who are we, then, who would oppose Christ? Nay, who are the Papists who understand the prophecies better?

8. But Bellarmine insists. First, he denies that Malachi cannot be understood in any other way than the second coming of the Lord. For it says, “Before the day of the Lord cometh, great and terrible.” Opposed to this, the first coming is called ‘the acceptable time and the day of salvation.’ And he adds, “Lest when he cometh, I smite the earth with a curse” — that is, lest coming to judgment and finding all wicked, I condemn the whole earth; therefore, I will send Elijah, that I may have some whom I will save. But in the first coming the Lord did not come to judge, but to be judged. Secondly, in reply to the Lord’s words he says that Christ said, “Elijah shall first come,” yet John had already come, therefore, the Lord speaks of the true Elijah, not of John. That John was Elijah is not to be taken literally but allegorically. Therefore, the saying, “If ye will receive it,” means that Elijah in his own person is promised to come at the last advent; nevertheless, if you will receive Elijah in the first advent, receive John. And he adds, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” indicating that it was a mystery that he said John was Elijah.

9. But this line of reasoning is in vain. For as to “the day,” Malachi said לפני־יבא יום יהוה הגדולה והנורא, which construction is ambiguous. It can be rendered, “before the day of the Lord comes, great and awesome.” Thus the Chaldean paraphrast. Moreover, הנורא does not properly mean “horrible” but “to be feared.” Fear is from terror or from reverence. Thus, Genesis 28, when God appeared to Jacob in a dream, upon waking he said, מה־נורא המקום הזה, and some Latin translators rendered it “How terrible is this place.” But who does not see that the sense is another, namely that the place is reverend on account of the signs of divine presence? And Ezekiel 1: בעין־הקרח־נורא, “As the appearance of a terrible crystal.” Therefore, here, too, the terror need not necessarily be that terror which we know will occur at the final advent of Christ. Further, who does not know that this same prophet at the beginning of Malachi chapter 3, speaks of the first coming of Christ? “Behold, immediately the Lord, the Ruler, whom you seek, the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire, will come to his temple. Behold, he comes, says the Lord of hosts: and who can abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand to see him? For he is as a refiner’s fire.” These words signify terror. Therefore, there will be some terror at the first coming of the Lord: why then could it not be said “awesome”?

10. Nor are the words which follow more difficult. “Lest perhaps I come and smite the earth with a curse” [Malachi 4:6]—these words do not at all forbid being understood of the day of judgment. But for what end? Do we not know that Christ’s first coming had that end, namely that in the second coming the whole earth might not be smitten with a curse? John was to precede the first coming not only to prepare the way, but to begin that work of reconciling God with men in Christ. Therefore, it was rightly said that John converted men, lest they all be condemned on the day of judgment. Nor does it follow that John or Elijah will come only a few days before that [Judgment] day.

11. Now, according to Bellarmine, how much sophistry is there in the words of Christ?! First, for they are clear: αὐτὸς γε ἦ Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι — “He is the Elijah who was to come.” He is that very Elijah whom the Jews expected to come according to Malachi’s prophecy, the definite article being added to indicate that Christ speaks of that one in particular. What could be clearer? Then: “Elijah shall come, indeed, but I tell you that Elijah has come.” What is the point of the opposition, or do you not know that the Jews truly learned from Malachi that Elijah is to come; but they are mistaken in their expectation because he had already come?

12. For what then, if he said, “Elijah will indeed come” — and in Greek, ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι [“the one who is about to come”]— rather than Ἠλίας μέλλεται ἔρχεσθαι? [“Elijah who was about to come?”]. What has that most subtle sophist to show by which he would conclude that in that eleventh chapter of Matthew Elijah must be understood as one who had not yet come, but was still to be expected to come on the day of judgment? And surely, he concedes those words to be about Elijah who had already come, that is, referring to John the Baptist. Either, therefore, let him produce a distinction, or if he understands in the former “who is to come” of the one who had already come, let him permit Catholics [i.e., non-Papist universal Christians] to understand the latter in the same way: “who will come” as the same one who had already come. Especially since similar examples are available. In Matthew 2, Herod, having summoned the chief priests, inquires with the very same phrase, using the present verb for a past thing. The Latin translates, “Where is Christ to be born?” but it could just as well be, “Where is Christ born?”

[……………………………]

14. Bellarmine cites Revelation, chapter eleven: “And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” And afterwards, they are said to be killed by the Antichrist, and their bodies to lie unburied in the street of Jerusalem for three days; the same will rise again after three days and ascend into heaven.

15. I answer that here nothing is said at all about Enoch and Elijah. For first, not even their names are mentioned. Secondly, no circumstance is indicated that suits them or their lives. Thirdly, in Hebrews eleven, it is said, “Enoch was translated by faith, so that he should not see death;” that is, so that he should not die. But these two witnesses are said by John to be killed. Therefore, neither of them will be Enoch. And if the interpreters lie about one, what can be certain about the other?

16. I come to the Fathers: among whom Bellarmine names Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Theodoret, Augustine concerning Elijah; then concerning both, Bede, Richard, Aretas, Damascene, Hippolytus, Gregory, Augustine.

17. But some are falsely named. Hilary in chapter 17 in Matthew: “He answered that Elijah would come and restore all things: that is, that which was [the elect] of [true] Israel would be recalled to the knowledge of God. But he signifies John as having come in the power and spirit of Elijah.” What does Hilary say about the Antichrist, or the times of the Antichrist? What else but it pertains to the first coming of Christ? Jerome on Matthew 17: “He will indeed come at the second coming of the Savior according to the body’s faith; now he comes in power and spirit through John.” That phrase may be ambiguous about the body’s faith: whether it is to be understood of the resurrection or of that Pharisaic tradition; but understand Jerome’s meaning in part from the second coming of the Savior: for it can scarcely be said of one who is supposed to come and die before that second coming; in part also from the commentaries on Malachi, where he imputes this Elijah in the bodily sense to the Jews awaiting their Messiah. “Jews and judaizing heretics think that their Elijah will come before their Messiah and restore all things. Whence also in the Gospel the question is proposed to Christ: Do the Pharisees say that Elijah will come? To whom he answered: Elijah, indeed, will come: and if you believe, he has already come: understanding John as Elijah.” Therefore, it is bold to say that Bellarmine changed his opinion, but not true. For we see the passage in the commentaries on Matthew 17 to be ambiguous. In chapter eleven he manifests not his own but the opinion of others. “There are those who, therefore, think John is called Elijah because just as Elijah will precede the second coming of the Savior according to Malachi and will be sent to announce the coming Judge: so, too, John did in the first coming.”

[………………………….]

CHAPTER SIX

On the persecution of the Antichrist

1. Bellarmine’s fourth argument stems from the persecution which the Antichrist will raise: that it will be very severe and notorious, so that all public ceremonies and sacrifices of religion will cease — this is certain. [N. B. Bellarmine used Dan. 12:11 as his authority.] The future severity is taken from Matthew 24: “Then will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world, nor ever will be.” In Revelation 20 we read that then Satan will be loosed, who until that time had been bound. Regarding that passage, Augustine, in book twenty, The City of God, chapters eight and nine, differing, says that in the time of the Antichrist the Devil will be loosed; hence that future persecution will be the more severe, inasmuch as the Devil loosed can rage more cruelly than when bound. Hippolytus in his oration, On the End of the World, and Cyril in Catechesis 15, say the martyrs then to come will be more illustrious than all preceding ones because they will fight against the Devil himself who is personally raging. But nothing of that sort has occurred yet. [Therefore, the Pope is not the Antichrist.]

2. Bellarmine continues: Most notorious and most manifest from Augustine, chapter eleven of book twenty of The City of God, from Revelation twenty: “and they encamped around the camp of the saints and the beloved city,” by which is meant that all the wicked will be in the army of the Antichrist together and openly, and by force of arms attack the whole Church of the saints. “Then all will break forth into open persecution from the hiding-places of hatred.” But that has not yet been fulfilled. [Therefore, the Pope is not the Antichrist.]

3. Bellarmine continues: On the cessation of public ceremonies because of the atrocity of the persecution, Daniel wrote in chapter twelve: “From the time that the continual sacrifice shall be taken away there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” Where by universal consent he speaks of the time of the Antichrist, and Irenaeus, Jerome, Theodoret, Hippolytus, Primasius explain that the Antichrist will forbid all divine worship performed in Christian churches, especially the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist. But that has not yet been fulfilled. [Therefore, the Pope is not the Antichrist.]

4. I respond, first to the cited places, then to the argument. That passage from Matthew 24 does not pertain to the Antichrist. First, because the persecution of the Antichrist is, according to the Papists themselves, final; but that which Christ speaks of is not the final persecution. This is proved because Christ said it would be such that none had been before it nor would be after it. Christ’s statement would be absurd if there were absolutely none after it. Second, Christ says, “Pray that your flight be not in winter,” hence he speaks of a brief persecution which may be resolved within a short time not comprising a winter. But the persecution of the Antichrist will be far longer and, at least according to the Papists, three and a half years, which must necessarily include three or four winters. Finally, from the whole series of the context it appears Christ spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem. Chrysostom sees that sermon as pertaining to the Jews, and a little later, “For there will be such tribulation as never was, nor ever shall be. And lest anyone think the words exceed belief: let him read the books of Josephus to learn the truth of this saying.” [Friend and fellow Bible scholar with Bellarmine,] Franciscus Lucas Brugensis: “It will be in Jerusalem and all Judea, and that more certainly.” And afterward, “I believe with others that Christ’s sentence is absolutely true, understood apart from particular regions and peoples’ tribulations: no region, no nation has passed or will pass through such tribulation, destruction, and calamity as the Jewish people.”

5. The passage in Revelation is by far the most difficult. For Satan is described as bound for a thousand years, afterward to be loosed for a short time. “Then,” John says, “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image nor received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands, lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” And shortly after: “When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison.” These words have been explained by all, or by most, so that they understood Satan’s binding to have been made when Christ came into the world; the thousand years to be the entire time from Christ to the advent of the Antichrist, at which time Satan is to be loosed. And Bellarmine seems to agree. But if this is so: How then were the souls of the martyrs seen before that loosing of Satan — martyrs who had not worshiped the beast, nor received its mark on their foreheads or hands — martyrs, I say, who were to reign with Christ for those thousand years at the completion of which Satan was to be released? For I cannot see how these things cohere. [N. B. Chamier wonders how the beast Antichrist existed during the thousand years of Satan’s binding, if he was not to exist until the end of the thousand years? Why is it said the martyrs have not taken his mark if he was not in existence?] Nor have Andreas, Aretas, Primasius, Haimo, and the others explained it; they rather conceal it.

6. The passage of Daniel [12:11], if taken literally, is very remote from the Antichrist, for it is a prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jewish Church, which was most cruelly persecuted by him and compelled to cease the continual sacrifice. Therefore, if it is applied to the times of the Antichrist, one must wholly depart from the literal sense and embrace a mystical meaning.

7. Now to the argument. We concede that a persecution under the Antichrist is predicted and will be very violent and very manifest. But we stoutly deny that anything of that sort has yet to occur. For there never was a time in which men were not continually and cruelly persecuted on account of religion for many years, indeed, many ages. And those who read histories observe that already from Hildebrand — that is, Gregory VII — the hands of the Pontiffs never ceased to drip Christian blood. For those most atrocious wars between the Popes and Emperors were conducted under the pretext of piety, and, as they said, to extirpate the simoniacal heresy: while it had never before been heard that heresies were suppressed or to be suppressed by open wars. Afterwards, with the Emperors subdued and tyranny had come to its height, God, at various times, raised up various champions to openly oppose the beast before the world: the Waldenses first, then Wycliffe, then Hus, and finally Luther and those who were with him or came after him. And this was suitable matter for the Pope to rage upon. For did he not repeatedly wage war against the Albigenses? John Hus, Jerome of Prague — what did they not suffer? And what kinds of immense cruelty have not been tried against those who were at one time called Lutherans, then Zwinglians, then Calvinists, then Huguenots? Will anyone deny this was a persecution? and a very violent persecution? and a most open persecution?

