ANATOMY OF THE ANTICHRIST

By Franciscus Gomarus, Dutch Reformed Pastor and Professor of Theology, (d. 1641)

Newly translated from Latin by ICONBUSTERS (orig. pub. 1623) 

SOURCE

Just as the teaching about Christ the Savior is necessary for faith and salvation, so too the correct doctrine about the Antichrist is especially conducive to a salutary escape from perfidious destruction. Therefore, not only the former but also the latter is carefully explained in the Holy Scriptures. There exists a serious and difficult controversy concerning this subject which is discussed at length and accurately by not a few Orthodox. For this reason, we consider it neither useless nor ungrateful if, following the praiseworthy diligence of others, we briefly illustrate the same subject with our concise symbols, progressing from the word, ANTICHRIST, to the matter itself, proposing it for public examination. 

THESIS 1

Antichrist is a Greek word [noun]: not indeed by its author, but by its parts and the analogy of its composition. The author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the Apostle John, who alone was the first to use it in the Holy Scriptures. The parts, from which it is formed, are two and ambiguous, χρισος and ἀντί. We will distinctly precede with a brief explanation of these, so that no one may be entangled in the investigation of the matter by the ambiguity of the homonymous words. 

THESIS 2 

First, the word χρισὸς is accustomed to being understood in different senses. Indeed, it either adjectivally commonly indicates “anointed”: or substantively and absolutely it is preeminently attributed solely to our Savior, and indeed in two ways. For it either designates Him considered alone as anointed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18) and head of the Church (Eph. 1:22); or it designates Him together with the Church, united as His mystical body (Dan. 9:25,26; Matt. 22:42; 2 Cor. 11:2; 1 Cor. 12:13). 

THESIS 3 

 The word ἀντί, moreover, among other meanings, denotes either “for” or “against” (both by itself and when compounded). However, in usage, it is different on both sides. 

THESIS 4 

For, when used by itself, it very frequently means “for;” that is, “in place of” or “in the stead of”: very rarely, it signifies “against.” 

THESIS 5 

Examples of the former are these: flesh ἀντ’ αὐτῆς in place of it (LXX Gen. 2:21); seed ἀντὶ Ἄβελ instead of Abel (LXX Gen. 4:25); a burnt offering ἀντὶ Ἰσαάκ in the stead of Isaac (LXX Gen. 22:13); he reigned ἀντὶ Ἡρώδου in the room/in the place of Herod Matt. 2:22); a serpent ἀντὶ ἰχθύος in place of/for a fish (Luke 11:11). 

THESIS 6 

Of the latter, I find only these examples in Homer’s Illiad: τρώων ἀνθ’ ἑκατόν — ‘against a hundred Trojans’; Ἀνὴρ ἀντ’ ἀνδρὸς ἴτω — ‘let man go against man’; ἰέναι ἀντ’ Ἀχιλλῆος — ‘to go against Achilles’. This meaning, it seems, the lexicons and grammarians have rather inconveniently passed over. For what we express by ‘contra’ [‘against’] (as Festus Pompeius rightly observes), the Greeks call ἀντί. 

THESIS 7   

When compounded, however, it most often means “against”; more rarely, it means “for,” that is, “in the stead of” or “in place of.” 

THESIS 8 

In most compounds, the noun combined with ἀντί is the subject of the opposition (that which is doing the opposing). Example: ἀντίθεσις = an opposition or a contrary statement/position (1 Tim. 6:20). 

In rare cases, the noun is the object of the opposition (that which is being opposed). Examples: 

ἀντίθεος = one who is against God / hostile to God (“contrary to God”). 

ἀντίπαις = a pubescent youth, literally “anti-boy” or “opposite of a boy” — i.e., someone who is no longer a child. 

THESIS 9 

But when ‘Pro’ or ‘Vice ac Loco’ (instead of / in place of) is used, the noun joined to it is not the subject, but the object: for example, ἀντωνυμία — “a pronoun,” literally ‘that which is instead of a name/noun’; similarly antithesis and antonomasia, which are in common use; and ἀντιβασιλεῖς — “pro-kings,” those who stand in the place of kings; ἀνθύπατος — “one who is in the place of a consul,” i.e., a proconsul. On the other hand, ἀντιστρατηγός is used in both senses: either a commander opposed to another (an opposing general), or one who acts in the place of a general, that is, a lieutenant or deputy. 

THESIS 10 

From this it is clearly evident that the Antichrist can, by way of analogy, be understood as ‘the one contrary to Christ’ or ‘the opposite of Christ,’ or also as the one who stands ‘in the place of Christ’ — that is, the Vicar of Christ. However, according to the actual usage of the word in the Holy Scriptures, it denotes the one who is opposed to Christ our Savior, whether in a general or a particular sense.

THESIS 11 

In the former sense, it denotes any apostate and adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18, 2:22; 2 John 7). Hence Jerome says, “All heresiarchs are Antichrists and under the name of Christ teach those things which are contrary to Christ.” 

THESIS 12 

In the latter sense, however, καθ’ ἐξοχήν [“preeminently”]— and (as John Damascene says when speaking on this subject) ἰδιοτρόπως καὶ ἐξαιρέτως, that is, in a peculiar, special, and eminent manner — the term is used of that distinguished figure who is greater than all the others, of the whole order and company of Antichrists (1 John 2:18); This one can be fittingly described by the following portrayal. 

THESIS 13 

The great Antichrist is the Bishop of Rome, who, by the working of Satan, gradually arose from the Church’s widespread departure from the doctrine of Christ, and was eventually revealed through the fall of the Roman Empire. Wearing the mask of professing Christ, he is a wicked adversary of Christ, exalting himself above every god and arrogating to himself — as if he were God — dominion over the universal Church and the entire world. Through false doctrine and lying signs, through the example of an impure life, and through cruelty, he leads people into error, idolatry, and ruin. In the end, he will be destroyed by the word of Christ and by His glorious appearing. All these points will become clearer from the detailed exposition and confirmation of the following sections. 

THESIS 14 

The essential nature / kind / genus of the Antichrist is the Bishop of Rome. He is truly a Bishop, since he is the overseer of the Church of God, as one might expect, in which he not only exists, but also rules and presides. Therefore, he is said to sit in the temple of God (that is, in the Church and among the people of God). He is Roman because his seat and dwelling place is Rome — that great city built on seven hills which, according to the prophecy of John, exercised dominion over the kings of the earth. 

THESIS 15 

By these descriptions, Rome alone is vividly portrayed and depicted in perfect detail, as if painted with living colors. And for this reason, a Roman writer (Ovid) appropriately sang: “But she, who from her seven hills looks around upon the whole world — Rome, the seat of empire and of God.” Hence, she is also called ἑπτάλοφος, ‘the seven-hilled city’; and among the Romans there was formerly a solemn and sacred festival known as the Septimontium [celebrating the seven hills of Rome]. 

THESIS 16 

We, therefore, identify the Bishop of Rome as the kind (or genus) of the Antichrist for this reason: although that attribute is common to him and his predecessors, the following difference — with respect to author, origin, character, effects, and final outcome — restricts it specifically to the Antichrist, so that he may be clearly distinguished from all others [i.e., other Bishops of other cities]. 

THESIS 17 

First, the author and supporter of the Antichrist is Satan because he is the primary and foremost adversary of Christ (Gen. 3:15); the father of lies (John 8:44); who works in the unbelievers (John 8:44). Hence, the Apostle clearly says about the Antichrist; whose coming is by the working of Satan (2 Thess. 2:9). 

THESIS 18 

But the origin of the Antichrist, or the contributing cause and occasion (by which Satan, through his abuse, produced him) is twofold: one of formation/molding, the other of revelation. The former is the Church’s falling away from the doctrine of Christ; the latter, the ruin of the Roman Empire. 

THESIS 19 

That falling away [or apostasy] is varied: namely particular and universal: both, in their own way, contributing to the formation of that monster. 

THESIS 20 

The particular defection/falling away is that which affects only a part of the Church. It first arose in the time of the Apostles. Its authors were partly heresiarchs (founders of heresies, 1 John 4:1) and partly ambitious and domineering ministers of the Church (2 John 1:9-10; 2 Cor. 11:13). The former departed from the truth through doctrinal error, while the latter did so through pride and love of preeminence; and by both means they seduced the flock of the Lord. 

THESIS 21 

And of them it is said: Even now many antichrists have come (1 John 2:18, 19)— that is, the forerunners of that great Antichrist (Tertullian against Marcion, book 5, ch. 16). For in them the Spirit of that one was already present (1 John 4:3), and the mystery of iniquity was already at work (2 Thess. 2:7).Thus, through the hidden scheming of Satan, the noxious seeds and foundations of the Antichrist were cunningly laid, even in the earliest days of the Christian Church. 

THESIS 22 

Of this kind were not only many trivial errors (1 Cor. 3;12), but also various serious errors with which the Apostles had to contend. Among them were the denial of the person (1 John 2:22, 23; 2 John 7) and office (1 John 2:22) of Christ; the justification of men before God on the basis of the merit of works (Gal. 5:4); the worship (Col. 2:18) and adoration of angels (Council of Laodicea, canon 35); the prohibition of certain foods (Col. 2:21); ἐθελοθρησκεία — arbitrary or self-willed worship of God; that is, religion invented by the human will (Col. 2:22, 23); and the superstition of ostentatious humility and immoderate affliction of the body (Ibid.). 

THESIS 23 

After the Apostles had passed away, a similar falling away from the Christian doctrine did not cease. On the contrary, the mystery of iniquity continued to advance and grow ever stronger — as will become evident from the following example. 

THESIS 24 

From the Gnostics came the worship of the images of Christ (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, ch. 24): the Collyridians, the adoration of the Virgin Mary (Epiphanius, Against Heresies, ch. 46): the Manichaeans, the necessity of celibacy for Bishops (Augustine, Epistle 74): the Encratites, the prohibition of eating flesh (Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 25): the Cathari, boasting about the merits of good works (Isidore, Origins, book 1, ch. 2): the Pelagians, errors concerning grace and free will (Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 88). All laid and prepared the way for the Antichrist, (later interpolating these same errors). 

