as God Inspires
Defended by Franciscus Gomarus,
Acclaimed Dutch Reformed Professor of Theology, (d. 1641)
NEWLY TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN
Just as the true doctrine about Christ the Savior is necessary for faith and salvation; so, too, the correct doctrine concerning the Antichrist is especially conducive to a saving escape from perfidious destruction. Therefore, not only the former but also the latter is carefully explained in the Holy Scriptures. Concerning which, there is a serious and difficult controversy which is thoroughly and accurately treated by many Orthodox. For this reason, we judge it neither useless nor ungrateful if, following the praiseworthy diligence of others, we briefly illustrate the same subject with our modest symbols, progressing swiftly from word to the matter itself, and propose it for public discussion.
THESIS 1
Antichrist [Αντίχριστος] is a Greek word: not from its author, but from its parts and the analogy of its composition. For the author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is John the Apostle, who first and alone, used it in the Holy Scriptures. The parts, however, from which it is composed are two which are ambiguous, χρισος and ἀντί. We will briefly explain these (lest anyone become entangled in the investigation of the matter due to the ambiguous homonymy of the words) distinctly beforehand.
THESIS 2
The term χρισὸς [Christos], indeed, has come to be understood in different senses. For it either, functioning as an adjective commonly means ‘anointed’; or as a noun absolutely and especially so, it is attributed solely to our Savior, and truly in a twofold manner. Namely, it either refers to Himself, considered alone as anointed by the Holy Spirit and head of the Church; or it designates Him together with the Church, united as its mystical body.
THESIS 3
The term ἀντί [anti], however, besides other meanings, denotes either ‘for’ or ‘against’ (both by itself and in composition): yet in usage, it is different in both cases.
THESIS 4
For, when used by itself, ‘anti’ very frequently means for, or in place and stead of: and very rarely means ‘against.’
THESIS 5
Examples of the former are these: Semen ἀντὶ Αβέλ meaning “another seed in place of Abel” (Gen. 4:25 LXX); Holocaust ἀντι Ισαάκ meaning “whole burnt offering in place of Isaac” (Gen. 22:13 LXX). Regnabat ἀντι Ηρώδε meaning “He reigned in place of Herod,” (Matt. 2:22); Serpentem [Serpent] ἀντὶ ἰχθύος meaning “a serpent in place of a fish,” (Luke 11:11).
THESIS 6
Of the latter, [against] I find only these in Homer’s Illiud: τρώων ἀιθ ̓ ἑκατόν meaning “against a hundred Trojans;” Ανὴρ ἀντ ̓ ἀνδρὸς ἴτω meaning “let a man go against a man;” ἵ μεναι ἀντ’ Αχιλῆος meaning “to go against Achilles.” This meaning, lexicons and grammarians seem not to have adequately noted. For when we say against (as Festus Pompeius rightly warns) the Greeks say ἀντί. [N. B. Today there are numerous common words we use which have the prefix ‘anti,’ meaning ‘against’: antibiotic, antifreeze, antisocial, for example. When placed before a vowel ‘anti’ becomes ‘ant’: antacid, antagonist.]
THESIS 7
When used as a compound, however, it very often means “against”; rarely does it mean for, or in place of, or instead.
THESIS 8
But when ‘anti’ denotes ‘against’ or ‘opposed’ then the substantive joined with it is almost always the subject: as ἀντίθεσις [antithesis, 1 Tim. 6:20] means an opposing position, opposition. In very few cases, however, it is the object, as in αντίθεος [antitheos], opposed to God; ἀντίπαις [antipais], opposed to a boy, pubescent, as if contrary to a boy who is not yet of age.
[N. B. The subject is the “doer” or the entity performing the action, while the object is the “receiver” or the entity being acted upon.]
THESIS 9
But when αντί designates “For,” or “In place of,” or “Instead of,” then the noun is not the subject, but the object: as ἀντωνυμία – pronoun, αντί ὀνόματος – which takes the place of a name. Thus, ἀντίπτωσις [opposition] & ἀντονομασία [substitution of a name] are commonly used: & ἀντιβασιλῶς or proreges, one who acts in place of kings: ἀνθύπατος [deputy consul] one who acts for the consul, proconsul (Acts 13:7): ἀνθισραληγός however, has both meanings, either a leader opposed, or one who is said to act in place of a leader, an envoy.
THESIS 10
From which it plainly appears that “Antichrist,” in a manner of analogy, can be understood as one who is the opposite of Christ, or contrary to Christ; or as one who is in place of Christ, as a vicar of Christ. By using this phrase in the proper sense as used in Holy Scriptures, the vicar of Christ declares himself to be the opposite of Christ the Savior, either in a general or specific sense.
11
Thus, used in one sense it denotes any deserter and adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John 7). Hence Jerome says, “All heresiarchs are Antichrists, and under the name of Christ they teach those things which are contrary to Christ.”
12
Used in another sense, however, and especially (as John Damascene speaks of this matter) in a peculiar and exceptional manner, it is used of that notable one, greater than the rest, who is a particular one out of the order and assembly of Antichrists (1 John 2:18, 4:3), who, under this description, can be outlined quite appropriately.
13
The great Antichrist is the Roman Bishop, gradually arising through the power of Satan and various defections of the Church from the doctrine of Christ; and finally revealed by the ruin of the Roman Empire: who, under the guise of the profession of Christ, is a wicked adversary of Christ, exalted above all God, and arrogating to himself, as God, dominion over the universal Church and the whole world; who, by the lies of doctrine and signs, by examples of impure life, and cruelty, seduces into errors, idolatry, and destruction; and finally will be destroyed by the word of Christ and His glorious advent. These particulars will more clearly shine forth from the following distinct exposition and confirmation of the parts.
14
The classification, ‘Antichrist,’ perfectly fits the Bishop of Rome. He is truly a Bishop because he is an overseer of the Church of God, in which not only he is made, but also presides and rules. [N. B. The Greek noun for ‘bishop’ is ἐπίσκοπος – episcopos – which translates to ‘overseer.’] Therefore, he is said to sit “in the temple of God” – 2 Thess. 2:4, (that is, the Church – Eph. 2:21; with the people of God – 2 Cor. 6:16). He is called ‘Roman’ because his place and seat is Rome: that great city of the ‘seven hills’ – Rev. 17:9, which, as John foretold, had a kingdom over the kings of the earth – Rev. 17:17.
15
To which, as if with vivid colors, Rome alone, perfectly depicted, is indicated. And therefore, a Roman writer (Ovid) has consistently sung; “But Rome, the place of God, looks around the whole world from its seven hills of the Empire.” Hence, it was also called septicollis [seven-hilled] and the solemn and sacred feast of the Romans was formerly called ‘Septimontium.’
16
However, we establish the Roman Bishop as the “the class of Antichrist,” because that attribute [‘anti’- against Christ] is common to him along with his predecessors. Moreover, the following differences (as to author, origin, morals, effects, and outcome) are ascribed to the Antichrist; so that he may be distinguished from all the others.
17
First, the author and supporter of the Antichrist is Satan. For he is the primary and foremost adversary of Christ (Gen. 3:15); the lying parent (John 8:44), who works in the unbelievers. Hence, the Apostle explicitly says concerning the Antichrist, “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan” (2 Thes. 2:9).
18
The origin of the Antichrist, or the instrumental cause and occasion (by which Satan perversely brings him forth) is twofold: one is formation, the other is revelation. The former is the Church’s defection from the doctrine of Christ, the latter, and this truly, the downfall of the Roman Empire.
19
But that defection varies: namely, particular and universal. Each in its own way contributed to the constitution of that monster.
20
The particular is that which pertains to a part of the Church, and it first arose in the time of the Apostles. The authors of this were partly heresiarchs (1 John 4:1); partly ambitious and seeking preeminence as ministers of the Church (2 John 9-10; 2 Cor. 11:13), of whom the former led the flock of the Lord astray by error; the latter, however, by pride, deviating from the right path.