8. But what comparison (says Bellarmine) can there be with the persecution of Nero? And he conceives two points of dissimilarity. The first point: Number. For whereas for one who was burned in the present day, formerly a thousand Christians were killed: and that throughout the whole Roman world, not in one province only. Pope Damasus observed in the Life of Marcellinus that over seventeen thousand Christians were put to death by Diocletian. Eusebius relates that the prisons were so full of martyrs that no place was left for the criminals. The second point: the Executions. Toay, he says, the chief punishment is to burn a man: but back then truly incredible and diverse kinds of torments were exercised.

9. I answer: there is truly no comparison between the persecutions of the heathen and those of the Papists; for the latter are by far superior. First, the heathen persecutions were only bodily, but these by Papists primarily afflict the souls, upon which slaughter is far sadder. Second, those were shorter: lasting about three hundred years; these are longer, already six hundred years. Third, those, in the kind of tortures, were milder; these are more monstrous.

10. But the number is unequal, and thus, false. He reported that seventeen thousand martyrs had once been slain under Diocletian in a single day, as if that were something great. But in our time in France alone — for those seventeen thousand were from the whole Roman Empire — in a single year, the seventy-second of the sixteenth century, thirty thousand people of all ages and both sexes were slain within a few days. [I. e., St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.] And if we search the records more deeply; Bellarmine himself, in the last chapter of his book, On the Marks of the Church, relates that one hundred thousand Albigenses were slain in a single day. I cry out with him, What a comparison! Again, in our age there was that solemn saying of the Duke of Alba administering Belgium in the King’s name: in a few years by his hand thirty-six thousand souls were put to death by the executioner.

11. At least, Bellarmine says, the tortures of old were harsher. And this too is false. The most common punishments of the Pagans were crosses, the sword, stoning, and the rack. The Papists refrained from crucifixions indeed; but they applied fires: they drew the swords; they manned galleys. What shall I say of drowning and hangings? Women were even buried alive; many consumed by starvation. Shall I speak of prison torments? Yes, these things were certainly also common to the Pagans. But the Papists certainly possessed exceptionally slow fires with which even the nightly torches of the pagans scarcely compare. And where shall we mention the Spanish Inquisition, whose very name can hardly be heard without horror? Finally, what of indiscriminate killings—did antiquity ever see rivers of Christian blood flowing? Our times have seen them. If I were to clothe these things in their own circumstances, who would not shudder throughout his whole body? Were the Pagans more severe, harsher, more cruel? They were not: they were not.

12. Sanders’ sharp rebuttal: But the Pope does not do these things: rather the civil magistrates do them. For John Hus and Jerome of Prague were handed over by the Pope and by the Council to the secular arm. And the Pope has no power of life or death over those who dwell outside his territory.

13. O the crime! They not only rage, but even exult, now calling them Zwinglians, or now Calvinists. But what if I throw in an Aesopian pipe-player? It did not concern the butcher of Paris that the Pope was absent; yet he saw the same joyful fires, caused by that butcher’s hand, rejoicing not only in Rome but also in the Vatican, and he took part in the procession. From him was sent Fabios Ursinus [?], Cardinal legate, who publicly praised the Parisian slaughter as its forerunner at Lyon; and he, full of authority, bestowed favors and generously granted benefits; and he commended publicly and privately before all the king’s prudence, patience, and greatness of soul in that massacre, even with choice words. What more can I say? The Pope himself led that filthy, monstrous affair under the auspices of his sacred magistracy in the most prominent way, as Thuanus testifies in book fifty-four of his histories. Shall his absence excuse him? In the year 1563 we know he did not take part in our civil wars; but we know that when those same wars were composed in peace, he so bitterly bore it that he scarcely refrained from striking our King with an anathema: he thus discharged himself against Gallic prelates and the Queen of Navarre. Shall we deny that what he is responsible for he rejoices over and laments what failed? Moreover, who does not know that all this was done at the urging and encouragement of the Ecclesiastics whom they name? Who does not know that the bishops of Avignon, Arles, Aix, and the neighboring ones often conferred and at last even supplied money to promote the slaughter of the Mérindol and Cabrières? Who does not know that the Pope instigated Charles V against the Protestants and even aided him with Italian troops? Who is ignorant that these forces interfered in our civil tumults? Troops, I say, sent by the Pope. And yet the Pope does nothing [and is not responsible?] And do none of these ignominies of cruelty not pertain to him?

[………………….]

17. But all the Papists agree about the Eucharistic Sacrifice; and they raise a great tragedy: That the Eucharist is the new sacrifice of the Gospel — and the Antichrist will remove the continual sacrifice — therefore he will abolish the Eucharistic Sacrifice [Daniel12:11]. But this is based on nothing solid. It is certain that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of the Gospel, but not properly speaking, rather metaphorically. For Christians have no external sacrifice properly so called at all. Therefore, the Eucharist is no more to be extinguished by the Antichrist than are other parts of divine worship. Indeed rather, the Antichrist will chiefly labor to destroy the truly Christian sacrifice, namely the internal one; for when that is taken away, what are the external ceremonies, or what force do they possess? Furthermore, I say that the Eucharistic sacrifice will be abolished because in Papistry the Sacrament of the Eucharist is utterly lost: in its place is substituted the most foul traffic of Masses which, apart from the words alone, has retained nothing of the Eucharist — of which matter, God willing, we shall dispute elsewhere.

[………………….]

CHAPTER SEVEN

On the duration of the Antichrist

1. Fifth and sixth arguments follow, whose one and the same foundation is the duration of the Antichrist, and whose same fidelity must also be cleared up. It is first supposed that the Antichrist will reign only three and a half years [Daniel 9:27]. Secondly, immediately after those three years, with a few days interposed, Christ will come for judgment: and thus, the consummation of the world will follow. But the Pope has already reigned for sixteen hundred years and more. Yet the consummation of the age has not yet come. Therefore, they conclude that the Pope is not the Antichrist.

2. First, they infer it from Daniel 7 [v. 25] and 12 [v. 11] and Revelation 12 [v. 6 & 14], where we read that the kingdom of the Antichrist will last for a time, times, and half a time — that is, a year, two years, and a half year — or forty-two months, or forty-two months of days, or twelve hundred and sixty days. Then they prove it from the Fathers, whose common opinion concurs with this. And because in Revelation 12 [v. 12] and 20 [v. 3] the time of the binding of the Antichrist is said to be very short; and because many would perish who should not perish unless that persecution were very brief, [Matt. 24:22], according to Augustine and Gregory; and because Christ preached for only three and a half years; therefore it is fitting that the Antichrist should not reign longer.

3. Secondly, the Papists conclude from this that the coming of the Antichrist will occur shortly before the end of the world. For Daniel chapter seven says that immediately after Antichrist the judgment will come [v. 21-22]; likewise, Revelation twenty [v. 7-10]. Also, Matthew 24: “The gospel will be preached throughout the whole world, and then the end will come” [v. 14]. Also, “Immediately after those days of tribulation the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear” [v. 29]. Furthermore, 2 Thessalonians: “Then shall be revealed the man of sin, whom the Lord Jesus will kill by the spirit of his mouth and destroy by the brightness of his coming” [v. 8]. And 1 John 2: “Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists have come; therefore, we know it is the last hour” [v. 18]. Finally, they prove the same thing from the common consent of the Fathers.

4. I answer: first, the claim about the duration of the Pope is false. For the Bishop of Rome did not reign sixteen hundred years. For if he had so reigned, it would follow that he had reigned from the very beginning of Christianity, which is most false: since no Universal Bishop among Christians is heard of for many centuries after Christ — about which matter much has been argued in the preceding books. But thus do the Papists take as certain those things which are most controversial. [N. B. This is called ‘begging the question,’ assuming as true that which is yet to be proved.] They like to treat serious matters like trifles; indeed, they delight in deceiving the world in matters of religion.

5. Concerning the Antichrist, I answer that nothing is more certain than the fact that he will be abolished by the glorious coming of Christ. For Paul teaches, “Whom the Lord will consume by the breath of his mouth and will destroy by the manifestation of his coming” [2 Thess. 2:8]. By these words we distinguish two stages in the destruction of the Antichrist, namely, one which has initially begun and the other a perfected destruction. The latter will be when the glorious Lord appears, that is, at His second coming to judge the whole world. The former will precede this, when by His word — that is, by the breath of His mouth — the Antichrist will be so overcome that he will begin to feel that infinite power of Him by whom he is finally to be abolished. Therefore, we truly rejoice that it has been granted by God to not only see the power of His Spirit in our times, but also to be ministers of that Spirit. For who does not see how great a blow the preaching of the word of God has dealt to the Pope? How many peoples have withdrawn from him? How many others contemplate separation? Finally, who does not see that the Pope’s authority rests solely upon sheer tyranny? For however much they labor with preaching, confessions, feigned miracles, sometimes by others, sometimes by the most wicked of all, the Jesuits: yet in Spain and Italy, which alone remain provinces of papal dominion, if the horror of the Inquisition did not stand in the way, all would have professed the true [Christian non-Papist] religion long ago. And we feel that not even the Inquisition itself can prevent many from panting for the [true] Gospel, posing a threat to the Pontiff.

You have begun, O Lord, your work: complete it. And hear your people who so ardently long for that last day, since both the Roman Empire has perished and the Antichrist has been revealed.

How often formerly the ancient Christians prayed vehemently for a delay of the end, that the Roman Empire might be of long duration and that the Antichrist might come much later: Ναι ἔρχου, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ — Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

6. But as to the times, or rather the reckoning of times, we reply that it is not for us to know the times, and we repeat what we have already said: that prophecies before their event are most obscure, nor can anyone understand them except by the prophet, that is, through an extraordinary revelation. Therefore, since the end of the Antichrist has not yet come, and so the prophecy concerning his duration has not yet been fulfilled, it is no wonder that the computation of years is not yet clear: let there remain in that argument the knots which must be untied not by Oedipus but by Daniel, yes, by the Evangelist John. Let the Church rather keep her mind in patience until, all things being fulfilled, those things which are now unknown become plain. And let the Papists learn that they are neither prophets nor sons of prophets and therefore do not vend their conjectures to us as oracles.

7. We embrace John’s admonition with our whole heart. For he then warned his own that they should consider that it was the last hour when it was heard that Antichrist comes [1 John 2:18]. That is, the last times began after Christ’s first coming, in which the revelation of the Antichrist is to be expected, and after that the restoration of all things. Since, therefore, even back then the hour was the last — that is, so many ages before our times — by what right would anyone contract the same to the span of a few days? Yes, his coming will be for a short time; none of us denies that. But we believe that only God can have the certain knowledge as to the brevity of such days counted in numbers. We have already shown that Matthew’s words about the consummation, after the Gospel has been preached, do not pertain either to the Antichrist or to the end of the world. [I.e., The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.] Paul said the Antichrist would be destroyed, but he designated neither the number of years nor the time from revelation to ruin.

8. Daniel predicted nothing properly of the Antichrist, but only under the figure of Antiochus. Therefore, that which concerns the cessation of the continual [sacrifice] properly pertains to the Jews, for theirs was the התמיר, that is, that perpetual sacrifice which was celebrated every day and indeed twice. And that which ceased under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes in Judea was literally fulfilled, as Scaliger showed in book six of the Emendation of Times. And indeed, the first of the Maccabees, chapter one, says that Antiochus in the hundred and forty‑third year of the Greek empire despoiled the temple, removing all the vessels of sacrifice; and after two years he sent thither the prefect of his treasury, and then the sanctuary was deserted — namely in the hundred and forty‑fifth year; and afterward on the fifteenth day of the ninth month, called Kislev, an idol was established and the temple profaned. Finally, in the hundred and forty‑eighth year is described, chapter four, the purification of the temple, on the twenty‑fifth day of the month Kislev. That interval can easily be matched to the time, times, and half a time, that is, three and a half years.

9. What then remains in Revelation is this: first, who forbids us from replying concerning the three and a half years that Andreas [of Caesarea] said could be interpreted as a thousand? “Whether then, as we have already explained, the ten hundred are to be understood as a thousand years, or rather fewer, God knows, who knows how far he has decreed the duration of this life to be useful for us to endure.” Certainly, [this pertains to] the very body of prophecy. Neither a thousand years nor three and a half years are clearer from the context or the words. Therefore, if we may allow ourselves to be ignorant of the computation of a thousand years, assuredly we can scarcely understand the three and a half years. Especially since we must confess that these are not yet fulfilled; they are, as we have said, obscure before the event of the prophecy.