THESIS 25 

The universal falling away, however, 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 falling away [Greek: ‘apostasy’] comes first, and the man of sin is revealed. Now this is twofold: one, indeed, is open; the other, however, hidden and latent. 

THESIS 26 

The open falling away is that of Arius and his followers, which, attacking the eternal divinity of Christ, seized the churches of the whole world (Jerome, Against the Luciferians, ch. 7), including the Roman Church with Bishop Liberius (Hilary, Historical fragments, ch. 27), by its contagion and cruelty. 

Thesis 27 

Hence, Athanasius called the Arian heresy not only a “defection from the faith” after which the Antichrist would be revealed (Letter to Those Leading a Solitary Life, p. 667) but also the “forerunner of the Antichrist” (Apology, Part 2, p. 625) and the prelude and preparation of that coming (Letter to Those Leading a Solitary Life, p. 663). 

THESIS 28 

Indeed, just as it had accustomed people’s minds to readily change their religion, so it also fostered neglect of the love owed to the truth (2 Thess. 2:10; Rev. 3:16) and, by God’s just judgment, prepared them as fitting prey for the snares of the Antichrist. 

THESIS 29 

Indeed, the universal falling away is the widespread corruption of the whole Church, by which gradually, through neglect of Scripture study, along with ignorance and gullibility, due to the vices of its own Bishops, the Church has in many ways departed from the purity of both Christian doctrine and Christian living. 

THESIS 30 

Those vices were such that both their minds and spirits were infected. The former was corrupted by ignorance; the latter, however, was partly blinded by zeal for religion and partly corrupted by the twin plagues of greed and pride. 

THESIS 31 

The ignorance of many Bishops, however, was so shameful that they are frequently found to have been ignorant even of divine and natural law (Leviticus 18:8; 1 Cor. 5:1). It is, therefore, no wonder that blind leaders, dragging blind followers along with them, hurled them into various errors (Matt. 15:14). A notable witness among many is that Augustine, Bishop of Canterbury — Gregory the Great’s legate to England (sent under the guise of that nation’s conversion) and so often and so warmly commended by him — was so crude in his understanding that he wrote to Gregory asking whether it was lawful to marry one’s stepmother (Gregory, Little Book of Answers, Augustine’s 6^th Question). 

THESIS 32 

A blind zeal for religion showed itself in this way because they considered the simplicity of the language of Scripture and of the worship prescribed in it to be insufficiently attractive to Jews and Gentiles, and because they were eager to secure greater reverence for religion in the eyes of all men, they imprudently diminished that very reverence. They did so by turning aside from the righteous path in their prayers and institutions, introducing various harmful superstitions. 

THESIS 33 

Especially in their prayers: by employing apostrophes, hyperboles, and strained misuse of words — all improperly borrowed from Jewish and Pagan ceremonies — they obscured the truth and opened the door to the errors that subsequently arose. 

[N. B. Apostrophes are “rhetorical turning away (from the audience) to address absent persons, saints, or even inanimate objects; often personifying them as if present and responsive.”] 

THESIS 34 

A clear proof of this, among other things, is that by misusing apostrophes in their prayers addressed to the heavenly saints, they carelessly opened the door to the invocation of saints among the unwary. Furthermore, through a dangerous abuse of language, they chose to say ‘to merit’ instead of ‘to obtain’; ‘merit’ for any kind of work whatsoever; ‘Christians’ for the baptized only; ‘priests’ for the ministers of the Gospel; ‘sacrifice’ for the Lord’s Supper; and ‘mysteries’ for the signs of God’s covenant. And, following the custom of the Pagans, they shut out the catechumens from seeing and understanding these things, treating them as ‘the profane multitude.’ 

THESIS 35 

This is the origin of that frequent expression of Chrysostom, who speaks obscurely and with exaggeration in his homilies on this matter: “The initiated understand what we mean.” And also, the careful caution of Theodoret in his Eranistes [i.e., dialogue against heretics] when he treats the Sacrament more openly: “The Orthodox,” he says, “should not speak plainly. For it may be that some uninitiated persons (ἀμύητοι) who have not yet been admitted to the mysteries are present. Eranistes [the heretic] answers: Then let the reply be enigmatic.” 

THESIS 36 

This superstitious obscurity in speaking about the Sacraments so obfuscated and corrupted the pure doctrine concerning them that the errors of the Antichrist were able to creep into the Church more easily, and, under the plausible cover of the Fathers’ language, to cling to it with great stubbornness. 

THESIS 37 

Indeed, by their own institutions, the Bishops corrupted pure religion partly through human inventions and partly through fabrications of miracles and ancient traditions, as the matter itself demonstrates. 

THESIS 38 

First, through human inventions and traditions they imposed upon the shoulders of the Church — under the guise of good order — the yoke and intolerable burden of their own customs, a burden heavier than that of the Jews. From this there emerged a false conception of religion, according to which they considered those customs to be not only equal in holiness to the commandments of God, but even more worthy. To this also pertains the rash action of Victor, Bishop of Rome, who — because the churches of Asia observed the day of the Passover feast differently — unjustly cut them off from the communion of the Church. 

THESIS 39 

Then, while they strove to encourage Christians to greater steadfastness of faith and holiness of life by the example of the Martyrs and Saints, they have, by their panegyrics, excessive praise, superstitious display and reverence of relics, led the Church gradually astray from the true worship of God alone; and supplied abundant material for the erection of the idolatry of Antichrist. 

THESIS 40 

This profane superstition invaded the Roman Church particularly. So much so that Gregory the Great, regarding the keys of Peter, sent and given by him, did not hesitate to boast that they “hung around the neck, defending against all adversities: so that the wearer may have present and eternal salvation.” This disgrace grew further through the fabrications of miracles and traditions. 

[N. B. Modern scholarship denies the attribution to Gregory the Great. “Gregory the Great did write about the power of relics and miracles of protection (especially in his Dialogues). Medieval scribes and devotional compilers frequently attributed popular protective formulas to famous early popes (Gregory, Leo, etc.) to give them greater authority. The formula became particularly common with the papal Agnus Dei blessing, and since Gregory was one of the most revered popes, his name was occasionally attached to it.”] 

THESIS 41 

For not a few miracles — whether rashly believed, or fraudulently invented, or divinely granted for the testing of steadfastness (Deut. 13:3) — have, by being imprudently and excessively praised by the Church, injected various errors into it. Of this kind are the very many miracles that are piled up in that ridiculous and impure Dialogue on the Miracles of the Italian Fathers by Gregory the Great, all for the purpose of giving a pious appearance to superstitions. 

THESIS 42 

Indeed, many Bishops rashly propagated the fables of ancient traditions received from their predecessors with vain credulity. Hence, a greater defection of the Church from truth and holiness ensued. This is illustrated (to say nothing of other matters) by a memorable example of two cases. 

THESIS 43 

The first example is found in the fabulous traditions of Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis] an extremely ancient writer [d. c. 130]. For when he, without any critical judgment, had eagerly gathered the traditions of the Apostles from those who had personally heard them, and then rashly believed them and published them in his writings, he provided — as Eusebius testifies — “a cause of error to very many ecclesiastical writers who came after him, who respected his great antiquity” (Eusebius, Church History, book 3, ch. 36). 

THESIS 44 

The second example is that ancient tradition — which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures — concerning the Roman episcopate and primacy of the Apostle Peter, together with the chair and power supposedly fixed at Rome and passed on to his successors and vicars. This tradition was invented by the Roman Bishops and disguised with a shameful misuse of Christ’s words about the rock of the Church (Matt. 16:18), the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), the unfailing faith of Peter (Luke 22:32), and the command to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:17). It was gradually strengthened through the imprudent flattery of certain early writers (Leo and Gregory) — to the great harm of the Church’s liberty and of Christian truth — and thereby the road was prepared and opened for the lies and tyranny of the Antichrist. 

THESIS 45 

Furthermore, the avarice of the Bishops contributed no small impetus to the Church’s defection, for it was the common nurse of ambition and the procuress that prostituted religion. This is clearly seen in the fact that the sacred offices of the Church were for sale among them, so that when conferring these offices, they weighed not so much the considerations of piety and sound doctrine as those of money. As a result, uneducated and wicked men gained access to them, and the churches, increasingly led astray from the right path, wandered further into error. 

THESIS 46 

On this subject, there is a serious complaint by Gregory the Great, who states that in the regions of Gaul and Germany no one reaches holy orders without paying a bribe (Epistle 4.95 & 97). He repeats the same accusation in identical words about Hellas (Greece), and he adds that he heard the same corruption was rampant in Epirus [southeast Europe] and in the churches of the East. 

THESIS 47 

Nor were the Roman bishops themselves free from this vice, as the deeds of Gregory himself and of his predecessor Damasus plainly demonstrate. Gregory showed it by the anxious and intensely eager way in which he promoted the ‘patrimony of Peter’ (as they call it) in Gaul, Sicily, and other regions (Epistle 2.61, etc.). Damasus, on the other hand, revealed it when he forced his way into the Roman bishopric by the horrible slaughter of many men, thereby describing his own ambitious greed to later generations with human blood (Summary of Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae – History – book 27). 

THESIS 48 

Finally, the pride of the Bishops, almost an eternal companion of greed, has partly corrupted the true faith, morals, and order of the Church, both against God and against men. 

THESIS 49 

The first step of pride against God was this: by setting themselves up as the sole Lawgiver and Judge in the place of God (James 4:12), they imposed various laws concerning abstinence from things that are freely permissible, backing them with the threat of anathema, thereby bringing men’s consciences into subjection. The second step was by exalting themselves above God they shamelessly placed their own human decrees above the divine laws. These two things, we find, flourished especially among the Roman Bishops, who energetically promoted the mystery of iniquity and were the genuine forerunners of the Antichrist. 