21
And concerning them it is said; “Even now many Antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18-19), namely, the precursors of that great “Antichrist” (Tertullian against Marcion). For indeed, “the spirit of that one was even then present” (1 John 4:3) and “the mystery of iniquity was already at work” (2 Thess. 2:7). So that, by the secret machinations of Satan, the harmful seeds and foundations of the Antichrist were subtly laid in them, at the very beginnings of the Christian Church.
22
Such were not only many ‘straws’ (1 Cor. 3:12); but also serious and various errors, with which the Apostles had to contend. Among others, the denial of the person (1 John 2:22-23, 4:13; 2 John 7) and office (1 John 2:22) of Christ; justification of men before God based on the merit of works (Gal. 5:4); worship and adoration of angels (Col. 2:18); prohibition of certain foods (Col. 2:21); arbitrary worship of God (Col. 2:22-23); and superstitions involving ostentatious humility and immoderate affliction of the body (ibid.).
23
Similarly, after the Apostles had been taken away, the defection from Christian doctrine was by no means lacking, but the mystery of iniquity advanced increasingly (Acts 20:29-30), as will become clear from this example.
24
For the Gnostics introduced the cult of images of Christ; the Collyridians the adoration of the Virgin Mary; the Manichaeans the necessity of celibacy for Bishops; the Encratites the prohibition of eating meat: the Cathari boasting of the merit of good works; the Pelagians errors concerning grace and free will. These paved and prepared the way for the Antichrist (who would later interpolate the same errors).
25
The universal defection, is that by which the whole Church has, in some way, deviated from the doctrine of Christ. About this, the Apostle first says; “Unless the defection – [Latin: defectio; Greek: apostasy] – comes first, and the man of sin be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:3). Now, this defection is twofold: one is open; the other hidden and latent.
26
The open defection is that of Arius and his followers who, opposing the eternal divinity of Christ, seized the Churches of the whole world, even the Roman Church with Bishop Liberius, through its contagion and cruelty.
27
Wherefore Athanasius called the Arian heresy not only a ἀπὸςασίαν – departure – “before the Antichrist was revealed,” but also from the Church. It was deemed a precursor to the Antichrist, the prelude and preparation for him.
28
Indeed, just as it accustomed the minds of men to an easy change of religion, so it also produced a neglect of the due “love for the truth,” and (by the just judgment of God – 2 Thess. 2:10; Rev. 3:16) it suitably prepared them to be followers of the Antichrist.
29
The hidden universal defection, however, is the common blemish of the whole Church, by which, gradually, through neglect and ignorance of the examination of Scripture and credulity, the Episcopate suffering from its own vices, has in many departed from the purity of Christian doctrine and life.
30
Those vices were such that both their minds and their spirits were infected by them. For the mind was corrupted by ignorance; the spirit, however, was corrupted partly by a blind zeal for religion, and partly by the twin plagues of avarice and pride.
31
The ignorance of many Bishops was so unworthy that it was often found they were unaware of both divine and natural law (Lev. 18:8; 1 Cor. 5:1). Therefore, it is not surprising if blind leaders have led the blind, dragging them along and plunging them into various errors (Matt. 15:14). And among many witnesses is that Augustine, Bishop of Canterbury, Gregory the Great’s legate to England (under the pretext of their conversion), and so often and so accurately commended by him: who was so unlearned that through letters he inquired of Gregory, “Whether marriages with stepmothers were lawful?”
32
The blind zeal for religion was exercised in that, while they considered the phraseology of Scripture and the prescribed worship to be less suitable for attracting Jews and Gentiles, seeking to gain greater reverence for religion among all, they imprudently diminished it from the right path by introducing prayers and practices attached to various harmful superstitions.
33
Indeed, the prayers, by means of omissions, hyperboles, and the misuse of words improperly derived from the ceremonies of the Jews and Gentiles, obscured the truth and provided a foothold for resulting errors.
34
Of which fact, among other things, the proof is that by misusing apostrophes to the saints in their orations, they gave the unwary an opportunity to invoke them. Furthermore, by the dangerous misuse of words, they preferred to use mereri (to deserve) for consequi (to obtain), meritum (merit) for any work; ‘Christians’ for the baptized only; ‘priests’ for ministers of the Gospel; ‘sacrifice’ for the Lord’s Supper; ‘mysteries’ for the signs of God’s covenant; and following the custom of the Gentiles, they kept catechumens away from their sight and understanding, as if they were a profane crowd.
35
Hence that frequent formula of Chrysostom, speaking obscurely and hyperbolically in his homilies on this matter: “The initiated understand what we say,” and the more explicit cautiousness of Theodoret in his Dialogues when he discusses the Sacrament: “The Orthodox,” he says, “must not use open speech. For it can happen that some uninitiated, not yet initiated into the mysteries, are present. Therefore, their response should be enigmatic.”
36
The superstitious obscurity of speech concerning the Sacraments so wholly obfuscated and corrupted the doctrine about them that it allowed the errors of the Antichrist to more easily creep into the Church and stubbornly adhere under the specious pretense of the Fathers’ speech.
37
The Bishops corrupted pure religion through their own practices, partly by human inventions, partly by fabrications of miracles and ancient traditions, as the matter itself clearly shows.
38
Regarding human inventions, first, because they imposed the yoke and intolerable burden of their own customs upon the Church’s shoulders, in the form of religious Orders, even more than the Judaic ones. From this arose a false opinion of religion, by which those customs were regarded not only as equal to God’s commandments in holiness, but even more worthy. This also pertains to the rashness of Victor, Bishop of Rome [189-199] who, because of the different day on which Easter was observed, unjustly excluded the Asian Churches from communion with the [Roman] Church.
39
Furthermore, since they strove to encourage Christians to greater constancy in faith and holiness of life by the example of martyrs and saints, they abused this by panegyric and excessive praise of them, and by superstitious display and reverence of relics, gradually leading the Church away from the proper worship of God alone; and by so doing furnished abundant material for the idolatrous erection of the Antichrist.
40
This profane superstition invaded the Roman Church so much so that Gregory the Great [590-604] did not hesitate to boast of sending relics from the sepulcher of Peter as gifts, symbolizing the keys of Peter, that they might be “hung around the neck, to protect [the recipients] against all adversities, so that they might have present and eternal salvation.” This corruption grew even more with the fabrications of miracles and traditions, [such as its healing power when placed on the bodies of the sick].
41
For not a few miracles were either rashly believed, or refuted by fraud, or, to test their constancy divinely granted, (Deut. 13:2-3), so that by imprudently commending them the Church instilled various errors. Such are the numerous ones accumulated to embellish superstitions in the ridiculous and impure dialogue of Gregory the Great, “On the Miracles of the Italian Fathers.”
42
Not a few gullible Bishops rashly propagated the fables of ancient traditions, received from their predecessors. Hence, a greater defection of the Church from truth and holiness ensued. This is illustrated, to say nothing of other things, by a memorable example of two cases.
43
The first example indeed consists in the legendary traditions of Papias, [Bishop of Hierapolis], a very ancient writer [2nd century]. For, since he, without any sound judgment, had eagerly investigated the traditions of the Apostles from those who had [allegedly] heard them, and rashly believing, had promulgated them in his writings, so that “Ecclesiastical men after him” (as Eusebius testifies) “considering the antiquity of his claims [as proving their truthfulness], provided a cause of error for many.”
44
The second, however, is that ancient tradition, opposed to the Sacred Scriptures, concerning the Roman episcopate and primacy of Peter the Apostle; as well as his chair and authority fixed both Rome and his successors and vicars. This, as fabricated by the Roman Bishops and falsely embellished by a vain misuse of Christ’s words (the rock of the Church and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 16:18), the faith of Peter not failing, (Luke 22:32), and about Peter feeding Christ’s sheep, (John 21:17), was thus deceitfully disguised; so, by the imprudent flattery of some ancients (with great detriment to the liberty of the Church and Christian truth), it was gradually established, paving and opening the way for the lies of the Antichrist and his tyranny.