10. And truly, what reasons are offered why three years and a half should be understood literally, and not rather for years of years, as some wish — that is, for twelve hundred and sixty years, which is a number elsewhere expressed as days? [I.e., the year-day theory.] For who does not know that prophetic days are computed for years? [Numbers 14:34; Ezek. 4:5-6; Daniel 9:24-27.] And in this very prophecy of John, are not the witnesses said to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days? [Rev. 11:3.] Add that the persecution of the Antichrist must be general against the whole Church, which even the Papists do not deny; but is it plausible the Antichrist could suddenly extend his fury for only three years and a half over the whole world? Especially since he will proceed from small beginnings to a great height: which without doubt requires not a few years but several centuries. For neither did Antiochus, the type of the Antichrist, immediately grow to greatness; nor did Alexander [the Great] himself attain such glory except by relying on paternal resources and victories. Moreover, the Roman monarchy at last became greatest, but it took many centuries. And note the vanity of papal imaginings. For they wish a king to be chosen from the Jews, then to invade Egypt and Ethiopia and Libya, then having turned to the West to occupy provinces formerly subject to the Roman Empire. And is so vast a matter to be granted so short a time? It must be [to accommodate their time frame]. For before he can order the worship of God everywhere to cease, it will be necessary that he rule everywhere. But he will not rule in the seven Roman provinces (so says Kaspar Scioppius) before he has subdued Egypt, Ethiopia, and Libya. Let these things be reconciled if they can. For they want the cessation of the continual sacrifice to be precisely three years and a half. What then? Will he order the sacrifices to cease before there is a king? Either the sacrifice will not cease for three years, or in a single flash of an eye, like lightning, he will occupy the whole world. Who indeed would believe this? It is far better, therefore, to defer the reckoning of years into a time of events.

11. But Bellarmine truly denies that “years” can be understood as “days.” For a month or year is not named from the number of days as is a week. [N. B. Greek word for “week” = ἑβδομάς (hebdomas) = “seven.”] Therefore, it is correct to say, “a week of years,” but it is not correct to say, “a month of years” or “a year of years.”

12. But that matters not. For because the number of days in a month is fixed, whence whatever [month’s] name is taken, days can be understood, so too months. Analogy compels this. For if thirty days equals one month, and a day is made to represent a year, then thirty days will make a month of years [i.e., 30 years].There is no other way to count a year: nor is there any strict etymological reason in the name, but only the observation of analogy. Otherwise, since the name “day” is not from any number, a day could not signify a year, which is false.

CHAPTER EIGHT

On the Name and Mark of Antichrist

1. Bellarmine adds the Name and Mark [charactere] of the Antichrist: since there is as yet no knowledge of either, he concludes that the Antichrist has not come. The reason for the consequence: for if the Antichrist had come, and were the Roman Pontiff, certainly his Name and Mark foretold by John would be known. For when all prophecies are fulfilled, they become most clear. But there is still controversy about the Name and Mark of the Antichrist. Therefore, John’s prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. The Antichrist has not yet come: the Pope is not the Antichrist. To show that both are unknown, he enumerates many and various opinions and refutes them — but of these later. Now to the argument.

2. First, the consequence is denied. For most obscure declarations occur in the Prophecies, which even when they are fulfilled are scarcely understood. Thus, in Daniel that statue is interpreted in more varied ways than anything else, yet it must have received its complement, since it is said to be struck down by a stone that grew into a great mountain — which no one doubts to be Christ. Therefore, when what is said of Christ has been fulfilled, who can say that those things which are said to precede him are not complete? And yet, as I said, the opinions of learned men vary greatly. What shall I say about the seventy weeks? [Daniel 9:24]. For it is altogether necessary that these pertain to the first coming of Christ and thus were fulfilled many centuries ago. And yet no one has been found whose reckoning all accept. Therefore, it is not true that all the particulars of the prophecies are distinctly understood after their fulfillment. Just as one would be counted insane who, from the obscurity of the statue or of the weeks, concluded that Christ had not yet come, so, too, would he who denies that the Antichrist is revealed simply because of the obscurity of his number or mark utter mere nonsense. For there are so many less obscure prophecies which have been fulfilled in Christ that the fine subtleties of numbers can have no weight against them. Similarly, we have shown, concerning the Pope, that very many of the marks plainly appear. Therefore, the Papists vainly raise calumny on this or that point.

3. But the number of the name, which mark is disputed because of this place in the thirteenth Revelation of John, “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom, let him that hath understanding calculate the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.”

4. Those who adhere to the literal interpretation read the number of the name as a sum made up from the letters of some proper name, after the custom of the Hebrews and Greeks, whose alphabetic letters served as the signs of numbers. Hence, they labored to find such names. Long ago Irenaeus offered two: ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ [the Latin man] and τείτανο [Titan]. Others added λαμπετής [shining; bright; radiant; gleaming], άνθεμος [flowered; blossom-like; blooming; flowery]. Further suggestions were ὁ νικητής, κακός, οδηγός, ἀληθής, βλαβερός, πάλαι βάσκανος, ἄμνθος, ἄδικος, γλωσσικός. Some proposed ἀρνοδμαι, by which word the number is also exceeded; hence, Primasius gives the word ἀρνοδμε as a name for nothing. Ambrosius Autpertus rendered it into Latin as Dic lux [say, light]. In our times the studies of the parties themselves have exercised themselves variously. Papists, triflers—Bishop of Ghent, Lindanus, Martin Lauter—Genebrardus לולתר [Luther] both foolishly, as if to explain prophecies by corrupting names: for who is that Lauter or Luther? Bellarmine דביר ביתרו, as if John had that cardinal in mind, or ביתרון in such a form or by such analogy as Chytræus proposes? Ignorance of Hebrew, or sportful perversity— for what is דביר, [inner sanctuary] or who is so called? Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians] however, more ingeniously propose רומיית [Roman], ἐκκλησία [assembly, church], Ἰταλικά [Italian], Θεὸς εἰμί [I am God], ὅλ᾽ αἰῶνος [of all ages], ἡ μίασα ἡ παπική [the filthy Papacy], and perhaps some others.

5. But this reasoning, to speak freely, seems more alien to the Holy Spirit and too close to the dreams of the Cabalists. And so, either God never actually predicted anyone’s specific name, or he predicted a very specific name. Thus Cyrus, thus John. For what is read in the Sibylline verses that Jesus is designated by eight hundred and eighty‑eight is trifling, not from the Holy Spirit. Secondly, at least the name cannot be the proper name of one man, since we have shown above that those who think the Antichrist to be an individual person are mistaken. Therefore, it will necessarily be either common or the proper name of some office. But if common, by what right would the beast be called a name? No one has yet proposed the name of an office. Thirdly, not only is it said what the number of his name will be, but also that buying and selling will be forbidden to all who do not have the number of his name. How this can be understood by that cabalistic reckoning of letters, I do not see. Nor do I see how others could have that number of his name.

6. Then what is the method of reckoning? Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin? For the Latins do not customarily mark numbers by letters, except a few, as M, D, C, L, X, V, I. From these at first scarcely any name can be formed; indeed, in Latin absolutely nothing except that Dic lux of Ansbert. Moreover, both M and D, say the learned, are letters made by mistake for [??]; thus, only C, L, X, V, I remain, from which no name [can be formed]. Therefore, a Latin reckoning cannot be undertaken. Greek or Hebrew may be possible, yet if given as the mark of the Antichrist it must either not be unknown or known only to a few. For if unknown, it will not be known at all. If known to only a few, it will hardly help the Church. But it will at least be known to a few: for long ago only the schools knew those languages and that method of numbering. Finally, since languages have changed so that neither Hebrew nor Latin is anywhere vernacular, who will believe that when the Antichrist is about to come, he will assume a Hebrew or a Greek name? If he takes some other, then it will be from the vernacular tongues. But those do not count by letters, unless perhaps in the East: therefore, it would have to be said that this mark will be perceptible only to Orientals — which is absurd.

10. On the Mark [charactere] the question is easier for Bellarmine. From the text, he says, we have one ‘mark’ to come, not many ‘marks.’ The reason: because Scripture speaks in the singular number. Secondly, that mark will be common to all in the kingdom of the Antichrist. Third, the mark will be such that it can be carried either on the right hand or on the forehead without distinction. Fourth, no one will be permitted to buy or sell unless he has the mark, or the name, or the number of the name. But the Pope has no such mark. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist.

11. I answer: the first premise is false; for there is nothing in John’s words that forces one to understand a single sign. Nor does the conclusion of such reasoning: he speaks in the singular; therefore, he signifies one. Indeed, he even speaks of the mark in the singular just as of the name; therefore, as there is one proper name, so one mark. For the consequence is not necessary. Even the Papists themselves, though they see one beast and one woman sitting upon it, do not conclude that one beast signifies one individual man, as one woman signifies one. And the assumption about a proper name is false, as I’ve said. And certainly, even if we say there are various marks of the Antichrist, nothing in all John’s prophecy contradicts it. That there may be various marks for various orders of men, what is absurd in that? For in our kings’ service such use exists. They have their own signet: the Privy Council its seal, the treasurer his seal, again the Knights their order’s badge, and likewise the common soldiery. And yet these singular marks are royal characters. And this is supported by the fact that it is written δώσουσι αὐτοῖς χάραγμα, [“they will give to them a mark”] not τὸ χάραγμα [“the mark”]. Hence one understands that some mark is to be given indefinitely, not one definitely. For what follows, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα, [“unless the one having the mark”], with the article, urges nothing: this is because that mark had earlier been named; thus, it must be explained, unless one has that very mark. As in Matthew 22, the king is called ὁ βασιλεύς after βασιλεῖς [kings] in the indefinite sense, as we observed elsewhere [Matt. 22:7].

12. Before any conclusion is drawn, it must be proved that “hand” and “forehead” are to be taken literally and not allegorically. Haimo of Auxerre: “What is meant by the right hand of the reprobate if not their works? And what by the forehead if not faith? Therefore, they have the mark on the right hand and on their foreheads, because where they ought to have had pure works of virtue and faith, they are found stained by the blemish of crime. In the hand the mark of the Jew signifies that they do the works of the Devil; in the forehead, that they believe in him.” Primasius: “In the hand it signifies works; in the right hand the simulation of the true; in the forehead the profession of faith.” Andreas of Caesarea, Aretas, and Ansbert are not unlike these.

13. It is falsely assumed there is no such mark [characterem] among the Papists, for they all have their own mark, the very papal treachery itself; both on the forehead by public profession, and on the right hand by practice. For publicly they profess in words that they are Papists, and, in fact, they exercise all parts of that deceit. And this mark is common to all, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave.

14. It is also false that those marks were from the beginning in the Christian Church. “To adhere to the Roman Church,” Bellarmine says, “was the sign and mark of a truly Catholic man.” I answer: it is true κατά τι, [“to some extent”] as we have explained elsewhere — namely, just as adherence to other Catholic Churches throughout the Christian world was a sign of a Catholic. Thus, Augustine in epistle 162 adds other lands to Rome: “When he saw that the Roman Church, in which the Apostolic chair always flourished as a principality, was joined to the other lands from which the Gospel had come to Africa by letters of communion.” And Bellarmine quoted this passage. But now it is far otherwise: so that when they call themselves Catholics, they immediately append Roman, which was never done formerly. [N. B. Today the Roman Catholic Church has omitted “Roman” from their official Catechism: Catechism of the Catholic Church]. For what he cites from Victor of Utica, “If you slay him with the sword, the Romans will begin to proclaim him a martyr,” was said of an Arian, not of any Catholic. And indeed, the Arians were at war with the Roman Empire, which was then Catholic; therefore, calling the Romans Catholics referred not to religion but to political partisanship.

15. Bellarmine argues: Many Jews buy and sell in the dominion of the Roman Pontiff, who have none of the Pope’s mark. Truly, I say, the prohibition of buying and selling is literally fulfilled with them also. For Jews are not permitted to acquire any real estate, but only certain movable property [i.e., furniture, cattle, etc.] Moreover, no persecution of the Jews is predicted by the Antichrist, only of Christians. Furthermore, the cruelty shown to Christians far surpasses the severity shown to Papist Catholics. For who does not know that in those regions in which the Inquisition reigns — that is, the nerve center of the Pope — non-Papist Catholics have no access at all? And elsewhere, if any freedom remains, is it not against the Pope and his followers? And who has not heard their proscriptions, not only of goods but even of bodies? Certainly, this freedom may be called the freedom of buying and selling.