THESIS 50 

Gregory the Great, among others, provided an example of the former, who, together with the Roman council, decreed thus: “If any priest or deacon marries a wife, let him be anathema” (Pope Siricius, AD 385, Directa).  He neither feared the contrary judgment of God (1 Tim. 3:4, 12; Heb 13:4); nor the censure (1 Tim. 4:1-3); nor was he deterred by the example of the Nicene Council which almost fell into the same error and was recalled to the right path by the monk Paphnutius (Gelasius, Acts of the Council of Nicaea, book 1, ch. 33). 

 [N. B. Modern scholars generally consider Gelasius of Cyzicus’ account of Paphnutius’ speech to be legendary or heavily embellished.] 

THESIS 51 

An indication of the latter, however, is the doctrine of Marcellus, the Roman Bishop and predecessor of Gregory: “Baptism is of greater necessity; but the imposition of hands from the minister is of greater dignity. Likewise, that Sacrament is worthy of greater veneration” (The Decretal Letter of Pope Marcellus, re: Baptism). 

[N. B. The so-called Epistola Decretalis Marcelli Papae is a short papal letter attributed to Pope Marcellus (reigned 308–309). However, as noted earlier, modern scholars consider it spurious — “it was almost certainly written much later (likely in the 5th or 6th century) and falsely attributed to Marcellus to give it ancient authority.”] 

[The Letter reads as follows: “Concerning baptism, however, this must be observed: that no one is to be baptized except in the Catholic Church and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But if anyone has been baptized outside the Church, he is not to be received unless by the imposition of hands, because there is no salvation outside the Church.”] 

THESIS 52 

The pride of the Bishops toward men, on the other hand, consists in this: lured by the splendor and enticements of worldly honor, and forgetting all modesty, they turned the sacred order of the ministry into a profane tyranny. By shamefully exalting themselves above their equals and even their superiors, they hastened the revealing of the Antichrist. 

THESIS 53 

They exalted themselves above their equals when they exempted themselves from the common condition of Bishops and strove to bring other Bishops under their own power. This plague particularly took hold of the tetrarchs of the Church — that is, the four Patriarchs — who were swollen with pride because of the dignity of their cities and the title of ‘Ecumenical Bishop,’ as is clear especially from the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome. 

THESIS 54 

As for the Bishop of Constantinople (who, by claiming for himself the proud title of ‘Ecumenical’ or ‘Universal Bishop,’ appeared to be striving after monarchy in the Church), Gregory the Great says: “I boldly declare that whoever calls himself the universal priest, or desires to be so called, in his arrogance runs ahead [i.e., is the forerunner] of the Antichrist. He is near to being the king of pride and — dreadful to say — an army of priests is being prepared for him, for those who were appointed to lead in humility are now fighting on the side of pride (Registrum Epistularum, book 7, Letter 154).   

THESIS 55 

The pride of the Roman Bishop, however, was far greater and more insolent, so that it is astonishing that Gregory was so blind that he did not notice it, or that he imagined others were unaware of it. For long before him, Pope Vigilius had gloried in these words: “The Holy Roman Church, consecrated by the voice of the Lord because of the merit of Peter, and strengthened by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the primacy over all the churches. To it, both the highest matters of Bishops — their judgments and complaints — as well as the major questions of the churches, must be referred as to the head.” 

[N. B. Modern scholarship says “Pope Vigilius did not say the quoted statement; it originates from the forged Apostolic Canons (also known as the 85 or 92 Apostolic Canons), a pseudepigraphal text falsely attributed to the Apostles and dated to the 4th-5th century, not from Vigilius himself (d. 555).”] 

THESIS 56 

Indeed, although Gregory, seeking to escape the envy of the proud title ‘Universal,’ was the first to style himself, in the usual solemn manner, ‘Servant of the Servants of the Lord,’ yet in actual fact he desired to be considered their lord. This is clearly shown by the arrogance of Pope Pelagius, which Gregory himself recorded and condemned. For Pelagius, burning with envy at the title ‘Ecumenical’ which Bishop John had assumed in the Synod of Constantinople, annulled the decrees of that same synod by letters he dispatched, doing so on the authority of Peter (as Gregory relates). And Gregory himself, puffed up with the same kind of pride, speaking with imperial tone to all the Bishops of Dalmatia, declared: “To whom we command by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.” And these things pertain to the pride of Bishops against their equals. 

THESIS 57 

Pride, indeed of Bishops, against their superiors, is that by which, partly, they have intruded into the offices of political magistrates and nobles, and partly, having disdained to submit to Kings and Emperors (Romans 13:1) to give them due honor, they wished to preside over them. 

THESIS 58 

For the former point, there are rich, noble, and very weighty witnesses: the complaints of Socrates Scholasticus and of Pope Gregory. The former when he states that the Roman Bishopric, like that of Alexandria, had already long ago been elevated to a position of primacy (Church History, book 7, ch. 11). The latter when he writes as follows: “In this place, whoever is called a Pastor is so heavily burdened with external affairs that it often becomes doubtful whether he is exercising the office of a Pastor or that of an earthly ruler” (Epistle 1.24). And in another place: “Indeed, such great burdens of business press him down that the mind can in no way be raised to heavenly things” (Epistle 1.7). 

THESIS 59 

The latter is indicated by the fact that the Bishop of Rome, for that reason, was perpetually absent from the Council of Nicaea and other Eastern councils, sending only legates, so that he would not be compelled to yield to the Emperor present at them (who was to occupy the first seat), or to cause a disturbance over the matter. In the same way, this mystery of iniquity is revealed by the sagacious suspicion of Cardinal Bellarmine (On Church Councils, book 1, ch. 19). 

THESIS 60 

Fuel and support for this secret pride of the Bishops came from the superstition of uneducated Christians and Emperors and Kings. By exceeding the proper bounds (1 Peter 5:3, 1:17; Romans 13:1) of reverence due Bishops (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17) — and through excessive deference with a shameful violation of their own imperial majesty — they further inflamed the already proud spirits of the Patriarchs. This is clearly shown by the actions of Constantine the Great and of Kings (especially those of Gaul). 

THESIS 61 

For Constantine, so imprudently and unworthily erred when, by refusing to take up the knowledge and judgment of causes litigated by Bishops, he asserted they were superior to all human judgments and are to be judged only by God: which were called ‘gods,’ in the Sacred Scriptures (Gelasius, Acts of the Nicaean Council, ch. 8). The Roman Bishop [Sylvester I] so eagerly seized this false and harmful opinion that, abusing it, he arrogated to himself both the name of God (Gregory, Letter 4.75; Pope Nicholas, Distinction 96, ch. 7, Satis Evidentur), as well as ‘Supreme Majesty on Earth’ (Ibidem). 

THESIS 62 

Kings, however, have been so forgetful of their own excellence that, seduced by the vain pretense of the honor [allegedly due the Bishops], as well as the [so-called] Patrimony of Peter (Gregory, Epistle 5.105 & 110), they have squandered both their own resources and those of their kingdoms; and, as if they were rightly honoring God in the Pope, they have most shamefully subjected themselves to him (Blondus, Decades, p. 157, 159). This matter, increased over time and by the examples of their ancestors, ultimately revealed the Antichrist. And indeed, these things regard the defection / falling away of the Church, the chief origin of the Antichrist (by which he was gradually formed). 

THESIS 63 

But the second origin by which the Antichrist was revealed is described by the ruin of the Roman Empire [See Thesis 18]. For just as the presence and power of the Roman Emperor in the middle of the city of Rome were an obstacle and restraint to the tyranny of the hidden Antichrist, so the removal of both from the midst unveiled the unbridled Antichrist. 

THESIS 64 

Indeed, there were two notable stages in the decline of the Roman Empire. The first, when Rome, deserted by the Emperor migrating to Byzantium, ceased to be the seat of the Empire; 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 (Ursperg Chronicle, year 754). To these two stages, the revelation of the Antichrist corresponds gradually in Boniface III [d. 607] (Ibid. year 607) and Stephen II [d. 757] (Ibid. year 754). 

THESIS 65 

About which, the oracle of Scripture is twofold. The first is Paul’s, And you know (he says) what now restrains, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity 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 John’s, who teaches that the Beast will ascend from the earth (Rev. 13:3, 11-12); (that is, the Antichrist, as if a son of the earth) after the first Beast has been wounded with a lethal blow: that is, after the ruin of the former Roman Empire. We now note the prophecies concerning both origins (the formation and the revelation) of the Antichrist: first, the difference in members; the other, his nature. 

THESIS 66 

The nature of the Antichrist, indicated in the definition proposed by us, is namely the hypocrisy of his perverse mind and his extraordinary wickedness. 

THESIS 67 

His hypocrisy is his deceitful mask of the profession of Christ, by which he suppresses one thing inwardly and promises another outwardly, so as to conceal his wickedness in deceiving men, as Scripture and experience demonstrate. 

THESIS 68 

Scripture, when it prophesies that he himself will sit in the Temple of God and deceive (2 Thess. 2:4, 10); falsely impersonating the Spirit of God and a Prophet (1 John 4:13); and will have two horns like a lamb, but will speak like a dragon (Rev. 13:11), and calls him, along with his subordinate teachers, spirits of deception, liars through hypocrisy (1 Tim. 4:1-2). 

THESIS 69 

Experience indeed shows this: for the Roman Pontiff, from Boniface III onward, professes Christ both in a general and in a special manner. 

THESIS 70 

Indeed, in a general way because he puts forward the entire Holy Scripture and the sum of that doctrine contained in Christian catechesis (that is, in the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, the institution of Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Prayer), as the badge of Christianity at the forefront: yet he corrupts and subverts both in various ways. 

THESIS 71 

But in a special way, when he [Boniface VIII] calls himself the ‘Vicar of Christ’ (Unam Sanctam): and with the vain imitation of Gregory [the Great], ‘the Servant of the servants of God,’ he names himself; yet in reality he contradicts this, as will later become clear from the effects. This is about hypocrisy. 

THESIS 72 

The depraved nature of the Antichrist is generally indicated by definition; when he is called ‘full of sin’: and specifically; when he is named ‘the adversary of Christ.’ 