45
Moreover, the greed of Bishops also added no small weight to the defection of the Church, as the wet-nurse of shared ambition and the brothel-keeping corrupter of religion. This is evident from the fact that for them, the sacred duties of the Church were for sale, so much so that in conferring them, considerations of price were weighed more than those of piety and doctrine. Hence, unlearned and wicked men had access to them; and the Church, increasingly led astray, departed from the right path.
46
On this matter, Gregory the Great’s complaint is serious when he says, “That in the parts of Gaul or Germany, no one reaches the sacred order without giving a bribe.” He repeats the same words concerning Hellas, or Greece; and reports that the same vice prevailed in the Epirus and the Churches of the East.
47
Nevertheless, the deeds of Gregory himself and his predecessor Damasus [366-384] show that even the Roman Bishops themselves were not less immune from this vice. Indeed, Gregory entrusted what they call ‘the patrimony of Peter’ in Gaul, Sicily, and other places with much solicitude and fervent zeal. Furthermore, he appears to have immortalized his ravenous ambition in human blood by violently wresting the Roman episcopate through the gruesome slaughter of many men.
48
Finally, the pride of Bishops, almost a constant companion of greed, shaking the true faith, morals, and order of the Church, exalted itself partly against God and partly against men.
49
Pride, however, was the first step against God because by assuming the image of the legislator and judge who alone is God, they established various laws concerning abstinence from free and lawful things, sanctioned by anathema, they subjugated the consciences of men. The second step was by “exalting themselves above God,” when they shamelessly preferred their human opinions to divine laws. We have found these two to have prevailed, especially in the Roman Bishops (vigorously carrying out the mystery of iniquity and being true precursors of the Antichrist).
50
Gregory the Great, among others, provided an example of the former when, together with the Roman council, he decreed, “If any priest or deacon marries, let him be anathema.” [His arrogance was] so much so that he neither feared the contrary opinion of God (1 Tim. 3:1-4, 12; Heb. 13:4) nor the censure (1 Tim. 4:1-3); nor was he deterred by the example of the Council of Nicaea, which nearly fell into the same error and was called back to the right path by the monk Paphnutius.
51
The indication of the latter, however, is that doctrine of Marcellus, Roman Bishop and predecessor of Gregory [308-309]: “Baptism is of greater necessity; but the imposition of hands of the minister is of greater dignity.” Also, “That sacrament is worthy of greater veneration.”
52
The pride of Bishops against men, is seen when being ensnared with the splendor and allurements of worldly honor, and forgetting modesty, they perverted the sacred order of ministry into profane domination, unworthily elevating themselves above their peers and superiors, thus hastening the revelation of the Antichrist.
53
Indeed, they viewed themselves as ‘supra-peers’, while perhaps exempting themselves from the commoners, they endeavored to subject other Bishops to their power. This plague especially seized the tetrarchs of the Church, or the four Patriarchs, inflated by the dignity of their cities and the title of ecumenical Bishop: as is evident especially from the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome.
54
Regarding the Bishop of Constantinople (since he seemed to aspire to monarchy in the Church by the affected title of Ecumenical or Universal), Gregory the Great says: “But I confidently say that whoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, in his pride, has anticipated the Antichrist.” Also, “The king of pride is near and, which it is forbidden to say, a prepared army of priests is ready: for those who were placed to provide leadership of humility are at the neck of arrogance.”
55
The pride of the Roman Bishop, however, was far greater and more insolent, so much so that it is remarkable that Gregory was so blind as not to observe it or to think others were ignorant of it. For before him, Pope Vigilius [537-555] had boasted: “The Holy Roman Church, by the merit of Peter, consecrated by the voice of the Lord and strengthened by the authority of the Holy Fathers, holds the primacy of all churches. To it, both the highest affairs and judgments and complaints of Bishops, as well as the greater questions of churches, are to be referred as to the head.”
56
In truth, Gregory, having renounced the proud surname Universal, out of envy, called himself, in the solemn manner, servant of the servants of the Lord. However, in reality, he desired to be their lord. And this, having been narrated and proven by him, shows the arrogance of Pope Pelagius I [556-561], who, struck by envy at the name ecumenical, usurped by John the Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople, annulled, (as Gregory says), by direct letters, from the AUTHORITY OF PETER, “the decrees of that same Synod.” And Gregory, inflated with similar pride, speaking with authority to all the Bishops of Dalmatia, said, “To whom, by the AUTHORITY OF BLESSED PETER, Prince of the Apostles,” we command. And these things are about the pride of Bishops against their equals.
57
The pride, indeed, of bishops against their superiors, is that by which, partly, they intruded into the offices of political magistrates and nobles: partly, disdaining to be subject to kings and emperors or to render them due honor (Romans 13:1), they wished to preside over them.
58
Previous witnesses are wealthy, noble, and most serious, complaining about Pope Gregory. Indeed, the latter says that the Roman bishopric has long since been advanced to the principate, like that of Alexandria. However, the former writes thus: “In this place, whoever is called pastor is seriously occupied with external cares: so much so that it often becomes uncertain whether he is performing the office of pastor or that of earthly nobles.” And elsewhere: “Indeed, the burdens of so many occupations weigh down so much that the mind is in no way raised to heavenly things.”
59
The evidence of the latter is that the Roman Bishop has been continually absent from Nicaea and other Eastern Councils, for the reason that only legates were sent, so that he would not have to yield to the Emperor present there (who would occupy the first place in the assembly) or be forced to cause disturbance over this matter. This mystery of iniquity is revealed by the keen suspicion of Cardinal Bellarmine.
60
To which secret fuel and bellows of pride were added the superstition of Christian Emperors and Kings, who, having transgressed the due boundaries of reverence owed to Bishops (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17), with immoderate observance of the limits (1 Peter 5:3 & 1:17; Romans 13:1), and the foul violation of their own majesty, further inflamed the proud spirits of the Patriarchs; as the deeds of Constantine the Great and the Kings (especially of Gaul) demonstrate.
61
For Constantine so imprudently and unworthily erred so that, rejecting the cognizance and judgment of causes of disputing Bishops, he asserted they are superior to all human judgments and to be judged only by God, who are called ‘gods’ in the sacred scriptures. The Roman Bishops so eagerly seized upon this false and harmful opinion that, abusing it, they arrogated to themselves both the name of God and the supreme majesty on earth.
62
But kings, so forgetful of their excellence, squandered the resources of their kingdom, deceived by the vain color of honor and the patrimony of Peter, and, as if rightly worshiping God in the Pontiff, they worshiped Him so unworthily; they subjected themselves to him most shamefully. This matter, increased over time and by the examples of their ancestors, at last revealed the Antichrist. And these things are indeed about the defection of the Church, the first origin of the Antichrist (by which he was gradually formed).
63
The second origin, by which the Antichrist was revealed, is described as the ruin of the Roman Empire. For just as the presence and authority of the Roman Emperor in the middle of the city of Rome was an obstacle and a bridle to the tyranny of the hidden Antichrist, so the removal of both from the midst revealed the unbridled Antichrist.
64
Indeed, two notable stages of the declining Roman Empire have been distinguished. The first, when Rome ceased to be the seat of empire as the Emperor transferred to Byzantium, leaving it deserted; the second, when it in turn abandoned the Emperor and shook off his ancient yoke: and therefore, the remaining empire ceased to be the Roman Empire. To these two stages, the revelation of the Antichrist corresponds gradually in Boniface III (AD 607) and Pope Stephen II (AD 754).
65
About which the oracle of Scripture is twofold. The first is that of Paul, who says, “And you know what is restraining now, so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way; and then the lawless one will be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:6-8). The second is that of John, who teaches that the ‘Beast rising out of the earth’ (that is, the Antichrist, as if the son of the earth) will ascend “after the first beast was wounded by a deadly wound” (Rev. 13:3, 11-12); that is, after the ruin of the former Roman Empire. So far, our discussion has concerned both origins (both the formation and the revelation) of the Antichrist: the first is clearly different in kind; the second pertains to his character.
66
The character of the Antichrist, however, has been indicated in the proposed definition by us, namely the extraordinary hypocrisy and depravity of his perverse mind.