CHAPTER NINE

On the generation (origin) of the Antichrist

1. On the race and generation (origin) of the Antichrist much has been said. Bellarmine distinguishes those opinions into three orders: first, the erroneous; second, the probable; third, the certain. He enumerates four erroneous views. The first is that the Antichrist will be born of a virgin, like Christ. Thus teaches the author of the little work, On the Antichrist, among Augustine’s works. I believe this absurdity arose from Hippolytus, who falsely said he would be born of a virgin — so I read in the edition of the Library of the Holy Fathers, although Bellarmine seems to have read “born” as false. Second: that the Antichrist is himself the Devil. So that same Hippolytus felt; of whom there exists a very vehement discourse in his, On the Consummation of the World. Third, that the Devil will be incarnate in him — from the previous opinion I do not see why he distinguished this, nor have I yet seen anyone who distinguishes them. That Hippolytus imagines an incarnation και δόκησις [“and pretense of an appearance”]. Fourth, that Nero himself was the Antichrist and still lives, preserved in secret with the same vigor as when he was thought to have died. But Bellarmine condemns these errors himself; so, it will suffice that we have pointed them out.

2. Turning to the plausible opinions. Bellarmine counts two. First: that the Antichrist will be born of a fornicating woman, not from lawful marriage. John Damascene treats this in book four, chapter twenty‑eight. Some have even added that he will be born from the intercourse of a monk and a nun. But Bellarmine rightly denies that this is shown by Scripture; and therefore, rejects it as certain. I add that it is also refuted by the fact that it is certain the Antichrist will not be one individual man, as we have elsewhere shown.

3. Irenæus, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper, Theodoret praised this view. Among later writers: Gregory, Bede, Rupert, Aretas, Richard, Anselm and others. Sanders builds his eighth demonstration on this. Scioppius also puts it as undoubted. Bellarmine calls it very probable, and only because of the authority of so many Fathers. He nevertheless shows that the passages of Scripture cited for this sense are manifestly forced.

4. Bellarmine, therefore, turns at last to two very certain axioms: one, that the Antichrist will come especially for the Jews and will be received by them as the Messiah. The other, that he will be born of the Jewish people, and be circumcised, and observe the Sabbath, at least for a time. From these he certainly concludes that the Pope is not the Antichrist; and he calls this a most evident demonstration because no Roman Pontiff has been a Jew, either by nation or by religion, or in any other way. Also, because he was never accepted by the Jews as Messiah, but rather as an enemy and persecutor. What absurd ridiculousness escaped him, whether from thoughtlessness or from incompetence, I let others judge. Which is it? Namely, that the bishop is said by the Jews to be called הנמון as an insult. Why so? For הגמון in Syriac signifies “tail.” Very well: thus, someday he will teach us that a gourd is called “cardinal” in Arabic, or a melon in British, according to Jesuitry. He has attained so much expertise in all languages! But to the matter: for I leave that sin to be vindicated to the grammarians. Let the student look at Elijah the Tishbite and David de Pomey’s Dictionary, indeed, at Boderian’s Syriac‑Chaldean [lexicon], and laugh at the fable of the tail.

5. I distinguish this debate into three main points: first, whether the Antichrist will come primarily because of the Jews; second, whether he will be born from the Jews, specifically from the tribe of Dan, as Sanders and Scioppius contend [N. B. Jerry Falwell Sr. held that opinion]; third, whether he will observe the Jewish rites. The first point is affirmed by Bellarmine, and with these arguments. First, from John 5: “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.” And he observes that this passage pertains to the Antichrist, although he otherwise taught that it does not. Second, from 2 Thessalonians, “Because they did not accept the love of the truth, so that they might be saved, God will send them a strong delusion, so that they believe the lie.” He proves that the matter concerns the Jews because Paul says that the Antichrist will be sent to those who would not receive Christ. And who were more obliged and yet refused than the Jews? Moreover, the Apostle said not only because they do not receive, but because they did not receive. Therefore, he speaks of those who would not believe when Christ and the Apostles preached. It is evident, however, that the Gentiles most eagerly received the Gospel. The Indians, on the other hand, refused. Thirdly, because the Antichrist will doubtless first attach himself to those who are ready to receive him. And the Jews are of this sort because they expect the Messiah as a temporal king, such as the Antichrist will be. Therefore, just as Christ first came to the Jews, to whom He had been promised and by whom He was expected, and afterwards added the Gentiles to Himself, so, too, will the Antichrist.

6. But on the contrary, Scripture nowhere sets forth the Antichrist to us as anything other than an adversary of the Church, sitting in the temple of God: likewise, in the city Rome, and among peoples and nations. Therefore, those who speak so boldly about the Jews are doing nothing but babble. However, pardon must be granted to those ancient men who, far removed from the matter, divined about future things as best they could. But why should we be bound to their authority on this point, when Bellarmine himself in the matter of the tribe of Dan will not submit to it? Indeed, that argument was of service to his own liberty because none of the Scriptures which they cited regarding that matter is convincing. What reason has he to expect that this same argument will be useful to him but useless to us; or useful in that point and idle in this? Let him see to that; but the Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians], with due allowance for the merits of so many men and declining the conjectures of human ingenuity, will admit nothing for certain which Scripture does not teach.

7. The passage from John 5, which Bellarmine adduces as before, we have already shown not to pertain peculiarly to the Antichrist. As for the other text, it is violently and unduly twisted. The context: “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders; and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Therefore, God shall send them the operation of error that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Who then are those who received not the love of the truth? Clearly those who perish. Thus, the members of the sentence are connected: “in those who perish, because they received not.” Are the only ones who perish then the Jews? Again, who are those who perish? Thomas answers: the foreknown unto perdition — and who will interpret those as Jews alone? But Paul speaks of those in whom that fraud of unrighteousness shall work. Therefore, since these things are so connected, why are those who received not the love of the truth to be understood especially as Jews? For what if I read “they received not” as ἐδὲξαντο (they had not received)? Or what hinders one from interpreting ἐκ δεξάμενοι as “they did not receive” — that is, they did not receive when it was offered to them? As in Ephesians 6: “Each one shall receive whatever good he has done.” Nay, immediately it follows, as they are condemned, παντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες — “All who did not believe,” that is, those who did not believe.

8. But the Jews [he says] are most ready to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, if anyone denies this, whence will it be proven? Because they expect the Messiah as a temporal king. I understand. But first the consequence is absurd — and equally applicable to Muhammad: for he was a temporal ruler. Yet the Jews did not receive Muhammad. Namely, although they expect a Messiah who is a temporal king, not every temporal king is taken for the Messiah. Why should this Antichrist be taken rather than another? Secondly, the Papists themselves teach that the Jews will appoint the Antichrist as king. Therefore, they will not receive the Antichrist because he is a king; rather, conversely, he will be a king because the Jews receive him.

9. The comparison of Christ and the Antichrist is ridiculous. If we say all things are alike concerning this as about Christ, then: Just as Christ first came to the Jews, to whom he was promised, and afterwards to the Gentiles, so too the Antichrist. What force has that consequence? For if we say all things are similar to Christ’s case then since the Jews did not receive Christ when he came, they will not receive the Antichrist. And if that consequence is absurd, how is the other any better? On the contrary: Christ came to the Jews because he was promised to them; but the Antichrist is not promised to them, therefore, he will not come to them first. Moreover, the Antichrist is opposed to Christ, therefore, he will take a contrary course. Hence, he will come rather from the Gentiles to the Jews. Finally, the Antichrist is promised to the Church (let me use that word with your indulgence): but the Church consists only of Gentiles because the Jews would not be gathered into it. Therefore, he is promised to the Gentiles. Hence, he will first come to the Gentiles.

10. The second head follows: whether Antichrist will be a Jew, and indeed, of the tribe of Dan. Bellarmine proves this to be a prediction of the future because the Jews would never receive a man who is not a Jew; moreover, all the ancients teach the same. But that reasoning is futile. What if they do not receive him? For this is not proclaimed by the Holy Spirit, as we have shown, but divined by human conjectures. Again, what if they do receive him? Does it therefore follow he will be a Jew? The consequence is nonexistent. Furthermore, that they would not receive non‑Jews — by what authority of Scripture is that established? If the Jesuits divine such things, who is bound to believe them? Or do they not recall that Herod, a non-Jew, was received by them as king? Why did the Papists not remember those who shouted that they had no king but Caesar? Moreover, the coming of this wicked one is foretold to be with all the deceit of unrighteousness. Therefore, those who receive him will not do so by sure counsel, with all things exactly known and duly considered, but as deceived. Who does not see that by the same fraud he could persuade the Jews that he is a Jew, even if he is not? And again, persuade them to receive him though he be not a Jew? As for the ancients: let them rest in their peace, and let us remember human frailty, which cannot know everything — above all it knows not the future — and in divining about such things such conjecture may well be deceptive.

11. That Dan will be born as an outlaw, Scioppius argues: from Genesis 49, “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a horned snake in the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider falls backward. I will wait for thy salvation, O Lord.” For that passage must be considered by the ancients, according to apostolic tradition, to be about the Antichrist. And the last words suggest suspicion of some great evil, when the Patriarch rises up and sets himself to await the coming of Christ. Secondly from Numbers 2, “On the north side shall be the camp of the children of Dan,” where he is designated who in Isaiah chapter 14 says, “I will sit on the mount of the congregation, on the sides of the north.” And in Daniel chapter 11, the king of the north is called the Antichrist. Thirdly, in Revelation 7, when the Jews to be converted by the preaching of Elijah are numbered twelve thousand from each tribe, the tribe of Dan is omitted. Fourthly, in Jeremiah 8, “From Dan has come the sound of the hoofs of his horses, at the neighing of his stallions the whole land is moved: they come, they devour the land and its fullness: the city and its inhabitants.” Which things can be understood allegorically of the Antichrist, whose type was Nebuchadnezzar.

12. I answer: all these passages are too boldly tortured. First, in Genesis 49 Jacob predicts what will be the fate of the tribe itself of Dan, not what will happen to any particular person born from that tribe: for he likewise named the other tribes. Thus, Arias [?] in his Caleb interprets it of the invasion by that tribe which occupied places assigned to other men in the allotment of the land, “Such an invasion,” he says, “the most ancient father of all the tribes had indicated in his prophecies as to be performed by the children of Dan: ‘Dan shall be a serpent in the way.’” Mercerus likewise notes craft in war and overcoming enemies. Vatablus in his larger annotations: “The sense is that he will not be so brave as to descend boldly and nobly into open combat but will fight by guile and ambushes.” But the Chaldean paraphrast and the Rabbis who followed him interpret it of Samson; and Bellarmine proved it. Pererius also proved it: “Provident,” he says, “Jacob brought back the tribe of Dan, which otherwise would have been obscure and ignoble, in a greater way to be illuminated and ennobled by Samson, who was of that tribe; therefore, he attributed this prophecy concerning the tribe of Dan entirely to Samson.” But what of all this to the Antichrist? For that about the expectation of thy salvation is diluted. First, it is not necessary to foresee some certain peril. For the thought suffices, whether of the common human danger or of particular wars to which that tribe was foreseen to be exposed: that the patriarch by his own movement might teach it to trust in the Lord. Finally, if we concede that he had Samson in mind, the sense is clear: for truly one could say “the salvation of the Lord,” or rather “the LORD is salvation,” meaning that deliverance by Samson. Finally, even if we concede that some danger was foreseen, nevertheless it is not necessary that it pertain to the Antichrist.

13. In the second chapter of Numbers, if the Danites are camped toward the north, therefore, they say, the Antichrist will be born of the tribe of Dan — what a wondrous argument. But the Jesuits have endless similar devices. Moreover, it is not only Dan but along with him Asher and Naphtali. For the layout of the Israelite camps is described according to the four regions of the world. To the east: Judah, Issachar, Zebulun. To the south: Reuben, Simeon, Gad. To the west: Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin. To the north, as I said, Dan, Asher, Naphtali. There you have new alchemical reasoning, which concludes anything from anything through such alchemy. For it would have been enough that Dan be compared with the king of the north. Thus, of course, the Roman Pontiff will triumph. Although Isaiah does not speak of the Antichrist, nor Daniel, as we have said.

