By Professor of Theology, Huguenot Lambert Danaeus
Previously translated into English; published in 1589
There are many terms used to signify Antichrist which must be noted. First, Paul calls him the child [son] of perdition: and the man of sin: that is, a most wicked and lewd man, according to the Hebrew dialect (even as Judas, the betrayer of our Savior, is called the lost child (John 17:12.) And therefore, he that should sit as chief in that Apostacy [2 Thess. 2:3], being described rather by his properties, then by a proper name, is called a most wicked, and cursed despicable coward. And in this respect, it matters not, though all of vs, even the faithful themselves are called the children of wrath & sons of disobedience (Ephes. 2.3. & 5.16). For that is true indeed: But here Paul speaks of a certain sect of miscreants more pernicious and damnable then all the rest; of a more reprobate mind and more despiteful against the truth: and therefore, more detestable for impiety and mischief: This morally corrupt crew he therefore termed the man of sin and reprobate. And surely, it is well noted of D. Gualter that Antichrist is called the son of destruction, both in the active, and passive signification because he both destroys others, and is destroyed himself: whereupon in another place he is called Apollyon, (Apoc. 9:12.) because he is the author of all pestilent infection and destruction both of body and soul. Therefore he is well termed by Paul, the son of perdition, whom the Spirit of God calleth destroyer, destroyed, or destroying.
And although in other places he is commonly called Antichrist by others, (as in the 1 & 4 of John), yet it seems that Paul chose to describe him as he did for two reasons. First, because that manner of expressing him signifies greater vehemence, and represents more effectually his detestable wickedness and blasphemy when he is said to be a most vile and abominable wretch. Secondly, because by this means we are better directed to discern what kind of Antichrist is to be understand in this place. For (as Origen says upon Math. Hom 30.) the name of Antichrist is general and pertains to many: but here, only one of them is meant, the worst, the most mischievous, and horrible: so that here he is pointed out and clearly described as the captain and chief Antichrist of them all.
Furthermore, the same Antichrist is also called a Beast, and a Whore (Revelation 17 & 18). And it makes no difference, even though John gives him the term Beast or Harlot, while Paul calls him a Man. For here in 2 Thess., I take it that his kind and nature is signified, and with John, by the names of Beast, and Harlot, his morals and disposition are laid open. And therefore, this estate, or body of this Apostasy, together with its head and principal member is especially compared unto these three things in the Scriptures.
To a Beast, in respect to his cruelty, stupidity and ignorance.
To a Woman, in regard to covetousness, haughtiness, and weakness of mind.
To a Harlot, for their dissolute manners: and chiefly their Idolatry, which is the greatest kind of whoredom that the Scripture speaks of.
And touching the cruelty of this kingdom: Lactantius (lib. 7.) tells that it should be exceeding great, writing thus of Antichrist (cap. 17.) “That shall be a time,” (saith he), “wherein justice shall be trodden underfoot, and Innocence contemned, wherein the wicked shall cruelly prey upon the godly, all things shall be confounded and turned upside-down against law and nature.” And this saying of Lactantius agrees perfectly with that of the Revelation (cap. 17:6.) where Antichrist is said to be that Harlot, that is made drunken with the blood of Martyrs and Saints of God. Whereby it is signified that Antichrist should (as he does) always raise bloody persecutions against the faithful. Chrysostom (Hom. 40. on Math.) affirms no less.
Now touching the matter of persecution, when, or by whom was it ever more practiced, then it hath been, and still is, by the Bishop of Rome, and that whole retinue? And let this suffice, granted but briefly, to be spoken of the cruelty of this generation. Concerning the ignorance of it: I find it thus written in a book entitled, De Antichristo, and attributed to Austin [N. B. He is most likely referring to Adso]: “The kingdom of Antichrist shall be furnished with Magicians, Witches, Soothsayers and Enchanters, which shall teach and persuade with all manner of impiety, falsehood, and detestable practices.