67
His hypocrisy is a deceitful mask professing Christ, by which he suppresses one thing inwardly and promises another publicly, so as to conceal his depravity while deceiving men; as Scripture and experience demonstrate.
68
Scripture, when it prophesies that he will “sit in the temple of God and deceive” (2 Thess. 2:4, 10); that he will falsely simulate “the spirit of God and a prophet” (1 John 4:13); and that he will have “two horns like a lamb, but speak like a dragon” (Rev. 13:11), calls him and his subordinate teachers “deceptive spirits, lying by hypocrisy” [1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Peter 2:1].
69
Experience, indeed, because the Roman Pontiff, from Boniface III onwards, professes Christ in a certain general and special manner.
70
General, indeed, because he presents the entire Holy Scripture, along with the sum of its doctrine, including the Christian catechism (or the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, the institution of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the Lord’s Prayer), like a badge of Christianity, yet he corrupts and subverts both in various ways.
71
Special, indeed, since he calls himself Vicar of Christ and, in vain imitation of Gregory, Servant of the servants of God; but in reality, he contradicts this, as will later become clear from the effects. We now speak of his hypocrisy.
72
But the moral corruption of Antichrist is generally indicated by definition when he is called wicked, and specifically when he is called the adversary of Christ.
73
He is predicted to be wicked in the Sacred Scriptures when he is called καλ’ έξοχὴν, that man of sin (2 Thess. 2:3; that is, an exceptional servant of sin: as the man of God presenting himself as the servant of God – Deut. 33:1 & 34:5; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:17) and ὁ ἄνομος, that lawless one (2 Thess. 2:8): but we are taught he is to be the adversary of Christ when he is called άντικείμενος, that adversary who opposes (2 Thess. 2:4) God, and of course, Christ) and ὁ αντίχριστος, that Antichrist (1 John 2:18 & 4:3). Both will be more fully known from a distinct induction of the following effects.
74
The chief effects of the Antichrist are declared to be two: exaltation and extraordinary seduction.
75
Exaltation, however, is twofold: one, by which he wickedly rises above God; the other, by which he unjustly elevates himself above men.
76
Exaltation above God is demonstrated partly by the authority of the Scripture prophecy when it says. “Exalting himself above all who are called God or gods” (2 Thess. 2:4); partly by evident experience, sense, and consensus.
77
Firstly, because the Roman Pontiff opposes and places his own laws above the laws of God: as will be evident from his predecessors, whom he approves and follows, and from other effects.
78
Then, because he prescribes a heavier redemption for the violator of his human laws than for divine laws. No wonder: “for such presumption” (as he says) “is of the same kind as those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit.” So much so that he regards horrid incest as no more worthless than a thing of no moment (Matt. 15:9), as these shameful statutes demonstrate. “Absolution, for him who carnally knew his mother, sister, or any female kinswoman or affinity, and his stepmother.” And shortly after; “Absolution, for a priest who buried the bodies of the excommunicated dead in the holy land.”
79
Finally, because he arrogates to himself the power to make saints of dead men, to be worshipped with religious invocation, and to exercise pagan αποθέωση (deification) and (as they call it) Canonization. This God cannot do because He cannot deny Himself, nor attribute His glory to another, contrary to justice (2 Tim. 2:13; Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 42:8).
80
Exaltation above men, however, is that by which he arrogates to himself dominion in the universal Church and the polity of the whole world, as if he were God and Christ, to which both Scripture and experience attest, both generally and specifically.
81
Generally, indeed, when in Scripture, that great city (of which the head is the Roman Antichrist) says; ‘I sit as a queen’ (Rev. 11:8 & 18:2): and “that great harlot sits upon many waters” (Rev. 17:1), that is, to preside over many peoples (Rev. 17:15), and the Beast, the indicator of the Antichrist, is said to “have two horns like a lamb” (that is, two kingdoms: to usurp the Church and the polity of Christ the Lamb, Lord of heaven and earth).
82
Experience, indeed, because Pope John XXII said; “The Supreme Pontiff, to whom, in the person of blessed Peter, God Himself committed the rights of both earthly and heavenly empire. The sign of which is the Pontiff’s Tiara adorned with a triple golden crown [which symbolizes his three-tiered kingdom of Earth, Purgatory and Heaven]. Also, because Boniface VIII promulgated this new article of faith concerning Papal dominion; “Moreover, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam).
83
Specifically, however, the first exaltation of dominion seized by the Antichrist is that by which, like God and Christ, he usurps absolute domination over the Church, and (as it is said) has the “fullness of power.” The divine witness of this is the Holy Scripture which not only predicts that he shall sit or preside in the Church, but also like God (2 Thess. 2:4): and “show himself to be God” (ibid.): and be worshipped by the inhabitants of the Earth (Rev. 13:8). The certain human witness is experience: which clearly demonstrates his wicked dominion and manner over the Church.
84
And the dominion, truly, was clearly declared in Boniface III, that first Antichrist to be revealed. “At his request” (says the Abbot of Ursperg) “Phocas [Eastern Roman Emperor, d. 610] established the Roman and Apostolic See as the head of all Churches.” And thus, at last, by the public authority of that unjust tyrant, the murderer of his lord Emperor Maurice, what Boniface’s predecessors had so eagerly, but vainly sought, was established. Therefore, in the solemn coronation of the Roman Antichrist, it was customary to acclaim and give good omen thus: “Long live the Pontiff and UNIVERSAL POPE.”
85
Then, it is also clearly proven that same immense yoke of Papal laws (fortified with the threat of anathema) by which he burdens and oppresses the Church. On this matter, the foremost and most celebrated theologian once rightly lamented; “It happens” (Jean Gerson says) “that instead of the light yoke of Christ and the law of liberty, an iron yoke and heavy burden presses on the necks of Christians: while certain ones arbitrarily consider all their own laws, institutions, rules, and statutes to be received as if they were precepts of the law of God, threatening eternal death if neglected.”
86
Furthermore, added to this is the boundless pride of the Pope, by which he exempts and places above the judgments of all councils and men his own judgments, indeed, even his crimes, under the pretense of the primacy of Peter and the power of binding and loosing. Hence, that lawless outlaw of whom the Apostle speaks ὁ ἄνομος ‘the lawless one’/ ‘the man of sin’ (2 Thess. 2:8) is openly made known by his own evidentiary proof.
87
Concerning judgments, he boasts thus, “Pope Nicholas, it is evident, of the Apostolic See” (BY WHOSE AUTHORITY THERE IS NONE GREATER) “that his judgment shall not be retracted by anyone: nor is anyone permitted to judge his judgment.” And he asserts this is proved by similar decrees of Popes Innocent and Gelasius, etc. And elsewhere he says: “No one is permitted to judge or retract the judgment of the Apostolic See: namely, because of the PRIMACY of the Roman Church, divinely bestowed in Christ’s office on the blessed Apostle Peter.”
88
Concerning [Papal] crimes, Pope Antherius [d. 236] says thus, “The deeds of subjects are judged by us: but ours will be judged by the Lord.” And Symmachus similarly says; “God willed that the causes of other men be decided by men: but He reserved the Prelate of that See to his own judgment without question.”
89
Also relevant here (as an interpreter) is that famously infamous decree; “If the Pope, negligent of his own and fraternal salvation, is found useless and slack in his works, silent about good which harms himself more than all, nevertheless, he leads innumerable peoples with him to the first captivity of hell, there, with him, to be beaten eternally with plagues; no one presumes to rebuke his faults because he is judged by no one, since he himself is to judge all, unless he is found to have deviated from the faith” (Gratian’s Decretum, Si Papa). Hence, the dominion of the Pope can be known.
90
The manner of that dominion over the Church is impious, as it appears from the fact that he rules as if he were God and Christ. This manner (to omit others) is first seen from the fact that he openly declares himself the vicar of Christ’s power: and the Church (despising Christ, her only bridegroom and head, John 3:29; 1 Cor.11:2; Eph. 5:23) to be his bride and body, of which he himself is the head. Hence, Boniface VIII, in Sextus 1.4. de immun., c. 4 says: “We do not wish to neglect our righteousness and the Church, our bride.”