14. In Revelation chapter seven, a similar judgment hardly holds. The tribe of Dan is not numbered among the rest. Therefore, they say, the Antichrist will be born from it. Bellarmine denies it is certain why the omission and shows the same omission of Ephraim as well. And indeed, Ephraim is omitted, if the name is attended to; but who does not notice that in its place Joseph is set? For otherwise there was no tribe of Joseph. It is true, however, that there is no certain cause for the omission; therefore, no demonstration can be made from it. Scioppius fancied that Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah was a type of the Antichrist. Those who turn allegories into demonstrations are fit for the Jesuits.

15. The fourth head of the question remains: whether the Antichrist will assume Jewish rites. Sanders proves this in his ninth demonstration saying the Jews will receive no one as their Messiah who does not observe their law. Furthermore, because the Fathers so teach.

16. But on the contrary. If that is conceded, then the Antichrist would not sit in the Christian Church, but in the Jewish synagogue. Nor would he pretend to be a Christian — which the Fathers teach, and they have support not only from Paul’s words, but also from John’s, who testifies that he will have two horns like a lamb, which to some are two Testaments. Further, it is certain that the Antichrist will be received by Christians, and not by force, but by fraud. What then is the reasoning behind saying the Jews will not admit him who professes himself a Christian, rather than saying Christians will admit him who embraces Jewish religion? Finally, Scripture nowhere teaches that the Jews will accept him as their Messiah. We have answered about the Fathers elsewhere. We add here that Bellarmine himself undermines their authority by not saying simply that the Antichrist will observe the Sabbath, at least for a time — which none of the ancients asserted.

CHAPTER TEN

On the seat of Antichrist

1. The Papists all unanimously define the seat of the Antichrist to be Jerusalem, and the temple, of Solomon: whence they seek a notable argument that the Pope is not the Antichrist. Since not only is the Pope’s seat not Jerusalem, but it is also likely that since about the year 600 of Christ no Roman Pontiff has ever visited that city.

2. But Bellarmine first proves that will be the seat of Antichrist from Revelation 11, where John says that Enoch and Elijah will fight with the Antichrist in Jerusalem and there be killed by him: “and their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.” Aretas interprets that city as Jerusalem and so do the other interpreters. And it is proved because no other city is where the Lord was crucified. Second, from 2 Thessalonians: “so that he sits in the temple of God,” whose more common, more probable, and more literal exposition is that those who teach that by the temple of God is meant the restored temple of Solomon. The reason: for in the Scriptures of the New Testament the temple of God is never understood to mean the churches of Christians, but always the temple of Jerusalem; nor was it so among the Fathers for many centuries. Testimonies of the Fathers are added. Then Scioppius from Daniel 11: “And he shall set his tabernacle between the seas upon the glorious holy mountain, and shall come to the end of it, and none shall stand before him.” Namely that holy mount is interpreted as the Mount of Olives, from which Christ ascended into heaven; and on which the Antichrist will at last perish and go down into hell, and no one will help him. Sanders also contends by using this argument: For in the Jerusalem temple there has often been set, as it were a figure of the Antichrist, some abomination, as the image of Caesar, another set up by him who took the city, and Hadrian’s. Finally, the very sect of Muhammad. Therefore, it is not without serious cause that the Antichrist is expected there.

3. But we deny that Jerusalem or its temple will be the seat of the Antichrist. First, because Scripture does not predict two seats for him but one—and that one is plainly described as a city set upon seven hills, which no one has ever said of Jerusalem, nor was it ever a city ruling over nations. Second, because the temple of Jerusalem is so utterly destroyed that nowhere is it foretold to be rebuilt. Indeed, Daniel 9 calls that destruction the “end” of the city, and נחרצת שממות “the cutting off,” “desolation,” or “devastation.” And Matthew 24, describing this desolation, says not a stone shall be left upon another, and connects it with the prediction of the consummation of the age. What then? Either they invent new prophecies about the city’s restoration and the rebuilding of the temple contrary to these Scriptures, or they must cease to assert it as the seat of the Antichrist.

4. The argument from Revelation 11 is taken from the preceding. For when that dream about the coming of Enoch and Elijah is refuted, then certainly the rest that follows from it must vanish. And indeed, it is false that all the interpreters favor that sense. The author of the Homilies on Revelation, attributed to Augustine, Homily 8: “In the streets of the great city, that is, in the midst of the Church.” Ambrose: “If, by the great city, we would understand earthly Jerusalem because he said, ‘and their Lord was crucified there,’ we should err from the truth: for that Jerusalem is destroyed even to its foundations; and that which is said to have been built for it, is not in that place, but elsewhere. Nor should it be called Sodom and Egypt because it is inhabited by Christians.” Rupert: “Moreover, the great city in whose streets the bodies of those witnesses lie or shall lie is the city contrary to the holy city; it is the city of the Devil, opposed to the city or Church of God, whose first citizen and builder was the fratricide Cain, and thence all the sons of pride.”

5. About Christ crucified, there is no difficult scruple. For we are not always to understand Scripture according to the literal sense, but sometimes tropically. Thus, in Galatians 3 it is said ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένῳ, “crucified among you.” Thus, they say Peter spoke: “I shall be crucified,” and that in the city of Rome. Here it is clear it is not to be taken literally. For neither are there two witnesses, as we observed elsewhere, nor three and a half days, nor even the very streets of that city. For how do you understand, “And men from tribes and peoples and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies”? Therefore, since all the rest of that passage is understood metaphorically, this portion also appears likewise. Metaphorically, Christ is crucified everywhere His Gospel is rejected, and much more wherever His faithful suffer persecution.

6. In the second of Thessalonians, it is denied that by “the temple of God” Solomon’s temple must be understood. For this, as we have said, is never to be rebuilt. And what he adds — that in the New Testament this name is never understood of Christian churches — has no force. For what if we were to consider this single passage [an outlier]? Who does not know that Revelation borrows many peculiar phrases, many of which are taken from the Old Testament? For nowhere else in the New Testament are kings signified by the horns or heads of any beast; nor is the Antichrist described as the woman who commits fornication; nor are peoples represented by waters; and many other such usages occur. Why then be surprised if the Temple of God is similarly taken from the Old Testament. Secondly, his homonymy plays a trick. For what does “churches” of the Christians mean? In the Vulgate it long ago came to mean simply the buildings in which Christians perform their sacred rites. But we rather — indeed, the Fathers rather — called the Christian communities “churches,” indeed, the Church in the fullest sense; of this matter we treated in chapter four of the preceding book. Further, it is not necessary to speak of the Fathers: they divined about future matters and did not all agree; therefore, they hold no decisive weight.

7. In the eleventh chapter Daniel concludes his prophecy with the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It must be noted however concerning “Apadno,” that its meaning is not certain: some think it is a proper name of a place; yet they do not indicate where it is: others that it is a common noun, and signifies a tent or tabernacle, others even a girdle. Scioppius judges the place to be near Nicopolis or Emmaus: by what reasoning only he knows. For Jerome, from whom he took it, did not put forward that opinion as his own, but that of others. But Pereira prefers tabernacle: although in origin it departs from grammatical analogy: since it is cut into almost two words: the one meaning “seat,” “throne,” or “palace” which is false: the other, indeed, is what it is, which would be strange if one reading this not unskilled in Hebrew could not contain a laugh. Nor does Jerome do so, although he has translated θρόνε αυτό as “his throne.” For indeed that which is the same meaning can be: but there are other etymological derivations, namely from אפרן [Aphran]. Furthermore, the ancient interpreter departed from the Hebrews in rendering “his tabernacle”: for it ought to be “the tabernacles of Apadno,” if that is a proper name: or “the tabernacles of his tent” if it is a common noun. Again “on the famous and holy mountain:” in Hebrew it is “Ad,” that is, “toward the mountain of glory of holiness.” For the setting forth of Antiochus’s march toward the city of Jerusalem is noted, to which however he did not come. Third: “and he shall come to its top”: much better: “and he shall come to his end.” For if you render “its,” and refer it to “mountain” altogether afterward: “and no one shall help him,” will have to be referred to the same mountain: whereas Scioppius refers it to his Antichrist. The sense of the passage will be, that Antiochus, having been informed by a messenger of the death of Bacchides, and of his army being cut to pieces, will undertake an expedition against Jerusalem: but will die on the way. See Junius on this passage. But Scioppius, in order to serve his Antichrist; is forced to invert the order of the prophecy; and to pervert everything. No wonder a new spirit has breathed into him the prophecy; one who would restore the spirit of Daniel into order. Or did the spirit of the Chamber of meditations rather make him rash?

8. Sanders’ reasoning is similar. The abomination has more often been placed in the temple of Jerusalem. Therefore, that is where the Antichrist will be. Very well, for he always acts in his usual way, so that from anything he concludes anything he wishes. Thus, he could conclude that the Pope is the chief of all Bishops because Nebuchadnezzar was reckoned among the beasts. Yet it is no wonder that the abomination is said to be established in that temple, since it existed at that time. But it is strange to think the Papists could foresee the Antichrist sitting in that city and in that temple which are ruined even to the point that not one stone is left upon another and will never be restored, as was foretold. Finally, it is not ours, nor Sanders’ privilege to invent shapes of the Antichrist at will. Scripture never taught that the abomination set up in the temple was a figure of anything.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

On the doctrine of the Antichrist

1. Bellarmine divides the doctrine of the Antichrist into four points. First, that Jesus is not the Christ. Second, that he himself is the true Christ. Third, that he is God and is to be worshiped as God. Fourth, that he alone is God. But Bellarmine denies that the Pope’s teaching contains these points. Therefore, he concludes the Pope is not the Antichrist.

2. I answer: doctrine commonly means that which is taught clearly and openly, and in so many words: thus, the doctrine of Christians, thus, the doctrine of heretics; likewise, the doctrine of the Heathen. In this sense I deny Scripture says anything about the doctrine of the Antichrist, except in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, “He had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon.” From which it is truly evident that his teaching will be blasphemous; but the individual points of his doctrine that will occur cannot be learned from that passage. But if one understands by the doctrine of the Papist μυστηκώτερα, i.e., the persuasion to which the Antichrist will refer all his actions, that is, not what he will teach in words, but the thing to which all his mysteries are truly to be referred, then I confess that three of those four heads of the Antichrist’s doctrine will be future, though explained somewhat differently than Bellarmine, and that those same four heads will be Papist doctrine. Therefore, the Pope is the Antichrist. I will treat each point in turn.

3. The first head of Bellarmine’s arguments is that the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ. He proves this: First, because if he is to be a Jew nationally and religiously and to be accepted by the Jews as their Messiah, therefore he will not preach Christ. Then, from the second of John’s first epistle, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? And this is the Antichrist.” But he continues, all antichrists deny Jesus to be the Christ in some way: therefore, the true Antichrist simply and in every way will deny him. Again, the mystery of iniquity is said to be worked by the devil through heretics because they secretly deny Christ. But the coming of the Antichrist is called a revealing: therefore, he will openly deny Christ. Third, from the authorities of the Fathers. Fourth, because in the time of the Antichrist, on account of the violence of persecution, public offices and divine sacrifices will cease: therefore, it is clear that he will not merely corrupt the doctrine of Christ but will openly attack it.

4. I answer: to deny that Jesus is the Christ is twofold: either in plain words, as among the Jews, or rather by consequence, as Paul said of some who profess God in words but deny him by their works. In the former sense I deny that the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ. For we have already refuted at length, before Bellarmine, the assertion about the nation and religion of the Antichrist: we also denied that he will be accepted by the Jews as the Messiah. Therefore, it does not follow that he will not preach Christ. The passage of John is also easy to handle. Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. This we also concede: but how? in words or in deeds? John does not define it; so why does Bellarmine? Indeed, he argues more than he proves: he proves that he will deny, he concludes that he will deny in plain words. But John did not say that. That all antichrists deny Christ by words in some way — this is false: very many have professed that Jesus is the Christ as clearly as any of the Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians] if you attend to words alone: Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and others. You can even except Simon Magus and a few besides. But suppose nevertheless that they denied Christ in some way, namely either in words or in deeds. Therefore, he says, that great Antichrist will deny Christ in every way, that is, both in words and in deeds. But whence is this conclusion? Or from what logic? Not from Aristotelian logic.