And where (I pray) may this be found more verified, than among the Papists, and in the kingdom of Popery. And certainly, the Popish Clergy (which is the main pillar of this state and Apostasy) being described by Peter in his 2. Epist. cap. 2.12. & 15. is said there to be a kind of brutish Beasts, which despise that they know not, and which always forsake the right way. And experience itself has shown it, that they are as great, lazy persons receiving public handouts as ever lived, in so much as their Monks were considered great scholars, and principal Theologians among them: and yet among themselves, this Proverb began (speaking of a Dunce) As great a Mome as a Monke. [As great a fool as a Monk.]
As for the covetousness of that order and kind of people, I need not speak much of it, since the case is so clearly obvious. For Peter in the place before cited, verse 14: They have hearts exercised with covetousness. And in Rev. 18:3, they are called Merchants. Bernard of Clairvaux, who bare as much favor as might be to his [disciple] Eugenius III, and afterward unto Innocent II, yet (treating of the Psalm 91) he speaks thusly of these Popish professors: “The dignities and promotions of the Church are sought after for filthy lucre sake, and to carouse riotously with them, and for these rooms, & their revenues, they labor and contend in very shameless manners. Again, in his Sermon of the conversion of Paul, intreating directly and plainly of the government of the Church under the Bishop of Rome, at last he flatly determined he is the very Antichrist. Again, upon the Canticles, Sermon 33 (so that I do not dwell on numerous citations from this author regarding this topic) he uses the very same speech and assertion. Furthermore, what should we make of that famous letter from the Church of Liège against Pope Paschal II, which is still preserved in the second volume of the Councils? Doesn’t this lend significant weight and authority in this matter? The words whereof are these: “We do utterly dislike those Legates of the highest rank, sent from the Pope, who go prowling about to scrape together a few pennies and fill their [money] bags, as was done in the time of Popes Zosimus, Celestine, and Boniface, with the approval of the African Councils.” For (that we may judge them by their fruits) no improvement in morals or conduct resulted from these Legates, but rather oppression of men and plunder of God’s Church.
Touching the matter of Haughtinesse, or Ambition: where in all the world was it ever greater? Peter (2 Pet. 2) surely describes and condemns this type of clergyman for extreme insolence, treating them as men who utterly disregard lawful magistrates. And seeing the Man of Rome making an open challenge by demanding he be set above all Kingdoms and Kings in the world, (as did Leo XII in the preface of a Bull beginning “Concordat.” Also, Boniface VIII upon a day of Jubilee, causing a Key and Sword to be caried before him in the sight of the people), what could be more plainly and fitly spoken then to compare both Antichrist & his whole Hierarchy, unto the weak and impotent affection of a pitiable woman. All the world knows (and the thing itself shows no less) what often and bitter contentions and bickering have been raised about the procuring of the Triple Crowne. And indeed, Austin himself, even in his days observed no less, (as he reported in his 6th Book against Julian, cap. 4), yea, very heathen men have observed & recorded the same in writings, as did Ammianus Marcellinus concerning Pope Damasus. Again, Bernard upon the Canticles (Sermon 33) speaking of that stately State, and of those that were preeminent in it: “There have arisen,” (saith he), “vain men, itching after renown and glory, and would gladly become somebody [famous] by procuring a name for themselves.” And lastly, in his 4th Book, De Consideratione, unto Pope Eugenius, after he hath described and detested the pride and pomp of the Bishops of Rome, he concludes the matter in these words: “Herein,” (saith he), “thou showest thyself to have succeeded not Peter, but Constantine. The Apostle Peter knew nothing of this kind of solemn self-display in public, decked out with precious stones, silks, and gold, mounted on a white horse, guarded by tall men, and surrounded by a company of ostentatious servants.” But to tell the truth, Bernard spoke with restraint when he compared the Bishop to Constantine, for he should rather have named Diocletian, (that cruel tyrant) or Caligula, both of which by means of their precious and glorious attire, needed to be regarded and revered as Gods. Again, Hillary (contra Auxent) speaking of the state of Antichrist: “These fellows,” he says, “eagerly seek the countenance and majestic dignity of secular rulers, and thereby hope to maintain the Church’s prosperity through a show of worldly splendor.” And lastly, he saith: “They hold in high regard the desire to be greatly esteemed by the world.” This is taken from a longer dissertation of his about Antichrist. And pray tell, what was more frequently observed in the Papacy than this very practice? Or what has ever been more arrogant and insolent than that band of the Romish rabble? Insomuch as the Bishop of Rome decreed and established that his Cardinals should even take precedence over of Kings; which is evident to be seen in their Clementines. So much for their Ambition.