THESIS 73 

That he will be wicked is predicted in the Holy Scriptures when he is called, par excellence, ‘that man of sin’ (2 Thess. 2:3; that is, the preeminent servant of sin — just as ‘man of God’ means a servant of God; (Deut. 33:1; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:17), and ‘the lawless one’ (2 Thess. 2:8, Wicked = ἄνομος). That he is the adversary of Christ is taught when he is named ‘the opponent’ (2 Thess. 2:4; namely, the adversary of God and of Christ) and ‘the Antichrist’ (1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3). Both aspects, however, will be more fully understood from the detailed examination of the effects that follow. 

THESIS 74 

For the principal effects of Antichrist are declared to be two: pride and extraordinary seduction. 

THESIS 75 

His pride is twofold: one, by which he impiously exalts oneself above God; the other, by which he unjustly exalts oneself above men. 

THESIS 76 

Exaltation above God is demonstrated partly by the authority of the Scriptural prophecy, when it says, Exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped (2 Thess. 2:4) and partly by evident experience, sense, and consensus. 

THESIS 77 

Firstly, because the Roman Pontiff opposes and places his own laws above the laws of God, as will be established from his predecessors, whom he approves and follows, as well as from other effects. 

THESIS 78 

Furthermore, it prescribes a heavier penalty for the one who violates its own human laws than for the one who violates the divine laws. Nor is this surprising, for “such presumption” (as it says) “is a kind of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Gratian’s Decretum, Causa XXV, Questio 1, Canon “Violatores”). So much so that it esteems horrible incest as something of less than a trivial matter (Matt. 15:9) — as these shameful regulations prove: “Absolution for someone who has carnally known his mother, sister, or any blood relative or in-law, or his godmother: 5 groschen” (Apostolic Penitentiary Taxes on Absolution). And shortly afterward: “Absolution for a priest who has buried the bodies of excommunicated persons in consecrated ground: 8 groschen” (Ibid.) 

[N. B. “Taxae poenitentiariae Apostolicae” (Apostolic Penitentiary Taxes) refers to the official tariff books or price lists of the Apostolic Penitentiary (the papal office in Rome that handled absolution from certain sins and reserved cases). These books listed the exact monetary fees (taxae) that had to be paid in Rome for absolution from various sins, especially those reserved to the Pope. The section De absolutione contains the actual price list for absolution.”] 

THESIS 79 

Finally, that he arrogates to himself the sacred power of making dead men saints, worshipped by religious invocation, exercising it by pagan apotheosis [glorification to godhood] and (as they call it) canonization. This is something that God cannot do because He cannot deny Himself, nor attribute His glory to another, contrary to righteousness (2 Tim. 2:13; Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 42:8). 

THESIS 80 

But his exaltation above men 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 (Glossa ordinaria on Extra. – Decretals of Gregory IX – book 1, title De majoritate et obedientia, chapter, Unam Sanctam) as Scripture and experience attest, both generally and specifically. 

[N. B. Unam Sanctum is infamous for the decree which reads, “Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”] 

THESIS 81 

And generally indeed, when in Scripture that great city (Rev. 11:8; Rev.18:2), whose head is the Roman Antichrist, says: “I sit as a queen” (Rev.18:7) and that great harlot who “sits upon many waters” (Rev. 17:1; that is, to preside over many peoples; Rev. 17:15), and like a finger pointing out the Antichrist, the Beast who has two horns like a lamb (Rev. 13:11; that is, to usurp two kingdoms: of the Church and of the State, of Christ the Lamb, Lord of heaven and earth). 

THESIS 82 

Truly by experience because Pope John XXII said: “The Supreme Pontiff, to whom, in the person of blessed Peter, God Himself has committed the rights of both earthly and heavenly empire” (Extravagantes Johannis XXII, title 5, De verborum significatione, chapter, Si fratrum). The sign of this is the Pontiff’s Tiara (which they call a kingdom), adorned with a triple golden crown. 

[N. B. Papal coronations included this formula: “Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that you are the father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Ultimately, it symbolized universal spiritual authority as well as authority over earthly governments, laws, kingdoms, and material affairs.] 

Then, since Boniface VIII promulgated this new article of faith concerning Papal dominion: “Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that all human creatures must absolutely be subject to the Roman Pontiff for the necessity of salvation” (Unam Sanctam). 

THESIS 83 

But specifically, the first exaltation of dominion seized by the Antichrist is that by which, as if he were God and Christ, he usurps absolute domination and (as it is said) the fullness of power in the Church (Extravagantes Communes, book 5, title, On Penance and Remissions, chapter 1). The divine witness of this is the Holy Scripture which not only foretells that he himself will sit or preside in the Church, but also, as if he were God (2 Thess. 2:4) and that he will show himself to be God (Ibid.) and be worshiped by the inhabitants of the earth (Rev. 13:8). The most certain human witness, however, is experience which clearly demonstrates both the dominion of the Pope over the Church and its impious manner. 

THESIS 84 

And the dominion, indeed, is clearly declared in Boniface III, that first Antichrist revealed. “At his request” (says Burkard of Ursberg in his Ursberg Chronicle, year 607) “Phocas established the seat of the Roman and Apostolic Church as the head of all Churches.” And thus finally, by the public authority of that tyrant and the parricide of his lord Emperor Maurice, it was established – which Boniface’s predecessors had so eagerly, but in vain, desired. Therefore, in that solemn coronation of the Roman Antichrist, they were accustomed to acclaim and auger well: Long life to the Pontiff and the UNIVERSAL POPE (Sacrarum Caeremoniarum Romanae Ecclesiae, book 1, section 2, chapter 3). 

 THESIS 85 

Then, the same is also clearly demonstrated by that immense yoke of Papal laws (fortified by the threat of anathema), by which the Church is burdened and oppressed. On this matter, the foremost and most celebrated theologian justly once lamented; “It happens” (he says) “that instead of the light yoke of Christ and the law of liberty, an iron yoke and a heavy burden press down on the necks of Christians: namely, while some wish all their own laws, their own institutions, their own rules and statutes to be considered as commandments of God’s law, which, if disregarded, lead to eternal death” (Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, [d. 1429], On the Spiritual Life of the Soul, 20^th lecture).  

[N. B. Other relevant excerpts from this lecture: “The Pope can err, and has erred, even in matters of faith. He can be a heretic and has been a heretic. He can fall into schism and has fallen into schism. And therefore, the Church can judge him and has judged him.” 

“The Pope is not above the Church in such a way that he cannot be judged by the Church, especially in the case of heresy or schism. For if the Pope were above the law and could not be judged by anyone, then the whole Church would be in danger of being led into error by one man.” 

THESIS 86 

Moreover, there is that unbridled pride of the Pope, by which, in his own judgments—nay, even his own crimes—he exempts himself and places himself above the judgments of all councils (Gratian’s Decretum, Causa 9, q. 3, canon 1, ‘Ipsi sunt’ & canon 2, ‘Cuncta’) and of all men, by virtue of the primacy of Peter and the power of binding and loosing (Ibid. canon, ‘Aliorum’). Hence, ὁ ἄνομος, ‘the lawless one’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:8), is openly revealed by his own testimony. 

[N. B. Canon 1 translation: “They are the ones who persecute the Church, who oppress the good, who despise the priests of God, who separate the laity from communion, who usurp power for themselves against what is right and lawful.” This canon shows how the Roman Church condemned those who opposed its power — labeling them as persecutors of the Church. 

Canon 2 translation: “All things throughout the world that are done by the faithful are to be referred to the See of Peter, so that they may receive firmness from it, because in it consists the firmness of the whole Church.” This canon is evidence the Roman See claimed that all important matters in the universal Church must be referred to Rome for final approval and confirmation. 

Canon ‘Aliorum’ translation: “But the causes of other bishops, as far as the primacy is concerned, ought to be referred to the Apostolic See, so that they may be judged by it.” This canon asserts the primacy of the Roman See over other Bishops. It states that when a case involves the primacy or a serious matter concerning another Bishop, it must be brought to Rome for final judgment. 

THESIS 87 

For concerning judgments, Pope Nicholas I [d. 867] boasts thus: “It is clear, indeed, that the judgment of the Apostolic See (WHOSE AUTHORITY IS GREATER THAN ANY OTHER) is not to be reviewed by anyone: that is, it is not permitted to anyone to judge its judgment” (Causa 9, q. 3, canon, ‘Patet’). And he contends that this is proven by the similar decrees of Popes Innocent and Gelasius. And elsewhere he says: “It is not permitted for anyone to judge the judgment of the Apostolic See, or to retract its sentence: namely because of the PRIMACY of the Roman Church divinely bestowed by Christ upon the blessed Apostle Peter” (Causa 17, q. 4, canon, ‘Nemini’). 

THESIS 88 

Regarding crimes, Pope Anterus [d. 236] said, “The deeds of subjects are judged by us; our own, however, are judged by the Lord” (Causa 9, q. 3, canon, ‘Facta’). And Pope Symmachus [d. 514] likewise: “The cases of other men, God willed to be decided by men; but the prelate of this see, He reserved to Himself, without question, by His own judgment” (Ibid., canon ‘Aliorum’). 

THESIS 89 

To this also belongs that famously infamous decree (as if it were an interpreter of the matter): “If the Pope, neglecting his own salvation and that of his brethren, is found to be useless and negligent in his duties, and silent about what is good — which harms both himself and everyone else — nevertheless, as the first captive of hell, drags countless peoples with him into hell to be tormented with him there bearing eternal punishments. No one on earth dares to rebuke his faults because he who is to judge all is judged by no one — unless he is found to have deviated from the faith. From this the true nature of the Pope’s dominion can be understood” (Decretum of Gratian, Causa 9, quaestio 3, canon, ‘Si Papa’). 

[N. B. The author cites The Glossa Ordinaria’s comment on the passage, as the first captive of hell, which refers to the Antichrist: “that is, the Antichrist. For just as Christ is the head of all the good, so the Antichrist is the head of all the wicked. And just as Christ leads his own to life, so the Antichrist leads his own to hell.” This Gloss reinforces the author’s claim that the Papacy is to be identified with the Antichrist.] 