5. Paul did not say that the Devil works the mystery of iniquity through heretics, but that the mystery of the Antichrist, which is the mystery of iniquity, was already then being exercised in operation from the beginning; that is, the very business of the Antichrist was already secretly being carried on at that time. Nor did he call the coming of the Antichrist a revelation; but he calls it a revelation of the Antichrist who had already come before, meaning that the work of the Antichrist must first advance in such a way that it cannot be noticed while it was doing this very thing, until it has completed its work and formed its body, and set up its own church in place of the true Church of Christ. Therefore, these things do not pertain to the preaching of the Antichrist.

6. The Church Fathers, as before, with due respect we treat as well-intentioned. Although Augustine said something about baptism, namely that Antichrist will wish to forbid it, yet he felt there will be some who still bravely wish to have their little ones baptized: and even if that had any importance, still it would not greatly harm our position. For he signifies that even if Antichrist wishes to abolish Christian ceremonies, nevertheless he will find that he cannot. Therefore, it will be false that during his time all public offices will cease. It is therefore likely that, when he sees that he cannot extort from men a full and open denial of the Christian religion, he will contrive by his wiles to provide for his ends. And perhaps that is why, when he has utterly extinguished the Eucharist, he will nevertheless retain Baptism, though profaned by many corrupt additions. Furthermore, we have elsewhere said that Scripture predicts no cessation of public offices, if one understands them as external ceremonies.

7. Therefore, it cannot be proved that the Antichrist will openly and professedly deny that Jesus is the Christ. But we on our part willingly concede that he will deny him in reality. Namely, as once Epicurus placed the gods in words, but by the same words denied them any private or public function, overthrowing them by a sort of circumlocution. Therefore, he who denies that Christ [alone] saves His people from their sins, denies that Jesus is the Christ. Again, he who diminishes the honor of His mediation denies that He is Christ. Therefore, we boldly assert that the Pope, although he may affirm Jesus verbally, nevertheless denies Christ by his circumlocutions. For who can truly profess Christ saves His people from their sins, who attributes the greatest part of redemption to merits, suffrages and purgatory? Who can leave the office of mediation to Christ alone, who communicates it to saints and angels? Nay, who can acknowledge Jesus, who does not acknowledge Immanuel? And who can acknowledge Immanuel, who does not acknowledge the true man? And who can acknowledge the true man, who was all-knowing from infancy, and yet after the resurrection His body is in infinite places? [I.e., Chamier speaks to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.] Many other infinite things can be collected in like manner. Therefore, from this head at least the Pope is the Antichrist.

8. Bellarmine’s second point was that the Antichrist will openly and expressly say that he is the Christ, not his minister or vicar. This is proved first from those words, “If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” This argument is also taken from the Fathers. But the Roman Pontiff does not do this: therefore, he is not the Antichrist.

9. I answer: with the foregoing distinction presumed, nothing is proved from the name itself. For neither is that passage more about the Antichrist than it is more about any false prophet, as we have shown elsewhere; nor can “in his own name” mean that he will call himself Christ. Otherwise, since Christ said, “I came in my Father’s name,” He would mean “I call myself Father,” which is most false. Rather it signifies that Christ did not assume this office to himself, (as Paul says to the Hebrews), but was sent by the Father; and therefore, “he who comes in his own name” signifies one who, not being sent by God but setting himself up, usurps authority in the Church. As for the Fathers, I reply as before.

10. Now indeed it is manifest that the Pope declares himself to be Christ: for he assumes to himself all the honor of Christ in the Church. How so? Does he not call himself Head of the Church? Does he not call himself the Bridegroom of the Church and, truly, in the most explicit words? Did he not hear when he was called “Leo of the tribe of Judah?” Has he not received all power in heaven and on earth? What more do we await? He himself allows Bellarmine to write that his is the foundation of which Isaiah wrote. And could anyone ever more boldly assume to himself the force of that name?

11. Bellarmine’s third point is that the Antichrist will call himself God and will wish to be worshiped as God: not merely by usurping some authority of God, but the very name of God himself. This is proved from those words, “so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” This he also cites from the Fathers.

12. I reply that nothing is proved from the name itself. For Paul did not say that the man of sin will call himself God, but that he will display himself as God: and this refers not to the name, but to the power of the name. “He will sit,” he says, “in the temple of God, as God,” that is, as if it were proper for God to sit in the temple of God, just as a king sits on a throne. He then says, “showing himself,” as if he were thrusting himself above the things themselves before men. Thus Christ, in the second of the Acts, is said to have been shown [as God], not by words but by powers, wonders, and signs [Acts 2:22]. Therefore, Paul did not say that he will vauntingly proclaim “I am God,” but that he will wickedly seize those things which can be held to belong to God alone. Nor does the mind of Irenaeus conclude otherwise when he says, “he wishes to be worshiped as God,” nor Chrysostom when he says, “he will command to be adored in the place of God.” Although the Fathers elsewhere, as in other chapters about the Antichrist, could be somewhat dim-sighted, we have already shown many instances where the Pope does truly present himself as God.

13. The fourth point was that the Antichrist will not worship any god besides himself, neither true nor false, nor any idols. From these passages: “He will be exalted above every so-called god or object of worship,” in the latter epistle to the Thessalonians; likewise Daniel 11, “He will not care for any gods, but will rise up against all”; and from the Fathers who teach that he will admit no idols. Now the Pope acknowledges God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Moreover, he worships images. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist.

14. I answer that this head is absolutely false, insofar as it concerns the first part about God. For in Paul in Greek it is ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λεγομένοις θεοῖς ἢ σεβάσμασιν: “exalting himself above all who are called gods, or objects of worship.” Therefore, the common interpretation did not render “above all” quite cleanly. Secondly, even if we grant the meaning “above,” πᾶς λεγόμενος θεός does not signify the true God but the supposed: as in 1 Corinthians 8, “Even if there are many so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.” Irenaeus, book three, chapter six: “For the Father of all is called God and is. And the Antichrist will not be exalted above him, but above those who are called gods but truly are not gods.” Finally, to exalt oneself above every god is not what Bellarmine said; rather it pertains to the effects themselves: namely, that the Antichrist will so behave that he opposes God, even if he otherwise acknowledges God in words.

15. Daniel 11 is a very appropriate passage. First, the whole prophecy is about the Antichrist, who nevertheless will worship gods. Second, in Hebrew it is, “And he will not regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god,” or rather, “he did not understand, or was not endowed with understanding.” Finally, not caring for gods does not necessarily mean not to acknowledge any god, but to not care for those who are acknowledged as gods: as men of most hardened brow are wont to behave, led by no fear of God. And this seems to be the most fitting sense of the passage: for it preceded, “And that king will act according to his own will; and he shall be exalted and shall magnify himself against every god.”

16. What then? The Prophet most clearly says that this same king will worship some god, although the passage is variously explained. The old interpreter: “But he will worship the God Maozim in his place; and the God whom his fathers did not know he will worship with gold and silver and precious stones and valuable things.” And that interpreter took Maozim as a proper name of an idol; others prefer “strong God,” that is, him to whom he will bring all his strength. But Emmanuel Tremellius [Italian Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism] and [Protestant scholar] Francisco Junius prefer the true God himself and therefore, render a very different sense: their paraphrase is this: “And as for the strong God, in his place, that is, in the temple of Jerusalem he will worship the God whom his Fathers ignored. I say, he will worship with gold, silver, and precious stones.” This interpretation exactly observes the points of distinction which are in the Hebrew context. Yet I do not make this dispute my own now. It suffices for the Prophet to have foretold that this king, whether you understand Antiochus or the Antichrist, will worship some god, contrary to what the Papists assert.

17. Bellarmine, however, objects: first, that by the God Maozim one could understand the Antichrist himself. He proves it because the word “venerabitur” in Hebrew is not as elsewhere “to worship” but “to glorify,” as in Psalm 91 “I will glorify him” with the same Hebrew word — not in the sense of subjection, but of exalting. Therefore, the Antichrist will exalt himself when he causes himself to be worshiped: a sense that pleased Theodoret. Secondly, he argues more plausibly that it is said that the Antichrist will be a magician and will secretly worship the Devil. For either the Antichrist himself is the Maozim, or certainly he will in secret worship the Maozim; because otherwise Daniel would contradict himself, having previously asserted that he will care for no gods.

18. But the Papist’s retort reeks of stubbornness, not learning. The first reply is weak. First, because that word does not only mean to honor someone by exalting him, but more often to honor someone superior. Thus, in the fifth commandment: “Honor your father.” In Judges 13: “That we may honor you.” And in countless other places. Also, of the honor rendered to God: Isaiah 29: “They have honored me with their lips.” Proverbs 3: “Honor the Lord.” Finally, hardly ever does it occur in the sense that Bellarmine embraces, except of God exalting the humble. What then is this madness, to abandon the common, usual, and easy meaning, and flee to another sense that is neither common nor usual and therefore not easy? Although, what profit is there in this at all? He will surely glorify the God Maozin [“of forces”: Daniel 11:38]. Therefore, I say, he acknowledged some God. Nay, says Bellarmine. Nay, I say, a dream. For what sense is this? “He will glorify you with gold, silver, precious stones.” Nor does Theodoret expressly mean “in his own place,” that is, himself: which the usage of the sacred tongue does not bear.

19. However, another answer is that the Antichrist will secretly worship the Devil. Therefore, I say, he will not only call himself God: for he will also call himself the Devil. Then, whence comes this secrecy? Certainly not from Daniel: on the contrary, he will be worshiped with gold, silver, and precious stones. But that secrecy — to what does it refer, and with no one knowing? That is not the custom, nor has it ever been. And if this is not so, Daniel contradicts himself. Indeed this is false: for he did not earlier teach that no god would be cared for, as we have shown; and even if he had taught that, there would be no contradiction: for the wicked do not even care for the very god they worship; but, putting aside fear of him, they do whatever they please.

20. We conclude that those who deny that any god will be worshiped and venerated by the Antichrist are led into useless error. But truly Paul said that he will exalt himself against whatever is called God. And who will deny that the Pope does this? For first, he opposes himself to all the gods that the nations once worshiped. Secondly, he opposes himself to the true God, albeit not in words and openly, yet in reality and by his works: because he nullifies His word, perverting most articles of the faith, such as free redemption, images, and many similar things; even adulterating the sacraments; in short, most miserably almost destroying the whole Church redeemed by the blood of God. Again, by repeatedly dissolving the most holy oath, he frees subjects from the obedience owed to princes, whose author is God, transfers kingdoms, and the like. This is truly to oppose God: to exalt oneself against God.

21. As for Bellarmine’s trifling about idolatry, what of it? First, Scripture nowhere says that; only some Fathers conjectured it. Is it therefore certain? Next, why not understand it as the idolatry of the Heathen? For those Fathers certainly knew no other. And what then if we concede that the Antichrist will reject that? For the Pope loudly denies that as well. Although he will have introduced another: which is his impudence; so great that, even if he worships images promiscuously, he will yet deny that he is an idolater: as those who are caught in the act are wont to harden themselves, so that when they cannot escape by denying the fact, they become superior in audacity while they deny it. But this is such certain idolatry, that those who practice it call forth divine honors, and those very ones to whom these honors are given are not merely called gods, but Deities. Paulus Aemilius in his account of Dagobert II: “Grimoald is slain, already appearing with many signs of divinity, and altars dedicated to his name.” Serarius, in an ode prefixed to Minervale: “Rinaldus, a bishop, added to the blessed ranks, leads forth the troops of the Gods.” Finally, not to gather them all together, Melchior Nunez in a letter to Ignatius on Indian matters, in the year 1554, calls the death of Francis Xavier a deification.

CHAPTER TWELVE

On the miracles of Antichrist

1. Bellarmines observes: first, that the Antichrist will produce many miracles. Then, that those same miracles will be false. In these points he agrees with the Catholics [i.e., universal non-Papist Christians], who long ago inferred this from Scripture. But thirdly he notes that he will bring down fire from heaven; that he will cause the image of the beast to speak; that he will pretend to die and to rise again. Sanders treats these same miracles a little differently, as we will see later.