91
Then, because he freely and according to his own will, partly or entirely, distributes and dispenses the remission of sins and various degrees of heavenly glory, as stated by Pope Clement.
92
Finally, just as the name of God and divine majesty is to be adored by kings; so, the religious adoration of the Pontiff which he arrogates to himself as he is carried aloft to the altar like a divine being, demonstrates a clear affection for divinity. For the Pontiff (as the Archbishop of Corfu describes the papal coronation rite to Pope Leo X) “is placed by the Cardinals upon the altar to sit, with the mitre and the senior Bishops kneeling, begins the ‘Te Deum laudamus,’ etc. Meanwhile, the Cardinals kiss the feet, hands, and mouth of the elected one. [N. B. Due to the public’s aversion to such pomp, the modern Papacy has cut back on such grotesque displays.]
93
The other special exaltation of the ruling Roman Antichrist is that by the deceptive appearance of the power of Peter and his successors, he has so intoxicated Kings and Emperors (Rev. 17:2) that they have subjected their scepters and crowns, mitres and footstools, even at his feet (fascinated by the [Roman Catholic] false opinion of ‘worship of God’) as foretold by the sacred Scripture and confirmed by experience, like a thousand consistent witnesses.
94
Indeed, because Scripture says about the Antichrist, “Exalting himself above all that is called God” (2 Thess. 2:4), by this general term, not only the true God but also magistrates are understood (due to the similarity of power and judgment, Exodus 21:6). Then also, concerning Kings, it testifies thus; “These have one mind: and they will give their power and authority to the beast,” (Rev. 17:13).
95
Experience, however, furnishes countless proofs of the astonishing abuses and public shames inflicted on the highest magistracy. We will select only a few of these, so that from them the ferocity of the Roman lion’s insolence may be recognized, as if by its claws.
96
The offensive injury first reveals itself in that the Roman Pontiffs have unjustly withdrawn themselves and their ecclesiastics from the authority of the civil magistrate (Romans 13:1). Indeed, Pope Caius [283-296] decrees thus: “No one shall ever presume to accuse a Bishop or other clerics before a secular judge.” And Pope Sylvester I [314-335] says: “If any cleric accuses another cleric in court, let him be anathema.” This injustice took on a vain color from the fact they were called gods and, by Constantine’s decree, (the Code of Justinian, book 1), were immune from human judgments. [N. B. It was not until the 1980s when pedophile priests were universally openly exposed to public view that secular courts began to be involved with their prosecution.]
97
Then, from this also the injury arises that by the arrogated power over all kings and princes they have frequently released their subjects from due obedience and oath of fidelity, stripping kingdoms and empires for their own pleasure. This injury they have sought to disguise and confirm as if divinely granted by the false fullness of Apostolic power. This injury is openly proven by the scandals of Popes Gregory II [715-731], Zacharias [741-752], Gregory VII [1073-1085], and other successors.
98
For Gregory II, compelled by the mad impulse to worship images and infuriated against Emperor Leo III [717-741] because he had destroyed those instruments of idolatry, caused “Rome” (as the Abbot Urspberg says in his chronicle) “along with all Italy to withdraw from his Empire.”
99
Pope Zacharias, however, absolved the Franks from the oath by which they had been bound to their legitimate King, Childeric (not for any injustice of his, but solely because of their own cowardice). Whereupon Pepin, having been saluted as King by the favor of the Pope and crowned by Stephen II, superstitiously repaid Ravenna’s prefecture and the towns of the Duchy of Rome, as too ample a reward for his injustice. [N. B. “After the Pope helped Pepin become King, Pepin conquered lands from the Lombards and, instead of returning them to the Byzantines (as expected), gave them to the Pope, creating the Papal States. This act was seen as a holy, massive gift solidifying their alliance, but it also overstepped what might have been a simple political repayment.”] Likewise, Gregory VII first deposed Henry IV, the Emperor, from his empire; and then “he did not absolve him until, having laid aside his royal insignia, he came barefoot to the Pope—although the winter was harsh and all things were stiffened with frost—and sought pardon from him.”
100
The ignominy inflicted upon majesty is a mirror that, having degraded the kings by using their superstition against them, have allowed them to kiss their feet with the foulest barbarity. So much so that, concerning this matter, Pope Gelasius I [492-496] shamelessly boasts; “For” (he says) “when you see the necks of kings and princes submitted to the knees of priests, and their right hands kissed, by their prayers they believe themselves to be partakers or strengthened.” And Antonius Puccius, in an oration to Leo X at the Lateran Council, ascribing to him divine majesty, afterwards said, “Whose” (of kings) “willing kisses have received your feet: as if in you alone, the true and legitimate vicar of Christ, that prophecy (Psalm 72:11) ought again to be fulfilled; He shall be worshiped by all the kings of the earth: all nations shall serve him.”
101
Such an example is recounted regarding Pepin. “Descending from his horse,” (says Italian historian Flavius Blondus) “kissing the feet of the Pope, he led him, walking on the ground and holding the bridle of the Pope’s horse, all the way to the chamber.” Hence this disgrace, adorned with ancient examples, grew into custom and law; as the solemn rites of crowning and honoring the Pope clearly demonstrate.
102
For, besides kissing the foot of the Roman Pontiff, the leading of his horse, the service of carrying him aloft in his portable throne on their shoulders, and other servile duties which dishonor the Emperor, the master of ceremonies also recalls this: “If indeed the Pope is carried not on a horse but in a chair, four chief princes, even if among them is the EMPEROR or any greatest prince present, ought to carry that very chair with the Pontiff on their shoulders, IN HONOR OF THE SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” (oh, the foundation and spell of Papal superstition and idolatry by which men have been miserably deceived!).
103
To which madness of this kind of shameless arrogance is added the pinnacle in Alexander III [1159-1181] against Frederick Barbarossa, which is recounted by most historians almost in the same words. “By that treaty,” they say, “Alexander the Pontiff having entered into it, immediately approached the doors of the temple of Saint Mark; and there, with the whole people standing by, the Emperor came forward to prostrate himself on the ground and ask for pardon again. But the Supreme Pontiff, pressing down on the neck of Caesar the Emperor with his foot, said: “It is written; You shall walk upon the asp and basilisk, and trample underfoot the lion and dragon.” As for Frederick, he replied: “Not to you,” he said, “but to Peter, whom you succeed (oh superstition and origin of evil!) I obey.” And the Pontiff replied: “Both to me and to Peter.” Let these things concerning the first main effect of the Antichrist, that tyrannical and detestable pride by which he elevates himself above God and men, suffice.
104
The second effect, however, is the seduction of men away from Christ and the way of salvation. In this, the manner and the goal towards which it tends are distinctly indicated by us in the foregoing definition of the Antichrist.
105
The manner of that seduction, however, is twofold: the allure of persuasion and the cruelty of coercion. The former is partly contained in the lies of doctrine and signs; partly, in examples of impure life.
106
And truly, the Holy Scripture openly foretells the doctrine of lies when the Spirit of God is generally opposed by ‘the spirit of the Antichrist’ (1 John 4:3); and especially calls him “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13); and attributes to him “all deceit of unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:10). Scripture is specific when presenting examples of an unjust law (concerning celibacy and religious selection of foods) in this way; “The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, whose conscience is seared with a hot iron: forbidding to marry; commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
107
Then, with these divine prophecies, experience also agrees, as they abundantly prove the vast forest of Papal errors concerning Scripture and its dogma; from which we will gather certain branches as examples, so that the Antichrist may be more clearly recognized.
108
Concerning Scripture, the errors are of this kind:
(1) That certain Apocryphal books are no less sacred and canonical than those of Moses and the Prophets. This decree is found in the Council of Trent, Session 4, 1st decree. Opposed to this is 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21.