THESIS 90 

The wicked manner of his dominion over the Church appears from the fact that he rules in the stead of God and Christ. This wickedness (to omit others) is first seen from the fact that he openly declares himself the Vicar of Christ’s power (Liber Sextus, book 1, title 23, chapter 4, ‘Quonium’); and the Church, (despising Christ, its only Bridegroom and Head; John 3:29; Eph. 5:23), as his own Bride and Body, of which he himself is the Head (Causa 9. q. 3, canon, ‘Aliorum’). Hence, Boniface VIII, in Sextus, book 1, title 4, On the immunity of churches, chapter 4, says, “We do not wish to neglect our justice, and that of the Church, our Bride.” 

[N. B. Causa 9. q. 3, canon, ‘Aliorum’ translation: “For since the Body of Christ is one, and its Head is one Christ, and one successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all members are united, it is necessary that all cases be referred to him as to the Head.”] 

THESIS 91 

Then, that he freely and at his own discretion, partly or entirely, distributes and dispenses the remission of sins and the various degrees of heavenly glory: as established by Pope Clement (Extravagantes Johannis XXII, book I, title 5, De poenitentia et remissionibus, chapter 2, ‘Vulgenitus’). 

THESIS 92 

Finally, just as the name and divine majesty of God was to be arrogated to Kings (from Distinctio 96 and the Lateran Council) reveals pride, so the religious adoration of the Pontiff, lifted onto the altar like a deity, clearly shows a pretension to divinity. “For the Pontiff,” (as the Archbishop of Corcyra [Corfu] describes the rite of the papal coronation in his letter to Pope Leo X), “is placed by the Cardinals upon the altar to sit, wearing the mitre; and the senior Bishop, kneeling, begins the Te Deum laudamus. Meanwhile, the Cardinals kiss the feet, hands, and mouth of the newly elected Pope” (Sacrarum Caeremoniarum Romanae Ecclesiae, Liber I, Sectio 1, Caput 5). 

THESIS 93 

The second [example of his assuming the role of deity] is the special exaltation of the Roman Antichrist, by which, under the deceptive appearance of the power of Peter and his successors, Kings and Emperors have been so intoxicated (Rev. 17:2) that they have subjected their scepters and crowns, mitres and footstools, indeed, even to his feet (enchanted by the false idea that by so doing they ‘worship God’); (cf. Alexius, Bishop of Corcyra, Oration in the 5^th Lateran Council under Julius II, Session 3): as sacred Scripture foretells this matter (2 Thess. 2:4), and experience confirms it like a thousand witnesses. 

THESIS 94 

Indeed, Scripture [witnesses this fact] because it says of the Antichrist: Exalting himself above all that is called God (2 Thess. 2:4). By the general term, ‘God,’ not only the true God, but also magistrates are understood (because of the similarity of power and judgment). Then also, concerning Kings, it testifies thus; They have one purpose: and will give their strength and power to the beast (Rev. 17:13). 

THESIS 95 

Experience, indeed, provides countless proofs of the astonishing injuries and dishonors inflicted upon the highest magistracy. Of these, we shall select only a few, so that from them, as if by the claws, the fierce insolence of the Roman lion may be recognized. 

THESIS 96 

The injury first reveals itself in this: that the Roman Pontiffs have unjustly withdrawn themselves and their ecclesiastics from the authority of the civil magistrate (Romans 13:1; Liber Sextus Decretalium (the Sextus), book 3, title 23, De immunitate ecclesiarum, chapter ‘Clericus’). Indeed, Pope Caius decrees thus: “No one shall ever presume to accuse a bishop or other clerics before a secular judge” (Gratian’s Decretum, Causa 11, q. 1, canon ‘Nemo’). And Pope Sylvester says: “If any cleric enters the court accusing another cleric, let him be anathema” (Ibid. canon ‘Si quis’). To this injury, a vain pretense was added by the fact they were also called ‘gods,’ and by Constantine’s decree they were immune from human judgments (Gratian’s Decretum, Distinctio 96, canon ‘Satis’). 

THESIS 97 

Next, from this also arises the injury that, by the arrogated power over all Kings and Princes (Liber Sextus Decretalium, book 1, title 2, De constitutionibus, Chapter 2, ‘Ad Apostolicae’), they have often released their subjects from due obedience and the oath of fidelity, and have stripped Kingdoms and Empires at their pleasure (Gratian’s Decretum, Causa 15, q. 6, canon ‘Alius’).  This injury they sought to disguise and confirm by the false fullness of Apostolic power, as if divinely granted (Extravagantes Johannis XXII, book 5, title 5, De poenitentia et remissionibus; ibid. book 1, de Maior, chapter, ‘Unam’). This injury is proven by the manifest crimes of Gregory II, Zacharias, Gregory VII, and other successors. 

THESIS 98 

For Gregory III, driven by the wicked frenzy of the adoration of images, became enraged with Emperor Leo III because he had resolutely removed those instruments of idolatry. As John Stella says, “he caused Rome, together with the whole of Italy, to withdraw from his empire” (Platina, Life of Gregory III, John Stella, Chronica). 

THESIS 99 

Zacharias, however, absolved the Franks from the oath by which they were bound to their legitimate king, Childeric, (Causa 15, q. 6, canon ‘Alius’), not on account of his iniquity, but for the sole reason of their own cowardice (Paolo Emilio, History of France, book 2). Hence Pepin, made King by the Pope’s favor and crowned by Stephen II, superstitiously repaid the exarchate of Ravenna and the towns of the Roman duchy an excessive reward for injustice (Ibidem). Also, Gregory VII first deposed Emperor Henry IV from power: and then “he did not absolve him until, having laid aside his royal ornaments, he came to the Pontiff with bare feet, though the winter was harsh and the frost was freezing everything, and asked for his pardon” (Archbishop Carranza, Summa Conciliorum et Pontificum a Petro usque Paulum III, p. 163; Bishop Alexios Caladenus, Oration in Session 3 of the Lateran Council). 

THESIS 100 

The ignominy brought upon majesty is reflected in the fact that, having cast off the superstition of Kings, they abused them by admitting them to the kissing of their feet with the most disgraceful barbarity. So much so that, concerning this matter, Pope Gelasius shamelessly boasts; “For” (he says) “when you see the necks of kings and princes bowed down on the knees of priests, and having kissed their right hand, they believe themselves to have been partakers of or strengthened by their prayers” (Distinctio 96, canon ‘Duo sunt’). And Antonius Puccius, in an oration to Leo X at the Lateran Council, spoke thus to him as he conferred divine majesty, saying afterward; “By whose (Kings’) willing kisses your feet have received: as if in you alone, truly and legitimately, the Vicar of Christ, that prophetic saying (Psalm 72) ought to be fulfilled again; All kings of the earth shall worship him: all nations shall serve him (Last Lateran Council, Session 9). 

THESIS 101 

The example concerning Pepin is recounted. “Dismounting from his horse,” (says Blondus in his Decades) “he kissed the Pope’s feet, leading him on foot and holding the bridle of the Pope’s horse all the way to the chamber” (Also, see Platina, Lives of the Popes, and Stella, Annales Genuenses). Hence this foulness, falsely alleged by ancient examples, passed into custom and law, as clearly shown by the solemn rites of crowning and honoring the Pope. 

THESIS 102 

For, besides kissing the feet of the Roman Pontiff, holding his horse, the service of bread and the first course, and other servile offices and indignities of the Emperor, this same Master of the Ceremonies mentions, “If, however, the Pontiff were to ride not on horseback, but in a chair, four chief Princes, even if among them,” THE EMPEROR, or any great Prince were present, IN HONOR OF THE SAVIOR Jesus Christ” (behold the foundation and snare of Papal superstition and idolatry by which men have been wretchedly deceived!) “they ought to carry the very chair with the Pontiff, ON THEIR SHOULDERS for a short distance” (Sacrarum Caeremoniarum Romanae Ecclesiae, book I, section 2, chapter 3). 

THESIS 103 

To this is added the height of such impudent arrogance in Alexander III’s madness against Frederick Barbarossa, which is recounted by most historians in almost the same words. “By that treaty,” they say, “having concluded it, Pope Alexander immediately went to the gates of the Temple of St. Mark: and there, with the whole people present, the Emperor came forward to prostrate himself on the ground and to ask for mercy again. But the Supreme Pontiff, pressing the neck of the Emperor with his foot, said, “It is written: You shall walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and trample the lion and the dragon underfoot.” But Frederick said, “I obey not you, but Peter, whose successor you are.” (Behold superstition, and the origin of evil!) “And the Pope answered, ‘And to me, and to Peter’” (See Nauclerus, Giacomo Filippo Foresti da Bergamo, and John Stella). Let this suffice concerning the first principal effect of the Antichrist: his tyrannical and detestable elevation above God and men. 

THESIS 104 

The other effect, however, is the seduction of mankind away from Christ and the [true] way of salvation. In it, the method and the ends toward which it [i.e., the Papacy] tends are distinctly indicated in the definition of the Antichrist that we have set forth. 

THESIS 105 

The mode of that seduction, however, is twofold: the allurement of persuasion and the cruelty of coercion. The former is partly contained in the falsehoods of doctrine and signs, and partly in the examples of an impure life. 

THESIS 106 

But indeed, the doctrinal falsehoods are first openly foretold by the Holy Scriptures: when they compare the contradictory spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:3) to the Spirit of God, calling him that false prophet (Rev. 16:13); and attributing to him all deceivableness of unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:10); then specifically, when they present examples of unjust laws (concerning celibacy and the religious selection of foods): The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose conscience is seared with a hot iron; forbidding them 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). 

THESIS 107 

Experience also agrees with these divine prophecies, as a vast forest of papal errors concerning Scripture and its doctrine abundantly demonstrate, from which we will gather certain fragments as examples so that the Antichrist may be more clearly recognized. 