2. But here Bellarmine is strangely unlike himself in saying nothing more about these three miracles: whereas we think it monstrous to be deceived by him, unless one takes them other than literally. Of the first I read in Revelation 13, “And he did great signs, so that he even made fire come down from heaven to earth before men.” But what compels the literal interpretation? Ansbert: “The beast with two horns will make fire come down from heaven to earth because the preachers of the Antichrist, in false imitation of the Church, by the imposition of hands feign to give the Holy Spirit to their followers.” Primasius: “so that he makes fire come down from heaven: that is, from the Church to the earthly, since either from the diversity of the Gentiles, or by the deceitful craft of the enemy, he will cause his ministers to speak in new and many tongues, so that they boast by this as if a sign that they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, this passage cannot be understood literally: the literal sense is not certain.

3. On the image of the beast in the same chapter. It says to the inhabitants of the earth that they should make an image of the beast, which was wounded by a sword and yet lived: and it was given to it to give life to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast also should speak. Primasius explains the image not as material but in the hearts of men: “As if he were to say: this imitating prevailed so much that those deceived on earth, misled by the signs of the beast, favoring the beast with miserable assent, encouraged one another with mutual devotion to fashion the image of the beast in the phantasm of the heart.” Haimo: “They will make the image of the beast, that is, they will hold the faith of it and imitate its simulation. Nor should we understand childishly that they will make some image to carry with them; but they will make its image, that is, they will have its faith and will imitate its simulation.” Ansbert: “And what is the image of that same beast but that very pretending by which Antichrist is believed to be truly the Son of God, when in him is the Devil, that same evil spirit in that simulation? And who are they that make the image of this beast but those who imitate that simulation?” Now then, if the image is taken tropically, that which Bellarmine contends about the image speaking cannot stand according to the letter.

4. Of the death and resurrection of the Antichrist nothing is read. Yet in the same chapter I read, “I saw one of its heads as if it were slain to death: but the deadly wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled after the beast.” But this proves nothing. First, for that head is not said to be killed, but ὡς ἐσφαγμένον εἰς θάνατον, “as if slain unto death,” which does not mean dead. Secondly, that head slain unto death pertains not to the beast Antichrist but to the first beast, namely the Roman Empire. For two beasts are described by John: the former pertains to that head slain, the latter to the image. Nevertheless, Bellarmine urges with rash boldness that that one slain head signifies the Antichrist, who will be the chief and final head of the wicked. But this is false. For the second beast is the Antichrist: it is described as distinct from the former; and it was that head which was slain that was healed, not that it healed itself. Moreover, that one head is not described as the supreme but only one of the seven.

5. So far Bellarmine, loose enough in his usual perpetual fashion. But Sanders more diligently, in his demonstrations 19-24, thus makes five different arguments all drawn from the same passage about miracles. The first runs thus: The Antichrist will perform miracles to confirm the opinion of his divinity. But no Roman Pontiff has performed miracles for that end, that he might be believed to be God. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff is not the Antichrist.

6. I respond: nothing here is sought about the profession of the name itself; for, as we have shown, it is nowhere said that the Antichrist will in so many words call himself God. As to the efficacy of the thing, we proved that the Roman Pontiff proclaims himself as if God. Now first, in Popery innumerable miracles are vaunted, and we showed this in the preceding book; and the matter itself makes it plain. All these things are directed to the end of keeping men in the papal faith. Therefore, those miracles, whether fictitious or not — for that does not matter now — are done to that end, namely, to confirm that authority, that is, the divinity of the Pope. Secondly, because, as we showed a little earlier, the Papists acknowledge divinity in the saints, so that they sometimes even call them gods. Therefore, the miracles that are done to establish the cult of the saints are done to the end that their divinity be established. And in Popery many miracles are vaunted as done to show the sanctity of the Popes: therefore, also to confirm their divinity. Hence, it can properly be concluded that the Popes are Antichrists.

7. The second argument of Sanders: The Antichrist will perform no miracles in the name of Christ. But the Pope performs miracles in the name of Christ. Therefore, the Pope is not the Antichrist.

8. My response: the phrase “in the name of Christ” must be distinguished. For in the usage of Scripture it signifies Christ’s own power, or the authority received from Christ. Thus, the Apostles performed miracles in the name of Christ because Christ had sent them and had armed them with that power. In this way we concede that the Antichrist will perform no miracles in the name of Christ. But we deny the premise: for those things which are said and repeatedly attributed to the Pope already, that is, since they turned to the state of Antichristianism, to have wrought miracles, those things were not done in the name of Christ. First, because they are fabricated; secondly, because they serve to confirm a universal (ecumenical) authority; thirdly, because most of the things said to have been done are for the purpose of strengthening the idolatry of saints and images. But Christ bestowed neither that authority nor that power on anyone.

9. But elsewhere signs are said to be done “in the name of Christ” by those who merely assume the name of Christ; as those of old who said, “in your name we cast out demons,” whom Christ, nevertheless, denied knowing them. In that way the premise of the argument is false. Nay, says Sanders, how could he work so since he will deny that Jesus is the Christ? Yet this we have already sufficiently and amply shown to be fabricated.

10. The third argument: The Antichrist will perform miracles by magical art. But the Popes do not perform miracles by magical art. Therefore, the Pope is not the Antichrist. The premise must be proved because the Pope condemns the magical arts.

11. I answer that the major premise is not true: although some of the Fathers have asserted something similar. Moreover, history testifies that not all Popes have hated magic: and many were exceedingly addicted to it. Third, many things are done in Popery that are not far from magic, only those who entirely ignore that religion are unaware of this. For they attribute a certain power to words in changing natures, as well to signs and to breath, and to various gestures.

12. The fourth argument: The Antichrist will understand enigmas. But the Pope does not understand enigmas. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist. The major is proved from the eighth of Daniel. As for the minor: because it is evident that the Pope does not equal, much less excel or even match, ordinary grammarians or little philosophers.

13. I answer: first, Daniel does not speak of the Antichrist but of Antiochus Epiphanes. Second, חירה, the word Daniel uses, means “a dark thing” whose understanding is not easy or obvious. It is not proper to secular learning, which the most curious men especially admire, as Sanders thinks; otherwise, many passages of Scripture would belong to that science, for example Psalm 78, with which the Prophet prefaces that he will utter חירות “enigmas,” and Ezekiel chapter 17. Therefore, he understands enigmas whose mind is fortified with the understanding of difficult things in which others toil. This is noted if it matters anything in this argument; for no one will ever be more of an Antichrist than he who brags to have all authority in the treasury of his breast; than he whom they deny can err in defining articles of faith, or in composing rules of morals, or in canonizing saints — which is as much below ordinary grammarians and little philosophers as you please.

14. The fifth argument: The Antichrist will have ministers and torturers who perform miracles. But the Pope has no such ministers or torturers. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist. The major is proved, regarding ministers; for in Revelation 13 the second beast is said — that is, a multitude of wicked men — to produce signs; and because in Matthew 24 false Christs and false prophets are foretold who will show great signs. The other part, about torturers, is proved from Gregory, chapter twelve of the thirty-second book on Job.

15. I respond: I concede the major; I withhold on the ministers; for about the torturers (unless perhaps the word is taken generally, not for those who torment bodies with torments, but for those who by their deceptions torment souls) Gregory the Prophet is not such as to move us. Now the minor is denied. For in the Papal kingdom all things are so full of miracles that scarcely any cleric exists who does not perform miracles as often as he speaks. What do they not do with that sprinkled holy water? They hold power over storms and evil spirits. What of transubstantiation — is it not a miracle, yea a harvest of miracles? And the expulsion of demons, what category is this? Therefore, the Pope’s ministers even do miracles themselves or at least cause them to be believed as authentic. Are the torturers absent? See the Dominicans, whose works produced such slaughter of the Albigenses. That ringleader, nay the architect of the most cruel torture of the Inquisition — is he not a torturer? Or does his legend tell no miracles? Therefore, the Roman Pope is the Antichrist.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

On the kingdom and battles of the Antichrist

1. Bellarmine advances a new line of argument, and with respect to the kingdom and battles of the Antichrist he notes four points. First, that the Antichrist will come forth from a very low place and by frauds and deceptions will obtain the kingdom of the Jews. Second, that he will fight with the kings of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and having conquered them will occupy their realms. Third, that he will subdue seven other kings and so will emerge as the monarch of the whole world. Fourth, that he will persecute Christians throughout the entire world, and that this will be the battle of Gog and Magog. None of all these things, Bellarmine holds, can be fitted to the Roman Pontiff; therefore, he ought not to be called the Antichrist.

2. In the first chapter he proves, first, that the Antichrist will be exalted from a position of humility because Daniel 11 [v. 21] says, “He will stand in his place despised, and royal honor will not be given to him, and he will come secretly, and will obtain the kingdom by deceit.” Jerome wrote that this passage is to be understood of Antiochus, yet it is fulfilled far more perfectly in the Antichrist; just as what is said in Psalm 72 of Solomon is fulfilled more perfectly in Christ. And in chapter seven, Daniel compares that same Antichrist to a little horn because of his base and obscure beginnings. Second, he proves that the Roman Pontiff was never obscure because Augustine said that in the Roman Church the primacy of the Apostolic See always flourished. Prosper of Aquitaine commented that Rome, made greater by the primacy of the priesthood, was a stronghold of religion more than a throne of power. The Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Leo said that Rome shines with apostolic rays, which from there radiate out to all, sharing their goods with the rest. Pope Marcellinus wrote in book seventeen that it is not surprising men should contend over the Roman pontificate, since its resources and wealth were so great.

3. I answer: first, that which is about the kingdom of the Jews must be utterly denied, as this vanity and rashness has often and strongly been demonstrated by us before. Second, even if the Scriptures cited in Daniel are not understood of the Antichrist, and so this argument falters, yet we confess that from the slightest beginnings the Antichrist will burst forth into enormous power. And this very thing we assert is fulfilled in the Roman Pope: whether you consider individual persons — which, however, is not necessary in this argument — or the whole mass of that tyranny. For as to individual persons, what shall I say? First, it is clear from histories that very many have arisen from the most obscure families, indeed far more obscure than Antiochus. Second, not only many from obscure families, but none from such great families that they would not be far beneath the powerful. And so that dung-strewn chair on which the newly elected Pontiff is immediately placed signifies this to them: that he may hear that verse from Psalm 113, “Rising from dung, he lifts up the poor.”

4. But it is better to consider the whole burden of tyranny that now extends itself over all Christians, with no exceptions in spiritual matters; although by the original constitution the care of the single city of Rome pertained to the Bishop of Rome. Afterwards it advanced itself farther by metropolitan right, to the suburbs, thence he was reckoned first among the four formed patriarchs. Finally, made loftier than the other patriarchs, he became what is called the Ecumenical Pontiff. And were those beginnings slender? And is not this progress enormous? They will deny this truth only if they dare deny that the sun shines at noon. How small were the resources of Rufus [disciple of Paul?] and the first bishops of the city? Having had their beginning of enrichment made from the Cottian Alps, as observed in the preceding book, many other things were added afterward, sometimes from the foolish largesse of princes, sometimes from frauds, sometimes from arms. And thus, he became a secular prince. How dissimilar is this from those first bishops? Thirdly: who at first had only little men’s prayers, only tears, which were substituted by arms against the wrath of emperors: and by whose nod actions were taken, while things would either disappear or remain. At length they became feared by the emperors themselves, bearing the image of Jupiter Capitolinus with their brutish thunders. And is not this end very unlike its beginning? And is not this horn, small in origin, by its success become great?

5. But in the Roman Church the primacy of the Apostolic See has always prevailed. O crime! Do they not mock the world with such claims? I admit the Apostolic See at Rome was illustrious. But was that primacy present in Melchiades [Pope Miltiades, 311-314] who, ordered by the Emperor, made known the case of Caecilianus [Bishop of Carthage]? Was it present in [Pope] Liberius, who, when commanded [by Emperor Constantius], went into exile? Was it present in others who were subject to the civil magistrate, against whose pagan cruelty there was no help, except, perhaps, from secret places? Therefore, that primacy was far different from the one which they boast of today. Why then are they silent? Why do they not blush because of this tyranny, while they transfer to that tyranny—so alien—praises of the holy men in ecclesiastical office, taken mutually from Augustine, from Prosper, from the Council of Chalcedon? If they do not blush, then at least let them be hated by all sensible people.