As concerning their Idolatry, the pen of every writer is plentiful in showing how outrageous it should be in the kingdom of Antichrist. Austin [sic: Adso] in his treatise De Antichristo: “He shall revive,” (saith he), “the worshipping of Devils; he shall set up and magnify the wicked, and shall violate, and reject the law of the Gospel. And all these things, (saith he), shall he do in the midst of the Church.” Whereupon it is said in many places of the Revelation, as cap. 17. & 18. The Kings of the earth are said to commit fornication with the Harlot, which is to be referred to the matter of Idolatry. But was there ever idolatry so blatant and apparent as that which existed, and still exists, in Popery?”
As concerning their debauchery and licentious behavior, there was no lack of that to be found in that kingdom, even in the very bosom of the Church. by occasion whereof, it is said, Rev. 18:9, that the kings and nations of the earth, did not only commit whoredom, but also lived with her in licentious wantonness: […], drenched & drowned in all manner of pleasures, as Paul speaks of wanton Widows, 1 Tim. 5:11. This looseness of life is both common, and commended among the very Bishops, Priests, and other Prelates of the popish Clergy: which not only began to be publicly exposed in our day, but such was seen more than 400 years ago, (as namely Bernard) made known, and bewailed it often, and that in a vehement manner, (as in his 5th book, De Considerat., and upon the Canticles, Sermon 33) the which place, because it expressed, as it were in vivid clarity, depicting the loose behaviors of the Romish Prelates, I have thought good to exemplify it word for word. “They comport themselves,” (he says), “in an honorable manner with the goods of the Church, to which, however, they themselves bring no credit or honor whatsoever. Hence, comes that whorish decking, that Stage-like attire, that Prince-like pomp, which daily we see in them. Hence, proceeds the gold that they use in their bridles, saddles, and spurs; in so much that their spurs are more glittering then their halters. Hence, came their stately tables, their variety of dishes, and quaffing cups [large drinking vessels]: hence issued their excessive feasting, their drunkenness, and overindulgent eating and drinking hence, followed their Violins, Harps, and Shawmes [woodwinds]: hence, flowed their Cellers and Pantries, so stuffed with wines, and victuals of all sorts: hence they had their Lee-pots [inferring much liquor], & painting boxes [holding cosmetics]: And thus they kept their purses so handsomely stuffed with money—fie upon the whole business!” Such men they will need be, and yet they are our great masters in Israel, as Deans, Archdeacons, Bishops, and Archbishops. These works of theirs are no less similar to the filthiness which they commit in darkness.” And lastly, he addeth these words: “For he is the very Antichrist.” Let anyone who wishes carefully examine the whole passage, as also the said Father’s Epistle to Eugenius: and again, Let him read the little book of Nicholas de Clemengis [Catholic theologian] wherein he complains of all the [corrupt religious] orders of the Papacy: And lastly, Peter de Vineis, [chief chancellor of Emperor Frederick II], in his Epistles. To conclude, let him read, and observe what Platina himself (who otherwise largely shows himself as the Pope’s flatterer and hanger-on) writes of these matters in many places, but especially what he reports of Paul of Samosata in the Life of Dionisius I, where he states that never was there seen nor heard of more reckless and lewd behavior then was found in the pontifical and Romish minions. Jerome also in his Prologue, De Spiritu Sancto, confirms this same, where he calls Rome, ‘Babylon,’ and that purple colored whore spoken of in the Revelation.
Therefore to conclude, seeing this place of Paul is not to be understood of any one man, but of the whole body and order of succeeding Apostates, lasting for many ages, boasting itself under the name of the [Christian] Church: it may now easily be discerned who are these men, and what corporation or state that is, whereof Paul in this place fore-warned: and no man can doubt (except such as are willfully blind) that the Papists are they.
END
Be First to Comment