(2) That Scripture is not a perfect canon of doctrine necessary for salvation; but that it is contained partly in Scripture, partly in unwritten traditions (equally to be revered with pious affection). This is found in the same decree cited above and is contradicted by Acts 20:27; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
(3) The common Latin version [Vulgate] being authentic, and the Hebrew and Greek (Prophets & Apostles) Scriptures, where they differ, should be preferred. This is also found in Council of Trent, session 4. Bellarmine concurs, De Verbo Dei, book 2, chap. 10-11. Against this is Romans 3:4; Eph. 2:20.
(4) Scripture is not to be read privately by individuals, nor publicly by all, nor in vernacular languages when in use of the Church. Pius IV, Index of Forbidden Books. Also, Bellarmine, book 2, chap. 5. Against this is Psalm 1:2; John 5:39; Acts 15:21, 17:11.
109
Concerning the dogmas handed down in Scripture, the errors are innumerable: but we present only a few, selected for the sake of brevity, as if on a certain tablet (from which the face of the Antichrist will shine forth). Some of these diametrically attack the eternal law of charity expressed in the Decalogue; others, the Gospel and the rule of faith in Christ.
110
The law indeed, because the Pontiff, against the first commandment of the law, hands over many foreign gods, angels, and dead men (reckoned by himself among the number and canon of guardian gods, and made gods): and assigns to them the glory of God (namely the scrutiny of the heart, the protective power, the internal worship of faith, hope, and invocation: e.g., The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary); to whom both the God of the Mass, or sacrifice, and the Roman Pontiff himself, as we have shown before, must be acknowledged.
111
But to make this dreadful hydra of impiety more visible, let us uncover only one of its heads, concerning Mariolatry. For this purpose, the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the ‘Divine’ Pontifical, Cardinal Bonaventure [d. 1274] will suffice: in which, the glory attributed to God, the Lord, is transferred by a change of name to the Lady Virgin Mary; and is amplified with other blasphemies added.
112
Such as, among many, these are notable: “Holy, holy, holy, Mother of God, bearer of God. Let your great mercy be upon us because in you we have our refuge. Enter, most merciful Lady, in you we hope; defend us forever. Amen. Praise be to you, power and glory are due to you forever and ever. Amen. In your name, every knee shall bow, of the heavenly, earthly, and infernal. May His mercy take away the multitude of our sins. Cleanse my heart with the fire of your love and charity. You are the mother of the illumination of the heart. Whoever does not invoke you in this life will not reach the kingdom of God.”
[N. B. Internet Archive has a translation of the Psalter published in 1862 by the British Reformation Society, translated by Rev. John Cumming. His preface states, “I publish it in order to let Protestants disposed to join Rome see what she is ; and to make such who love evangelical and Protestant Christianity, thankful, and more disposed than ever to appeal to God’s people in Rome, and yet not of her, saying : ” Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.”]
113
Secondly, pushing against those [Scriptures] opposing, the Roman Pontiffs teach the veneration of images (Council of Trent, session 25, 2nd decree). On this matter, the holy Pontiff says; “Christ is to be adored with latria worship: therefore, also his image.” Likewise; “To it we offer latria worship, in which we place our hope of salvation: but on the cross of Christ, we place our hope of salvation. For the Church sings; O Cross, hail the only hope in this time of passion, increase justice for the pious and grant pardon to the guilty. Therefore, the cross of Christ is to be adored with latria worship.”
114
Thirdly, against [Scriptural authority], with their horrible blessings and incantations they teach the consecration and exorcism of salt, water, wax, branches, ashes, bells, and other instruments of their magic or superstition, resulting in the most unworthy profanation of the name of God; and they commend them as if they were aids to salvation. Just as the Pastorale Romanum: Rationale divinorum officiorum of Bishop Durandus and Archbishop Christopher Marcellus, books of sacred ceremonies, and Jerome Mengus’s Fuga Daemonum abundantly describe.
115
Fourthly, against [Scriptural authority], feasts, temples, altars, sacrifices of the Mass dedicated to their gods, some of whom either never existed, like St. Christopher the Giant, or were wicked, like Gregory the Arian [?] (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 5). Then, they established various modes of religion and various orders of sacred ministers, not found in the word of God, following the customs of the pagans.
116
Fifth, against [Scriptural authority], a decree is made regarding honoring parents, by what unworthy means the honor due to the fathers of the country, the highest magistrate, is diminished; from these things, which we deferred concerning the ‘Elevation of the Pontiffs,’ it is clearly proven.
117
Sixth, against [Scriptural authority], the horrendous cruelty of the Inquisitors toward men who dissent from them, even in holy matters, by shedding blood, they confirm their cruelty by their own design and prescription.
118
Seventh, against the Apostle’s teaching (1 Tim. 4:3, 3:2; 1 Cor. 7:9), they not only prohibit ecclesiastical marriages but also declare them worse than fornication. Thus, among others, Cardinal Bellarmine states: “It is a greater evil to marry than to fornicate because he who marries renders himself unfit to keep his vow, which he who fornicates does not do.” Then Gregory III decreed, “If a woman, weakened by illness, is unable to fulfill her duty to her husband, and so on, she marries because she could not contain herself.”
119
Eighth, against [Scriptural authority], they not only establish that those things which belong to Caesar are not to be handed over to Caesar by his ecclesiastics, excommunicating those who act otherwise; but they also decree that the empires and kingdoms of Caesar and other kings can be given, diminished, and taken away according to their supreme power, as asserted by Gregory VII and others.
120
Ninth, against [Scriptural authority], they have decreed that a promise of security given to heretics, if they persist in their opinion, does not bind the promisor at all. Thus, the Council of Constance speaks: “Notwithstanding the safe conduct granted, it is permitted to punish as much as justice requires if they pertinaciously refuse to withdraw their errors; even if they have come to the place of judgment by virtue of the safe conduct, and would not have come otherwise; nor does the promisor (who has otherwise done what is within his power) remain bound by this in any way.” [N. B. “No faith is to be kept with heretics.”]
121
Tenth, against the opinion and reasoning of the Apostle (Romans 7:7; Matt 22:37), they have decreed in the Council of Trent (Decree Concerning Original Sin, session 5, 5th decree) “Concupiscence, being contrary to the spirit, is not truly and properly a sin in the baptized.”
122
Finally, against the common seal and threat of the entire law by that sanction (“Cursed is he who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them,” Deut. 27:17; Gal. 4:10), the Roman Pontiffs pronounce anathema and curse upon all who observe the Law [of God] (neglecting their own decrees which we have mentioned). These curses are found throughout the Decrees of the Council of Trent concerning those not following the errors of the Pontiffs, though they violate divine Law.
123
But indeed, they have corrupted the Gospel no less foully. For they almost entirely spoil and overthrow its sincere doctrine concerning the person and attributes of Christ and concerning the faith and its sacraments with countless heresies.
124
For if we consider the ‘person,’ not only the ‘truth of the human nature which is in all things like us’ (Hebrews 2:17), but also that privilege of His, the complete and perpetual sanctity of conception and life, by which He is unlike all men (Hebrews 4:15), they have violated in unworthy ways.
125
For the Gospel teaches the truth of the ‘body of Christ’: (1) that it was made from the Virgin Mary (Galatians 4:4); the Pontiffs monstrously contend, on the contrary, that the same is made from bread by the sacrificers. Hence, they boast that they are creators, not creatures. (2) The Gospel teaches that the body of Christ ascended into heaven and will remain there until the day of judgment (Acts 3:21). Against this, the Pontiffs decree that the same body is contained in these lands, in countless places and scattered in various intervals, in the host and in each fragment of the host, whole (Council of Trent, session 13).
126
But concerning the sanctity of the human nature of Christ, the Gospel asserts that He was conceived and born holy (Luke 1:35), in all things like us except for sin (Hebrews 4:15); separated from sinners (Hebrews 7:26); but that all other men are sinners (1 John 1:8; Romans 3:23; James 3:2; Luke 11:4). Against this the Pontiffs have decreed the Virgin Mary is without all experience of sin and like Christ in the sanctity of conception and entire life (Council of Trent, session 5) and have promulgated a new feast of her Immaculate Conception.