6. That is, unless perchance Sanders lingers over the sophism of his twenty-eighth demonstration: Antichrist is an earthly king: but the Pope is not an earthly king: therefore, the Pope is not Antichrist. He proves the premise, because the Pope, although he has a certain temporal dominion, nevertheless neither from the origin of his papacy is a terrestrial prince, nor has he ever claimed the name of king for himself, nor does he call the territory subject to him a kingdom, but the Patrimony of Saint Peter: nor does he exercise an absolute empire in himself, like a king; rather he orders it to be exercised by others. [N. B. Today the Pope of Rome is the absolute Monarch of Vatican-City State, over which secular Italian authorities have no jurisdiction.]

7. But the discerning detect the fraud: they admit Antichrist will be a temporal king; but they expressly know that the same one will sit in the temple of God, that is, will be a future spiritual tyrant: and therefore all the more they recognize the Pope as the Antichrist, because he is both: both a temporal king and a spiritual tyrant, since he claims both swords for himself. The discerning, therefore, deny as boldly as Sanders advances that the Pope is not a temporal king. What if he was not a temporal king from the origin of his papacy? Yet what does Sanders call the origin of the papacy? For if he means that very rank by which one comes to be called Ecumenical Pontiff, certainly Sanders must either deny that both swords belong to him by virtue of being Pope, or he must concede that he is also a temporal king. What if he never claimed the title of King for himself? As if prostitutes would deny being prostitutes, and as if Caesar, when he acted as King, abstained from the name of King himself. Or he himself; yes, I say he himself, the Antichrist, will assume that name Antichrist. [N. B. Anti = Substitute = Vicar. The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ = Antichrist.] Moreover, who can fail to be a temporal King who calls earthly kings his vassals? He does not call it a kingdom, but the Patrimony of Saint Peter. Clearly, he lies very impudently two ways: by asserting and by denying. For that territory is neither the patrimony of Saint Peter, nor does he exercise a mere kingdom there. And yet who does not know that he has a crown since he has a realm? [ N. B. The triple-tiered crown of the Pope symbolizes his authority under the earth, on the earth and in heaven.] In Augustine’s Triumphus, he plainly says the Pope is crowned as a King, and to announce the feast of his coronation to all kings. How does he not exercise absolute Imperial authority by himself, who proscribes kings, declares wars, gathers armies, enacts his own oath, and maintains them by his stipends? Who, finally, when present besieges Mirandola [N. B. It was besieged twice: By Pope Julius II in 1510 & by Pope Julius III in 1511.] occupies Ferrara [N. B. The city became part of the Papal States in 1597]?

[…………………]

12. The third chapter asserted that Antichrist will be the monarch of the whole world. This, however, is proved from the most explicit testimonies of the ancients: Lactantius, Irenaeus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril. But only Jerome in some measure hints at a monarchy of the whole globe. “No Jew,” he says, “ever reigned throughout the entire world without Antichrist.” The others not so. Lactantius speaks of ten future kings. “Then suddenly against them a most powerful enemy will rise from the farthest bounds, a blow from the north, who, when three of that number have been destroyed, and those who then possess Asia are joined in fellowship by the rest, will be called prince of all.” This is Lactantius: nothing, however, about a monarchy of the whole world. Irenaeus likewise says nothing about that universal monarchy: only about the ten conquered kings. Chrysostom and Cyril assert that Antichrist will seize the monarchy of the Romans. This, however, may be understood of that monarchy which once extended over a great part of the world: and that event shows this to be false because that monarchy long ago was broken up into many parts: nor did Antichrist seize it. Or it may be understood of a monarchy whose head is Rome itself: and that is true.

13. Now indeed by this sign, whoever does not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff to be the very Antichrist must of necessity be willingly blind. First, he claims for himself a universal monarchy, asserting that it is necessary for salvation that all creatures submit to him; and for this reason, he assumed the name Ecumenical. Second, he boasts that the Roman monarchy itself is his. For in the preceding book, we saw Boethius arguing that the entire right of the Roman Senate has come to him; therefore, no kings possess anything by right except by his favor. Third, whatever authority he either has or usurps, that seat is Rome itself. Therefore, the Pope is Antichrist.

[…………………….]

CHAPTER 14

On the changing of times and laws; and of merchants

1. Nothing now remains except two arguments of Sanders from which Bellarmine abstained. These are in the thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth demonstrations. First: The Antichrist will change times and laws. The Pope did not change times and laws. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist. The major premise is proved from Daniel seven: “He will think that he can change times and laws.” The minor is proved: for times are the feasts of Christians; laws, however, are their ceremonies. But the Pope changed neither the feast days nor the ceremonies.

2. The other argument: Antichrist will be pleasing to wicked kings and wicked merchants. But the Pope is not of that sort: therefore, he is not the Antichrist. The major is proved, because in Revelation eighteen it is said, “The kings of the earth committed fornication with Babylon: and the merchants of the earth were made rich by the power of her delights.” And a little later the lamentation over its destruction is described. Therefore, kings and merchants will be the first to adore the Antichrist; partly because they see him obtain wealth and worldly power; partly because they fear lest their possessions be plundered by him. Now the minor is proved. First, because of all people the kings have been the last to come to the faith of Christ. Second, the same utterly oppressed the Church of Rome: not only the pagans, but also Constantius, Julian, Valens, Anastasius, Theodoric, the Lombard kings, the emperors of Constantinople, Henrys, Fredericks, and other Germans. Third, because the Pope forbids that any of the Christian princes impose new and unjust taxes on their subjects. He does not permit them to sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit for money, to plunder Church goods, to repudiate legitimate wives, and to marry new ones while the former live. He prohibits usury and monopolies. For these reasons neither tyrants nor unjust merchants love the Pope.

3. I answer to the first: that prophecy of Daniel pertains properly to Antiochus; not, however, to the Antichrist, unless perhaps allegorically — from which no solid argument can be drawn. Moreover, if allegorically, then not literally but figuratively. For indeed observance of times is no part of piety for Christians as it is for the Jews. Therefore, only this can be inferred from it: the Antichrist will change the Christian religion. As for laws: why should we not extend them beyond religion even to any constituted rights?

4. Therefore, the minor is denied. For this prophecy, if it allegorically signified the Antichrist, has truly been fulfilled in the Pope, who so changed the whole Christian religion that it now appears to anyone to be far different from its beginnings. He changed it, both by annulling things that were from the beginning and by adding many recently devised ones. For first, he removed communion in both kinds, sanctioned by the Lord, commended by Paul, and frequently practiced by the Church. And he made obsolete the use of the vernacular tongue established by the Apostles, also commended by Paul, and used by the Church. Is not the marriage of priests abominated? Moreover, he added infinite ceremonies and myriads of observances in which the Papists are much more scrupulous [in compliance] than in those things that come from Christ. Times also — can it be denied that he changed them, by whose command so many feasts were instituted which change common days into holy ones? Does the person with the authority to grant exemptions from laws also have the power to alter those laws? Therefore, the Pope is the Antichrist.

5. In the second the minor is denied: for in truth the Pope is pleasing to kings and merchants; truly he is profitable to them. Why was it necessary to call them wicked? As if they could be pious while pleasing to the Antichrist! Truly, precisely because they will love the Antichrist, they will be wicked. Thus, if the Pope is the Antichrist, whoever—whether kings or merchants—will love him, and by that very fact be wicked. Furthermore, the factors identified by Sanders continue to result in both kings and merchants maintaining favorable relations with the Pope and showing interest in the Pope’s assets. First, because they see him obtain riches, as we proved in the preceding book; secondly, because they fear lest they be plundered by him. For what would be more solemn for the Pope than to unseat kings from their thrones?

6. What would merchants deny if they didn’t agree that the Roman religion benefits them most? Thus, hardly any saint’s feast is not set for a market day. And who does not see at Votive Days the throng of people of all kinds? It is widely recognized that the vestibules of the Loreto Idol experience as much, if not more, wear from merchants selling their wares as from visiting strangers. For everything else, it comes down to experience or judgment. Truly, nor can so great a pomp of churches, so great a magnificence of the Pope and the Cardinals; in short, so much luxury of the whole court be seen in any other way than by the greatest advantage of the sellers.

7. What if merchants are understood metaphorically, such as for those for whom piety is only a pretext for gain? Would this interpretation not coincide perfectly with the Pope and his dealings? By whose authority everything is so exposed for sale that nothing sacred is not sold? For confessions scarcely are heard by any without price except by Jesuits. And burials are redeemed; the ringing of bells is not heard for free; and there is a great revenue from papal bulls. Then dispensations in the Apostolic Chamber are reckoned in their place. Shall I set out each particular? It is known throughout Gaul — and I name this region especially because distant regions are not so well known to me. In Gaul, I say, priests publicly sell not only the revenues from their benefices: but even that which they call “le dedans de l’Eglise” [“the interior of the Church”] they publicly auction; and that is whatever they take from the oblations made within the walls of the churches. And this is notable, indeed, monstrous merchandise.

8. Against this argument is Sanders: “He forbids unjust taxes,” he says. Therefore, he is opposed to tyrants. First of all, why does he speak only of tyrants? For John speaks of kings. Nor all kings are wicked. Secondly, the antecedent is false because a verbal reproach means nothing unless it is accompanied by actual interference. So, this argument is false. For kings who acknowledge the Pope impose many new taxes on their people daily, even without the Pope’s complaining. Moreover, not only does he not forbid them, but he permits them: witnesses being Matthew Paris and the Westminster chronicler. Therefore, he does not absolutely forbid that taxes be imposed, but only that it be done without his assent. Finally, the Pope himself burdens his subjects daily with new exactions. And how many times has he permitted tithes in kings’ realms? How often crusades and the like? Provided, however, that some part returned to himself: so that truly one recognizes merchants on both sides.

9. I refute the assertion that he does not permit the selling of spiritual things. First, that does not mean that spiritual things may not be sold, but that no one may sell them except himself. However, occasionally, he allows Kings of France and Spain to receive tithes from clergy and convert estates into fixed sums.

10. I refute the assertion that he does not permit the repudiation of wives and the introduction of others. False: for he forbids it by a universal law but only to later proclaim a special dispensation. Thus, Alexander even permitted Lucretia a third husband. And when Henry, King of the English, sought to repudiate his wife, he would have requested a bull from the Pope; the Pope, hesitating between the sacred duty and the rock, as they say, since he feared Emperor Charles and did not dare refuse Henry, delayed the matter at length; finally conquered by importunity, he handed the bull to Cardinal Pole, commanding him to use it for the necessity of affairs and times. When the king received it, he thought it enough that the bull had been written; therefore, he tore apart the knot which he could not loose. And why should we assume he would act differently in this situation, given that he allowed the King of Spain to have sexual intercourse with his own sisters?

11. But what of the claim that kings were the last to come to the faith of Christ. It is as if we were speaking about the faith of Christ and not about the perfidy of the Antichrist. The emperors devastated Rome. Certainly, I say, pagan emperors devastated Christian Rome. What has that to do with the Pope? Nay, he says, even Constantius, Julian, Valens, Anastasius. Nay, they did not afflict Rome more than the others. Nay, the others afflicted more than Rome. And yet Rome is not yet the seat of the revealed Antichrist. Nor did Theodoric properly afflict the Roman see; he afflicted the Roman Empire, of which at that time Rome was under his rule. And the Pope suffered in the ruin of Rome, but incidentally. Otherwise, Theodoric had no proper war against the Pope. He afflicted the Lombard kings much more than the Pope afflicted them: he raised up the Franks against them, to their ruin. For what Sanders said about the German emperors is a sure sign of Antichristian tyranny, as we showed in the preceding book, since they did not arm themselves for the ruin of the Pope, but rather sounded the trumpet against the Pope in order by every means to destroy whatever remained of imperial power — which, although far less than formerly, nevertheless still claimed many things in Italy, even in the city of Rome; and the Pope believed that no less should be wrested from him. Therefore, he did not rest until he fulfilled his vows: to fully exercise Antichristianism.

END

Huguenot Theologian Daniel Chamier: ON THE ANTICHRIST [Part Two]

Categories