THESIS 108 

Concerning Scripture, the errors are as follows: (1) That certain Apocryphal books are as sacred and canonical as those of Moses and the Prophets (Council of Trent, Session 4, 1^st Decree, against 2 Tim. 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 and partly in unwritten traditions, equally to be revered with the same pious affection (Ibidem; against Acts 20:27, 26:22; 2 Tim 3:15-17). (3) That the old Vulgate Latin version is authentic, and wherever it differs, it is to be preferred over the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles (Ibidem; & Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, book 2, ch. 10-11; against Romans 3:4; Ephesians 2:20). (4) Scripture is not to be read in the vernacular neither privately by individuals, nor publicly in the Church’s use (Pius IV Index of Prohibited Books & Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei; against Psalm 1:2; John 5:39; Acts 15:21, 17:11). 

THESIS 109 

As for the errors in the doctrines handed down in Scripture, they are countless; we, however, for the sake of brevity, will present only a few excerpts, as it were on a small tablet (from which the face of the Antichrist will shine). Some of these directly oppose the eternal law of love expressed in the Decalogue; others, the Gospel and the norm of faith in Christ. 

THESIS 110 

First, concerning the Law because the Pontiff, in violation of the First Commandment of the Law, introduces many foreign Gods – including angels and deceased men — whom he has enrolled among the tutelary deities placed in the canon and made divine, ascribing to them the glory that belongs to God alone; namely, the searching of hearts, tutelary power, and the inward worship of trust, hope, and invocation (Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary). To these must also be added the God of the Mass, that is, the host, and the Roman Pontiff himself, as we have shown above (Thesis 92). 

THESIS 111

Secondly, that this horrendous hydra of impiety may become more clearly seen, we will uncover one of its heads, that of Mariolatry. As for the matter, it will suffice to cite the Saintly Doctor, Cardinal Bonaventure, in his Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which he attributes to the Virgin Mary the glory given to God by changing the name ‘Lord’ to ‘Lady,’ while adding other blasphemies to amplify it. (In Constance, in the year 1611, with the approval of the Bishop of Constance, it was reprinted and augmented with other canticles.)

THESIS 112

Such as these are illustrious, among many:

“Holy, holy, holy, Mother of God (Psalter, Psalm 1).

“May your great mercy be with us: for in you we trust; in you, most gracious Lady, we hope. Defend us forever. Amen. To you belongs praise, to you belongs dominion, power, and glory, forever and ever. Amen” (Psalter, Psalm 30).

“In your name, every knee bows, of the heavenly, the earthly, and the infernal” (Psalter, Psalm 50).

“May His mercy take away the multitude of our sins” (Psalter, Psalm 16).

“Cleanse my heart with the fire of your love and charity. You are the mother of the illumination of the heart” (Psalter, Psalm 40).

“Whoever does not invoke you in this life will not reach the kingdom of God” (Psalter, Psalm 86).

[N. B. Research shows the Medieval texts Gomarus cites have been edited so that the later versions do not contain the exact quotes he cites. The Roman Catholic Magisterium deliberately purged texts which caused Protestants to alert the public as to its anti-Christ nature. However, an 1852 edition kept this anti-Christian doctrinal statement: “He who hopeth in thee will find treasures of peace; and he who calleth not upon thee in this life, will never enter the kingdom of God.”

THESIS 113

Against the Second Commandment, the holy Pontiff declares: “Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria [i.e., worship due God alone] (Council of Trent, Session 25, Decree ‘On Sacred Images’); therefore, His image also [must be adored with latria]” (Summa Theologica of T. Aquinas, Part 3, Question 25, Article 3; also Cajetan’s Commentary on this place). Likewise, Article 4: “We render the worship of latria to that in which we place the hope of our salvation. But we place the hope of our salvation in the cross of Christ. For the Church sings: ‘Hail, O Cross, our only hope in this season of the Passion; increase righteousness for the godly and grant pardon to the guilty.’ Therefore, the cross of Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria.”

[N. B. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 25, Article 3, Title: ‘Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of latria’?

“The adoration of the image of Christ is not different from the adoration of Christ Himself. For since honor is referred to the thing honored, the honor given to the image is the same as that given to the thing represented. Therefore, since the image of Christ is to be adored with the adoration of latria (because Christ is true God and true man), it follows that the image of Christ is to be adored with the adoration of latria.”

Cajetan’s Commentary: “The image of Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria, not for its own sake, but for the sake of Christ whose image it is. The honor shown to the image passes to the prototype. Therefore, the image of Christ is adored with the same adoration with which Christ Himself is adored.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 25, Article 4. Title: ‘Whether the cross of Christ should be adored with the adoration of latria’?

“The worship of latria is due to God alone. But the cross of Christ is something created. Therefore, it should not be adored with the worship of latria. … I answer that, as was said above, honor or reverence is due only to a rational creature. But the cross of Christ is not a rational creature. Therefore, it should not be adored with the worship of latria. … On the contrary, the Church sings: ‘Hail, O Cross, our only hope, in this time of the Passion, increase righteousness for the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty.’ And therefore, the cross of Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria, not for its own sake, but for the sake of Christ, whose image it is.”

THESIS 114

Against the Third Commandment: along with their horrendous blessings and incantations, they teach to consecrate and exorcise with salt, water, wax, branches, ashes, bells, and other instruments of their magic or superstition, all with the most unworthy profanation of the name of God and they commend these as aids to salvation. Just as the Roman Pastorale: The Rationale of Divine Offices by Bishop Durandus; as well as Christopher Marcellus, Archbishop, in the Books of Sacred Ceremonies, and Jerome Mengonis in his Flight of Demons, describe abundantly.

THESIS 115

Against the Fourth Commandment: they dedicate festivals, temples, altars, and sacrifices of the Mass to their Gods (Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 5) some of whom either never existed, such as Christopher the Giant, or were wicked, such as Gregory the Arian. Then, they instituted various modes of religion and various orders of sacred ministers apart from the word of God, in the manner of the Pagans (Durandus, cited above).

THESIS 116

Against the Fifth Commandment: it is also clearly proven from what we have already said concerning the arrogance of the Pontiffs that they decree in the most unworthy manner that the honor due to the fathers of the fatherland [i.e., civil authorities] and to the supreme magistrate [i.e., the King] should be withheld or diminished.

THESIS 117

Against the Sixth Commandment: they confirm with their own calculation and prescription the Inquisitors’ horrendous cruelty in shedding the blood of those who dissent from them, even on sacred matters (Dominicus Báñez, On [Aquinas’] Summa Theologica II-II, q. 11, art. 2).

[N. B. Article 2 asks: ‘Whether heretics should be tolerated’? Aquinas answers that heretics, after being warned, may be excommunicated and even handed over to the secular power for corporal punishment (including death in extreme cases) to protect the faith and the unity of the Church.

Báñez strongly defends and expands Aquinas’ position:

“Heretics, after the first and second admonition, if they stubbornly persist in their error, are not only to be excommunicated, but also handed over to the secular arm to be punished with death. The reason is that heresy is a crime of divine lèse-majesté, more grave than human lèse-majesté. Therefore, just as traitors against a temporal kingdom are punished with death, so heretics, who betray the kingdom of Christ, ought to be punished even more severely.”

THESIS 118

Against the Seventh Commandment, which is also against the teaching of the Apostle: they not only forbid the marriage of clergy (1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 3:12; 1 Cor. 7:9) but even declare it worse than fornication. For example, among others, a Cardinal (Bellarmine, On the Monarchy, ch. 34) says: “It is a greater evil to marry in this manner than to commit fornication. Because the one who marries in this way makes himself incapable of keeping his vow, whereas the one who fornicates does not.” [i.e., breaking the vow of celibacy is a greater crime than breaking the law of chastity.] Then Gregory III decreed: ‘If a woman, struck by illness, is unable to render the marital debt to her husband, etc., then let him who cannot contain himself marry another.” (This pronouncement contradicts the teaching of Jesus against divorce except for adultery, Matt. 5:32)

THESIS 119

Against the Eighth Commandment: they not only decree that those things which belong to Caesar are not to be handed over by ecclesiastics to Caesar, while excommunicating those who do otherwise (Liber Sextus Decretalium – the Sextus – book 1, title 3, De immunitate ecclesiarum, chapter 2, ‘Clericus’) but they also decree that the Kingdoms and Empires of Caesar and other Kings can be given, diminished, and taken away according to the supreme power and will (Extravagantes Communes, book I, title, De maioritate et obedientia, chapter ‘Unam Sanctam’ and Glossa) as Gregory VII, among others, asserts (see Platina, on Greg. VII).

THESIS 120

Against the Ninth Commandment: they ruled that a promise of safety given to heretics does not hold if they retain their [heretical] beliefs. The Council said: “Even with safe conduct, it is allowed to punish them as justice requires if they stubbornly refuse to change their errors. This applies even if they come to court relying on the safe conduct, where they otherwise would not go. The person who made the promise, having done all they could, is not bound by it in this case” (Council of Constance, Session 19).

THESIS 121 

Against the Tenth Commandment, as well as against the sentiment and reason of the Apostle (Romans 7:7), they decreed in the Council of Trent (Session 5, canon 5) that concupiscence, which is opposed to the [Holy] Spirit, is not truly and properly a sin in the baptized. 

THESIS 122 

Finally, against the common seal and that menacing sanction of the universal law (Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them; Deut. 27:17), the Roman Pontiffs threaten with anathema and a curse all those who observe the Law fully (while disregarding the decrees of the Pontiffs which we have already mentioned; cf. Council of Trent throughout). These things have been stated briefly concerning the errors of the Pontiffs in violating the divine Law. 

THESIS 123 

But the Gospel they have corrupted no less shamefully. For they vitiate and tear apart its sincere teaching concerning the person and attributes of Christ, and concerning faith and its seals (that is, the Sacraments), with almost countless heresies. 

THESIS 124 

For, if we consider the person of Christ, not only the truth of His human nature, which in all things is similar to us (Heb. 2:17); but also, His special right – the complete and perpetual sanctity of His conception and life – by which He exists (Heb. 4:15), unlike all men. This truth they have also violated in the most shameful ways. 