127
They have also opposed both the offices and the benefits of Christ, in a similar manner. For (to begin with the offices) they have defiled not only His Prophetic office (which is established from the preceding) but also His priestly and kingly offices with detestable errors.
128
Certainly, the priestly office; (1) because the Gospel declares Christ to be the one and only, eternal priest, without successor, for the expiation of sins under the New Testament (Heb. 7:2, 24). Against this, the Pontiffs arrogantly claim this praise for themselves and their sacrificers (Council of Trent, session 22, chap. 1).
(2) The Gospel also proclaims the one and only expiatory victim of the New Testament, and that a bloody one, namely the offering of the body of Christ, made once for all (Heb. 9:12, 14, 26; Heb. 10:12, 14, 18). Against this, the Pontiffs contend that the same is repeated and offered daily, unbloody, in the sacrifice of the Mass (Council of Trent, session 22, chap. 1 & canon 2).
(3) The Gospel establishes Christ Jesus, the man, as the one and only mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1). Against this, the Pontiffs share that glory with their gods, and especially with the Virgin Mary (invoking her in this manner); “Mary, mediator between God and men, pray for us, come to her all you who labor and are burdened, and she will give rest to your souls.”
129
They similarly attack His royal office. (1) Because the Gospel says; there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, to whom power is given in heaven and on earth (1 Cor. 8:6; Matt. 28:18). On the contrary, the Popes establish the Virgin Mary as the companion of Christ, so that their holy Bonaventure teaches us to invoke her thus, “I will love you, Queen of heaven and earth” (Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Psalm 17).
(2) The Gospel claims that praise for Christ alone; Sit at my right hand (Psalm 110:1; Heb. 1:13). On the contrary, the Pontiffs attribute this glorious majesty to the Virgin Mary with these words: “The Lord said to our Lady, Sit, my mother, at my right hand” (Psalter, Psalm 109).
130
And, lest anything be lacking in impiety, the Roman Pontiffs ascribe to themselves both the priesthood and the kingdom of Christ, demonstrating they are true Antichrists. Whence arose the blasphemy that the Son of God had committed the perpetual principality of His kingdom and priesthood to Peter and his successors. Likewise, Christ [allegedly] entrusted His vicariate, of whatever kind, to the Supreme Pontiff; as is found in Matthew 16 and 24. But all power was given to Christ, in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28. Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff has the same power, [they allege].
131
As for the benefits of Christ, (1) the Gospel teaches that He is the only Savior (John 14:6), nor is there salvation in any other: “nor is there any other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 14:12). On the contrary, the Popes, in order to obtain salvation, add the names of the Virgin Mary and the saints. [N. B. St. Bonaventure: “As a child cannot live without its nurse, neither can a person attain salvation without our Lady” (Psalter, VI Canticle). St. Germanus: “No one can be saved or redeemed but through you, O Mother of God.” Pope Leo XIII: “None… attains salvation except through thee [Mary].”]
Likewise: “Lady, in your name, save me” (Psalter, Psalm 53). Likewise; “She is the gate of life, the door of salvation, and the way of our reconciliation: the hope of penitents: the consolation of the grieving: blessed PEACE and SALVATION of hearts” (Psalter, Psalm 46). Likewise, “Through you, the finder of grace and salvation.”
132
(Regarding the manner and perfection of salvation obtained through Christ, the Gospel teaches that He Himself is the propitiatory sacrifice through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25). His blood cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). He has borne the entire punishment due for our sins (Isaiah 53:5, 6), and has taken them away (Hebrews 9:12, 26; Romans 8:1; John 5:24). On the contrary, the Pontiffs extend this benefit to others as well.
133
First, to the Virgin Mary, as is evident from this invocation of her; “Mary, propitiation for the whole earth:” and from that; “Wash away all our sins.” The same Pope Urban V [1362-1370] also inscribed on his wax seal; “Every evil sin is broken, as does the blood of Christ, and it binds.” Finally, they indeed acknowledge that Christ satisfied for the eternal punishments of sins, but they define that the punishment for them remains temporal for the faithful, either in this world or in Purgatory to be cleansed (which is commented on by the Council of Trent: session 6, canon 30).
134
The Gospel teaches that eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ (Romans 3:23). On the contrary, the Popes contend that it is the merit of good works (Council of Trent, session 6, canon 32 & chapter 16).
135
Finally, the Gospel teaches that we, by the benefit of Christ, are not only free from the merit of the violated law of charity and its curse, but also from the servile yoke of the ceremonial law (Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:14, 16), and therefore, it forbids the religious selection of foods, and calls the contrary doctrine a doctrine of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). The Popes, on the other hand, have restored the Jewish distinction of foods, partly through ignorance and partly through wicked superstition, by introducing a new slavery into the Church regarding the selection of foods.
136
First, Pope Zachary [741-752] demonstrates: who, in a letter to his legate Boniface, (nominally the converter of the Thuringians and Saxons, but in reality their corrupter and the first unworthy Archbishop of Mainz), writes thus: “You have demanded from us what is to be received and what is to be rejected, especially concerning birds, cranes, herons, and storks. These must absolutely be avoided by Christians; also, dormice and hares.” Is this not astonishing, both in the Archbishop and the Roman Pontiff, the ignorance of Christian liberty while openly advocating the restoration of Judaism (Leviticus 11)?
137
On the other hand, it proves the will-worship (ἐθελοθρησκεία) of the Popes: that, embracing the impure decree of the First Council of Toledo (which states that “whoever, without inevitable necessity, presumes to eat meat on Lenten days shall not only be guilty against the resurrection of the Lord but also excluded from communion”); many others have established additional days of abstinence from meat and blood.
138
Moreover, they teach about faith, no less treacherously: if we consider its origin, effects, and duration.
139
For concerning the origin of faith, the Gospel teaches that it is “the gift and work of God, not from ourselves, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-10). Against this, the Popes boast that it arises partly from God and partly from ourselves, from the powers of free will (Council of Trent, session 6, chap. 9).
140
Concerning the effect, the Gospel first teaches that “in Christ we have freedom and access with confidence through faith in Him” (Eph. 3:12), and that “God is to be prayed to with faith, without hesitation” (James 1:5; Hebrews 4:16). Against this, the Popes teach that “no one can know, with the certainty of faith, that he has attained the grace of God unless he is subject to error” (Council of Trent, session6, chap. 9). Then the Gospel asserts that the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is our righteousness before God (Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). The Popes, opposing this, define that “we are not formally justified by the righteousness of Christ,” (Trent, session 6, canon 9) “but by inherent righteousness” or “through sanctification and renewal of the inner man” (Ibid. chap. 7 & 16). Finally, the Gospel concludes that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28). Against this, the Popes establish that “good works are a cause of increasing justification” (Trent, session 6, canon 24), and also “truly deserve an increase of grace” (Ibid. canon 32).
141
Concerning the duration of faith, the Gospel teaches it is preserved by the power of God and perseveres until the end of life (John 6:39 & 10:28; 1 John 3:9; 1 Peter 1:5; Romans 8:30, 38-39). Against this, the Popes establish doubt about its perseverance (Trent, session 6, chap. 13-15, canon 16).
142
Finally, concerning the Sacraments, the errors of the Popes are very numerous: among which the first is that, besides the two true Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they have added five others which they partly place even before the divine Sacraments. Then, they also wonderfully corrupt the true Sacraments. We, however, from the great multitude of corruptions, will briefly touch on a few for the sake of brevity.
143
For regarding Baptism, the Pontiffs teach (1) If pure water is lacking, it is not permitted to baptize with rose water: but it is permitted to use lye, and water, pressed more finely from the marrow of flesh, or from mud.
(2) If a priest is lacking, it is lawful for women, pagans, heretics, to baptize. [N. B. The quote cited may be found online at Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-49 A.D. It says “The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does.”]
(3) They contaminate Baptism by various human rites, partly foolish, partly shameful, partly ungodly, and by the unworthy abuse of the words of Christ. [N. B. This ancient rite can be found online at The Old Rite of Baptism. The modern rite is less superstitious.]