THESIS 125 

For the Gospel teaches the truth of the body of Christ. (1) that it was made from the Virgin Mary (Gal. 4:4). The Pontiffs monstrously contend against this, that it is made from bread by the priests (Council of Florence, de Eucharistia). Hence, they glory that they are creators, not creatures (Stella, clericorum). (2) The Gospel teaches that the body of Christ ascended into heaven and will remain there until the Day of Judgment (Acts 3:19). On the contrary, the Pontiffs decree that the same body is contained in its entirety in the host and even each fragment of the host throughout the earth, though scattered in countless places and in various fragments (Council of Trent, Session 13, canon 3). 

THESIS 126 

But as for the holiness of Christ’s human nature, the Gospel declares He was conceived and born holy (Luke 1:35), like us in all things, except sin (Heb. 4:15), set apart from sinners (Heb. 7:26); while it states that all other human beings are sinners (1 John 1:8; Romans 3:23; Luke 11:4). In direct opposition to this, the Roman Pontiffs have decreed — by their own pronouncements and by instituting a new Feast of her Immaculate Conception (Extrav. Comm. ‘De Reliquiis’) — that the Virgin Mary is free from every sin and equal to Christ in holiness, both by her conception and by her whole life (Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree Concerning Original Sin, last sentence re: the Virgin Mary). 

THESIS 127 

They also attacked the attributes—both the offices and the benefits of Christ—by a similar method. For (to begin with his offices) they defiled not only His prophetic office, which is clearly shown above, [by declaring their pronouncements superior to His], but also His priestly and kingly offices with detestable errors. 

THESIS 128 

Indeed, priestly; (1) because the Gospel asserts that Christ is the sole, New Testament eternal Priest without successor for the expiation of sins (Heb. 7:24). In contrast, the Popes arrogate this praise to themselves and their sacrifices (Council of Trent, Session 22, chapter 1). (2) The Gospel also proclaims the unique, expiatory victim of the New Testament to be the one and only bloody sacrifice, namely, the offering of the body of Christ, made once for all (Heb. 9:12, 14, 26; 10:12, 14, 18). Against this, the Popes contend that the same sacrifice is repeated and offered daily, without blood, in the Sacrifice of the Mass. (Council of Trent, Session 22, chapters 1 & 2). (3) The Gospel establishes the one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. (1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1). The Popes, on the contrary, communicate that glory to their own, and first of all to the Virgin Mary (invoking her in this way): “Mary, Mediatrix of God and men, pray for us; come to her, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and she will give rest to your souls” (Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary). 

THESIS 129 

They likewise attack the royal office. (1) because the Gospel says, There is one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6) to whom power was given in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Against this truth the Popes set up the Virgin Mary, as a partner of Christ, so that their St. Bonaventure teaches to invoke her thus, “I will love you, Lady 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). The Popes, on the contrary, communicate this glorious majesty to the Virgin Mary with these words: “The Lord said, Our Lady, sit, my mother, at my right hand;” (Psalter, Psalm 109) and again, “You, with your Son, sit at the right hand of the Father.” 

THESIS 130 

And, to add to their wickedness, the Roman Pontiffs claim for themselves both the priesthood and the kingdom of Christ (See Thesis 84), demonstrating they are the true Antichrists. Hence arose that blasphemy: “But the Son of God has submitted the perpetual principality of this kingdom and priesthood to Peter and his successors” (Extravagantes Communes, book 1, De maioritate, chapter, ‘Unam Sanctum’). Likewise: “Christ committed His vicarious authority to the Supreme Pontiff, as is found in Matthew 16 and 24. But to Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28). Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff will have this authority” (Ibidem; Sixtus IV, Sacred Ceremonies, book 1, section 7, chapter 1). 

THESIS 131 

As for the benefits of Christ: (1) The Gospel proclaims He is the one and only Savior (John 14:6): neither is there salvation in any other; nor is there any other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). On the contrary, the Popes add the names of the Virgin Mary and the Saints to obtain salvation (Extravagantes Communes, book 5, De poenit., ch. 2) and teach that she should be invoked by this title: “Through you, may the Lord be pleased with me, etc., Lady, MY SAVIOR” (Psalter, Psalm 28). Also: “Lady, in your name, save me” (Ibid. Psalm 13). Also: “She is the gate of life, the door of salvation, and our way of reconciliation: the hope of penitents: the comfort of the grieving: blessed PEACE and SALVATION of hearts” (Ibid. Psalm 46). Also, “Through you, author of grace and salvation” (Ibid. Psalm 8). 

THESIS 132 

(2) The Gospel teaches concerning the manner and perfection of salvation, obtained through Christ, that He is the propitiation by His blood (Romans 3:25) and that His blood cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7), and that He has borne (Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24) and removed all the punishment due to our sins (Heb. 9:12, 26; Romans 8:1; John 5:24). The Popes, on the other hand, extend this benefit to others as well. 

THESIS 133 

First, this benefit is extended to the Virgin Mary, as is evident from this invocation of her: “Mary, propitiation for the whole world” (Litany & Psalter), and from this: “Wash away all our sins” (Psalter, Psalm 51). Pope Urban V also inscribed this on his own waxen lamb: “It breaks every malignant sin,” he says, “as does the blood of Christ, and it vexes” (Sacred Ceremonies, book 1, section 7, ch. 9). Finally, they do indeed acknowledge Christ has satisfied for the eternal punishments of sins; but they define that a temporal punishment for them remains for the faithful, to be paid either in this world or in Purgatory, which they have invented” (Council of Trent, Session 6, canon 30). 

THESIS 134 

(3) The Gospel teaches that eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). On the contrary, the Popes contend that it is [also] the merit of good works (Council of Trent, Session 6, canon 32 & Chapter 16). 

THESIS 135 

(4) Finally, the Gospel teaches that we, by the grace of Christ, are not only free from the penalty of the violated law of love, but also from the servile yoke of the ceremonial law (Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:14, 16); and therefore, forbids the selection of religious foods, and calls the contrary doctrine a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). The Pontiffs, on the other hand, partly through ignorance, revived the Jewish distinction of foods; and partly through wicked superstition, introduced a new servitude of food selection into the Church (See Thesis 85). 

THESIS 136 

This is first shown by Pope Zacharias, who wrote the following to his legate Boniface (known as ‘Apostle of Germans,’ who was, in name only, a converter of the Thuringians and Saxons, but in reality was their perverter and the first unworthy Archbishop of Mainz): “You have asked us what things are to be received and what are to be rejected, particularly regarding birds — jackdaws, crows, and storks. These are to be entirely avoided by Christians as food; also beavers and hares” (2nd Epistle of Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface). Is this not a shocking display of ignorance regarding Christian liberty on the part of both the Archbishop and the Roman Pontiff (See Thesis 118), clearly proving a restoration of Judaism? (Lev. 11). 

THESIS 137 

The second point, however, is proven by the self-willed worship (ἐθελοθρησκεία) of the Pontiffs: for, having embraced that impure decree of the First Council of Toledo (Vol. 2, canon 9) — which states that “whoever, without unavoidable necessity, presumes to eat meat during the days of Lent shall be guilty not only against the resurrection of the Lord, but shall also be excluded from communion” — they have instituted many other days of abstinence from flesh and blood. 

THESIS 138 

Furthermore, they teach no less perfidiously about faith: if we consider its origin, effects, and duration. 

THESIS 139 

(1) For concerning the origin of faith, the Gospel teaches it is the gift and work of God: not of ourselves, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8-10). On the contrary, the Pontiffs boast it arises partly from God, partly from us, from the powers of free will (Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 5). 

[N. B. Trent teaches prevenient grace must first come from God; then man either cooperates with or rejects this grace by his own free will. This teaching is now prevalent in many Protestant churches, including Methodist.] 

THESIS 140 

(2) 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 to pray to God with faith, without hesitation (James 1:5; Heb. 4:16). On the contrary, the Pontiffs teach “no one can know with certainty of faith that he has not falsely supposed to have obtained the grace of God” (Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 9). Then the Gospel declares that the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is our righteousness before God (Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). The Pontiffs define that “we are not formally just by the righteousness of Christ, but by inherent righteousness” (Trent, Session 6, chapter 7) or “by sanctification and renewal of the inner man” (Ibidem). Finally, the Gospel concludes: “a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law” (Romans 3:28). On the contrary, the Pontiffs assert that “good works are the cause of increasing justification” (Trent, 6, canon 24). Likewise, “to truly deserve an increase of grace” (Trent, 6, canon 32). 

THESIS 141 

Regarding the duration of faith, the Gospel teaches that it is preserved by the power of God and that it must persevere to the end of life (John 6:39; John 10:28; 1 John 3:9; 1 Peter 1:5; Romans 8:30, 38-39). The Popes, on the other hand, state that its perseverance is doubtful (Trent, 6, Chapters 13-15, canon 16). 

THESIS 142 

Finally, concerning the Sacraments, the errors of the Popes are very numerous: the first is that they have added five other false ones to the two true ones, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Trent, 7, canon 1), which they even place before these divine Sacraments (See Thesis 51).  Furthermore, they also wonderfully corrupt the true ones. We, however, from the great multitude of corruptions, will briefly touch upon a few. 

THESIS 143 

Concerning Baptism, the Pontiffs teach: (1) If pure common water is lacking, it is not permitted to baptize with rosewater; but it is permitted to use lye and water, or water drawn from the brine of meat, or mud, finely strained (Th. Aquinas, Summa, p. 3, q. 66). (2) If a priest is lacking, it is lawful for women, Pagans, and heretics to baptize (Council of Florence, ‘de Baptismo’). (3) They defile Baptism with various human rites, partly foolish, partly foul, partly wicked, all with an unworthy abuse of the words of Christ (Pastorale Rom., ‘de Baptismo’ (4) Finally, they maintain that man is first justified by Baptism through the infusion of love (Trent, 6, Chapters 4 & 7). 

THESIS 144 

But they pervert the Lord’s Supper in a much more unworthy manner. For (1) They deny the use of the chalice to the laity, as they say (Trent, 21, Chapters 1 & 2). (2) They teach that the bread and wine are changed and, (as they call it) transubstantiated, into the body and blood of Christ (Trent, 13, Chapter 4). 

THESIS 145 

(3) Pope Nicholas, with the Roman Synod, prescribed this formula of [forced] confession to Berengar; “That the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that they are handled by the priests’ hands, broken, and placed on the tongues of the faithful to be eaten” (De consecratione, Distinctio 2, canon ‘Ego Berengarius’). 

THESIS 146 

(4) Finally, they pervert and transform the Christian Sacrament into a horrible, idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass (Trent, 13, Chapters 2, 5 & 22). And these are the errors of the Pontiffs: primarily, the kind of lies by which they oppose Christ. 

THESIS 147 

Secondly, there are lying signs: as the express prophecies of Scripture and the evident experience of the thing itself clearly demonstrate. 

THESIS 148 

The prophecies of Scripture also bear witness to this. For concerning the Antichrist, it forewarns: Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and lying signs and wonders (2 Thess. 2:9). Likewise: 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). But ‘lying signs’ are understood to mean those signs which are meant to give a false appearance [of truth] to the lies of his doctrine — whether the signs are false simply and absolutely (both in the thing itself and in its purpose, such as magic tricks), or only partly false, and that only in respect of their purpose. These signs he performs partly by himself and partly through his ministers. 

THESIS 149 

But experience shows that the signs of the Popes and their ministers are countless, being falsehoods, and among them, fire descending from heaven (Ursberg Chronicle, Magdeburg Centuries, Saxon Chronicles). As the ‘Lives of the Popes,’ the ‘Chronicles of the Saints,’ especially those of the Monks, the Canonizations (as they are called) of many, (cf. Platina) and finally the descriptions of Our Lady of Loreto, of Halle, of Aspricolis, and the like, demonstrate. And by these examples, we have principally exposed the deceit of the Popes (both in doctrine and in signs) as the method of seduction achieved by using such enticements. 

[N. B. Canonization requires the proof of 2 supernatural miracles performed by the candidate.] 

THESIS 150 

Another method, however, is the impure examples of the Antichrist’s life, by which weak and depraved minds, drawn in by the authority of their leaders, are most easily led astray (Pope Adrian VI, in his Instruction to his Legate). 

[N. B. In this document, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, Pope Adrian VI openly admits the corruption, scandals, and abuses within the Roman Curia and the Church. “We know well that for many years many abominable things have occurred in this Holy See… and therefore it is no wonder that the disease has spread from the head to the members.”] 

THESIS 151 

For Scripture not only alludes to this impurity of life when it openly reveals the origin and character of the man of sin and the lawless one by name (2 Thess. 2:3, 8). but also, when it metaphorically calls the Roman Church (whose head and chief part is the Pontiff) that great harlot (Rev. 17:1), Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth (Rev. 17:5), Egypt, and Sodom (Rev. 11:8). For just as these places were notorious theaters of magic, idolatry, pride, luxury, greed, cruelty, and vile lust, so the future life of the Roman Church — with the Antichrist as its head and covered with every kind of wickedness — is strikingly foreshadowed by this powerful analogy. 

THESIS 152 

Experience, likewise, more clearly reveals the matter itself to us, if we survey the deeds of the Popes, both their individual ones, and then the common ones of all (from Boniface III onward). So much so that it was truly said of the Pope, “He who ought to have been a bridge over the sea to Zion for all the people has become a path to the underworld” (Bernard of Cluny, the Cluniac Monk, On the Contempt of the World, book 1, chapter 3). And, concerning the Roman court, not only did that same most serious Monk record long ago, “Rome, when she sins, harms, and teaches the very way of sinning” (Ibidem), but Pope Adrian VI himself, compelled by force to acknowledge it, said, “Hence corruption has flowed down to all below (See N. B. above). 

THESIS 153 

As far as the majority of Popes are concerned: they seized the Pontificate by evil arts (partly human, partly magical and diabolical), and they governed it even worse. So much so, that what Bernard of Clairvaux says of Pope Anacletus, Innocent’s adversary, truly applies to them: “That beast from the Apocalypse which was given a mouth speaking blasphemies and to wage war against the saints occupies the chair of Peter as though it were he lion ready to prey” (Epistle 125). 

THESIS 154 

For by their evil human arts, they plundered the Pontifical See (as Platina, Stella, and others testify): Martin II, Formosus, Christopher, Boniface VII, Boniface VIII (of whom the well-known saying is, “He entered like a fox: lived like a lion: died like a dog”- John Stella; Bartolomé de Carranza wrote, “He reigned like a wolf”) John XXII, and others; Of whom, Platina says: “For the Pontificate had by then degenerated to such a point that whoever was strongest, through largesse and ambition (I do not speak of holiness of life and doctrine), would obtain the highest degree of dignity, having oppressed and cast aside the good. Would to God that our times had never preserved this custom!” (cf. Life of Sylvester III.) 

THESIS 155 

Then, by diabolical arts, Sylvester III (to say nothing of his own disciples, the Popes) became Pope (See Cardinal Benno, On the Life and Deeds of Hildebrand, in the Fasciculus rerum expetendarum). Of him, Stella says: “The Roman Pontiff, constituted with the Devil’s help, but on this condition: that after death he would be entirely his, in both soul and body.” 

[N. B. Main Accusations by Benno: 

Extreme Ambition and Tyranny 

Hildebrand was consumed by a lust for power. 

He sought to place the papacy above all kings and emperors. 

He acted like a dictator, deposing rulers, and interfering in secular affairs. 

Simony and Greed 

He was deeply involved in simony (the buying and selling of church offices). 

He sold bishoprics, abbeys, and other ecclesiastical positions for money. 

Sorcery and Magic 

Benno repeatedly accuses Gregory of practicing magic and using demonic arts. 

He claims Gregory used sorcery to achieve his political and ecclesiastical goals and to harm his enemies. 

Immorality and Sexual Scandals 

Gregory lived in open immorality. 

Benno alleges he had multiple mistresses and illegitimate children. 

He even hints at incestuous relationships. 

Murder and Violence 

Gregory was responsible for the deaths of several opponents. 

Benno accuses him of poisoning or arranging the murder of those who opposed him. 

Being the Antichrist or Forerunner of the Antichrist 

Benno portrays Gregory as the Antichrist or at least his immediate forerunner. 

He says Gregory’s pride, tyranny, and destruction of Church order fulfill the biblical prophecies of the man of sin.] 

THESIS 156 

Indeed, the wicked deeds in the Pontificate are so numerous that they would weary even Platina, John Stella, both Bernards (the Abbot of Clairvaux and the Monk of Cluny), Cardinal Benno, the Monk, Baptist of Mantua, Claude Espence, the Parisian theologian, and many others, to recount them. We shall be content with only two examples, one of cruelty and the other of notorious lust. 

THESIS 157 

As for cruelty, the first example is that of Stephen VI, [d. 897] who, driven by the rage of many, after holding a council [The Cadaver Synod] ordered the body of Pope Formosus [d. 896] to be dragged from its tomb. Having been stripped of its pontifical vestments and clothed in secular attire, and after three fingers of the right hand had been cut off, it was thrown into the Tiber. Then he commanded that the rest of the body be buried in a layman’s grave” (Stella, year 901). The second, even more brutal act, is that of Sergius III [d. 911]: “who again condemned the acts of Formosus. In revenge for the injury done to him, he had his corpse dragged from the tomb. He subjected it to capital punishment as if he were still alive. He then ordered the body to be thrown into the Tiber with a hook, as though it was unworthy of burial” (Stella, year 907 & Platina). 

THESIS 158 

But an equal display of unbridled lust is found in John XIII [d. 972] and Alexander VI [d. 1503]. For the former, in savage cruelty, cut off the nose and even the hand of a certain Cardinal (Stella, year 958; Platina, John XIII). Having lived a life of notorious debauchery, he was caught in adultery and killed by the woman’s husband (Ibidem). The latter, however, a man hardened by war and plunder, and exceedingly lustful, is described in the well-known epitaph by Accius Sannazarius [Jacopo Sannazaro]  for Lucrezia, his illegitimate daughter (who was violated no less by his own illegitimate son than by himself): “Here lies Lucrezia by name, but Thais [i.e., ‘courtesan’] in reality: daughter, wife and daughter-in-law of Alexander” (Platina). These are fitting examples; from which one may clearly recognize ‘His Holiness, the Most Holy,’ as they call him (5^th Lateran Council under Leo X, Session 9).  

THESIS 159 

But if we examine all the Pontiffs, not one from Boniface III onward will be found free from the violation of both divine and human majesty, from the tyrannical oppression of the Church, and from the neglect of true reformation (Claude Espence, Comm. Epist. to Titus; Platina, Benedict I) — although some of them, by refraining from the unrestrained license of many crimes, lived somewhat more cautiously or even more chastely. And these things have been stated concerning the first mode of seduction (that is, through the enticements of false doctrine and an impure life). 

THESIS 160 

The other, [i.e., wicked cruelty] however, consists in the Antichrist’s brutal crimes against Christians. Of this, Scripture prophesying says, That woman is drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev. 17:6). Experience, and the blood of the pious (which has been poured out most abundantly throughout the whole world to this day), cries out and demands vengeance from God (Rev 6:9; Rev. 18:5; Rev. 19:2). 

THESIS 161 

The end result of this seduction is twofold: error (2 Thess. 2:10-11) and idolatry (Rev. 13:15) in this life; and after this, destruction (2 Thess. 2:10, 12)—and that by the just judgment of God (who vindicates the Gospel) (Ibid. verses 10-12). 

THESIS 162 

The final end of the Antichrist is his destruction. This is first begun by the word of God, both by its preaching (by which his pernicious errors and tyranny are laid bare) and by kindling faith; by which even his subjects come out of Babylon, as do Kings, after the long drunkenness of the harlot’s cup, being roused, forsake her, and strip and lay bare the unjust spoils and honors of her Kingdoms; as experience has begun to prove. Then it will be accomplished by the illustrious advent of Christ, by whom he will be cast into the fire of hell. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 

END