(4) Finally, they contend that man is first justified by Baptism, with love infused into him (Trent, session 6, chap. 4 & 7).
144
But they far more unworthily pervert the Lord’s Supper. For (1) they deny the laity (as they say) the use of the chalice (Trent, session 21, chap. 2).
(2) They teach that bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and (as they call it) transubstantiated (Trent, session 13, chap. 4).
145
Pope Nicholas [1059-1061], together with the Roman Synod, prescribed this formula of confession to Berengar of Tours; “The bread and wine which are placed on the altar, after consecration, are not only a sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and sensibly, not only a sacrament; but in truth, to be handled and broken by the hands of the priests, to be gnawed by the teeth of the faithful.”
146
Finally, they distort and transform the Christian Sacrament into a horrendous and idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass (Trent, session 13, chap. 5; session 22, chap. 2). And of these things we have spoken concerning the errors of the Pontiffs: namely, first, the kind of lies by which they oppose Christ.
147
The second are false signs, as the expressed prophecies of Scripture and the clear experience of the thing itself plainly demonstrate.
148
Indeed, the prophecies of Scripture concerning the Antichrist, foretells thus, “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thess. 2;9). Also; “And he performs great signs: so that he even makes fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men” (Rev. 13:13). The signs of falsehood are understood to be those which serve to adorn the lies of his doctrine (whether they are false simply and absolutely; in reason and fact, and purpose, such as illusions, or partly in reason and only in purpose) and which he effects partly by himself, partly through his ministers.
149
Experience, indeed, shows that the countless signs of the Popes and their ministers are lying (and among them, fire descending from heaven). Just as the Lives of the Popes, Chronicles of the Legends of the Saints, especially those of the Monks; Canonizations (as they call them) of many; finally, the descriptions of the Goddesses of Loreto, Halle, Aspricol and the like, demonstrate. And in this way, we have first revealed the falsehoods of the Popes (both in doctrine and in signs) as a method of seduction through allurements.
150
Another method, however, is the impure examples of the life of the Antichrist: by which, attracted by the authority of their leaders, who are waxen and inclined to vices in their minds, they are most easily deceived.
151
For Scripture not only hints at this impurity of life; since it reveals the source and manners of it by the names of Man of Sin and Lawlessness, but also, when it metaphorically calls the Roman Church (whose head and primary part is the Pope) “that great harlot, Babylon the great, mother of fornications and abominations of the earth: Egypt and Sodom.” For just as these places were theaters of magic, idolatry, pride, luxury, greed, cruelty, and unspeakable lust; so the future life of the Roman Church, with the Antichrist as its head, covered with all crimes, is foreshadowed by a striking likeness.
152
Experience similarly, more clearly than light, reveals the matter to us if we examine the deeds of the Popes, both many of their own, and the common deeds of all (from Boniface III onwards). So much so that truly, concerning the Pope, it has been said, “He who over this sea ought to have given himself as a bridge in Zion, is the way for all peoples to the river of fire” (12th century Benedictine monk, Bernard Morlanensis, De contemptu mundi). And concerning the Roman Curia, not only did the same most serious Monk once assert, “Guilty Rome harms and teaches the way of harming;” but even Pope Adrian VI, forced to recognize it, said; “From there corruption flowed into all the lower ranks.”
153
For, as far as many Popes are concerned, they have seized the Papacy by evil arts (partly human, partly magical and diabolical) and have conducted themselves even worse. So much so that it truly suits them that Bernard [of Clairvaux] said of Pope Anacletus II, adversary of Innocent II; “That beast of the Apocalypse, (to whom was given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to wage war against the saints) occupies the chair of Peter, like a lion prepared for prey” (Epistle 125).
154
For by evil human arts, they have advanced to the papal seat (as Platina, Stella, and others testify): Martin II, Formosus, Christopher, Boniface VII, Boniface VIII (of whom the well-worn saying: “He entered like a fox: he lived like a lion: he died like a dog”), John XXII, and others. Of whom Platina said: “For at that time, the Papacy had come to such a state that he who prevailed most did so by largess and ambition (not by virtue, sanctity, life, and doctrine) to obtain the highest degree of dignity, with the good oppressed and rejected. Oh, that our times had not retained this method.”
155
Then, by diabolical arts, Sylvester the Third (to pass over his own disciples, the Pontiffs) was raised to the Papacy. About whom [Spanish Franciscan mystic & theologian] Didacus Stella says: “The Roman Pontiff, established with the help of the Devil with this condition, that after death he would be wholly his, both in soul and in body.” [N. B. Gomarus cites Cardinal Benno & Platina, Lives of the Popes.]
156
The wicked deeds in the Papacy are so many that Platina, Abbot Johannes Stella, both Bernards (the Abbot of Clairvaux and the monk of Morlan), Cardinal Benno, Baptist Mantuanus, the monk, Claude d’ Espence, the Parisian theologian, and many others have wearied themselves in recounting them. We will be content with only two notable examples of both ‘cruelty’ and ‘lust.’
157
The first example of ‘cruelty’ is in Pope Stephen VI [May 896-August 897] who, maddened by rage, after deliberation ordered the body of Pope Formosus [891-896] to be taken from his tomb, having dragged him, stripped of his pontifical garments, and dressed in secular attire, and afterwards, having cut off two fingers of his right hand [used in blessings], threw them into the Tiber, then commanded the rest of the body to be buried in a common grave. The other is more savage by Sergius III [904-911]. He also condemned the acts of Formosus, so in revenge for his injury, he had his corpse dragged from the grave. If he were alive, he would have been subjected to capital punishment but instead ordered the body of the Pontiff to be thrown into the Tiber with a hook, as if it were unworthy of burial. [N. B. The sources Gomarus used are Johannes Stella and Platina.]
158
An equal example of unrestrained lust is found in Pope John XIII [sic: John XII] and Alexander VI. For John XII, indeed, in a barbarous cruelty, cut off the nose and even the hand of a Cardinal; thus, his life, led in infamous lust, was discovered in adultery, and he died killed by the husband of the adulteress [according to Stella and Platina]. But this man, accustomed to war and robbery, most lustful in the renowned Lucretia, his illegitimate daughter (corrupted as much by the illegitimate son of himself as by himself), is described in an epitaph by Jacopo Sannazaro follows: “Here rests Lucretia by name; but in reality, she was a Thais [courtesan]: the daughter, wife and daughter-in-law of Alexander.” These are the proper examples; from which, clearly, the Most Holy is known by his holiness (as they say).
159
But if indeed we consider all the Pontiffs, none will be found exempt from Boniface the Third [Feb. 607-Nov. 607] onward, from the violation of divine and human Majesty, the tyrannical oppression of the Church, and the neglect of true reformation for men; although some, abstaining from the license of many unrestrained crimes, lived somewhat more cautiously or even more chastely. And these things are only about the first seduction (through the allurements of false doctrine and impure life).
160
The other, however, consists in the ferocious beginnings of the Antichrist against the Christians. Of whom Scripture, prophesying: “That woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev, 17:6), and experience, and the blood of the pious (so copiously poured out throughout the whole order hitherto) cries out and demands vengeance, invoking God as judge.
161
Moreover, the end and effect of this seduction is twofold; error (2 Thess. 2:10) and idolatry in this life (Rev. 13:15); and after this, destruction (2 Thess. 2;10, 12), and that by the just judgment of God, vindicating the contempt of the Gospel, (2 Thess. 2:10-12).
162
Finally, the outcome of the Antichrist is his destruction. This is first begun by the word of God (2 Thess. 2:8) with preaching (by which his pernicious errors and tyrannies are revealed), and faith being kindled, his subjects will come out from Babylon (Rev. 18:4): and the kings, after a long time, having been stirred by the drunkenness of the cup of the harlot, bear her away and strip her of unjust spoils and honors of kingdoms (Rev. 17:16), as experience has begun to prove. Then it will be completed by the glorious coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:8), by which the Antichrist will be cast into the fire of hell (Rev. 19:20). Even so, come, Lord Jesus (Rev. 22:20).
END