[N. B. Samuel Maresius was a French Protestant theologian, professor and pastor who specialized in refuting Roman Catholicism, Socinianism, and Arminianism. He was well-respected by Francis Turretin and died in 1673.]
In Daniel, chapter 11, he deals extensively with a certain king or kingdom, very much enmity towards the pious as well as contemptuous of the supreme God, whom Daniel nevertheless says, in verse 38, that God Mauzzim [Hebrew] or as he is commonly called Maozim [Greek] this king or kingdom would pursue to honor. But who that God is, we now wish to inquire. However, this will not be easily understood unless we first explain who that king is.
2. There are two entirely probable opinions about it. There are those who think that the name ‘King’ is not taken here singularly but collectively and denotes the entire Roman Empire. This opinion of Johannes Cocceius1 in his Brief Repetition of Places in the Old and New Testaments Concerning the Antichrist is defended by many. He understands it not only of the pagan Roman Empire such as it was before Christ, as the most learned Calvin had already stated, but of the same successively, both Christian and Antichristian or Papal. [Lucius Annaeus] Florus2 himself, at the very beginning, called the Roman people the Princely people and considered them as if they were one man whose ages he distinctly recounts.
3. Jewish interpreters had preceded this opinion: notably Josephus Iacchiades3 in his paraphrase on Daniel, who also attempts to interpret that prophecy about the Roman Caesars as both Gentiles and Christians, yet so often wrong that Emperor Constantine who, endowed with Latin, and having most learnedly enlightened him with critical remarks, is frequently forced to disavow him as deviating from the path of truth.
4. The foundations of the interpretation presented by Cocceius are indeed ingenious and worthy of a learned man, which I now repeat. I only remind you that the name Mauzzim itself, which denotes fortifications and strength, is most fitting for the Name of the Roman God, for the name of Rome itself comes from the Greek Ῥώμη (rather than from the Latin Ruma) signifying strength, and before the name of Rome was derived from Evander4 or, as others prefer, before it was called Rome, it was called Valentia, either from a noble slave or from the daughter of Ascanius. See Plutarch in Romulus, and Solinus, Polyhistor, chap. 2.
5. Others, however, who are more numerous, hold that the king is singled out for Antiochus Epiphanes, which is to be understood as the opinion of Nicholas of Lyra,5 Cornelius a Lapide,6 Jacobus Tirinus,7 Benedict Pereira,8 Melanchthon,9 Junius,10 Diodati,11 Vignier,12 Jean De Launoy13 and many other Pontifical [writers] and Reformers, and specifically the most distinguished and learned authors of the Belgian version, published by the authority of the General Orders. This seems to us to be preferred to the former, either by the opinion of the authors or by the weight of their arguments.
6. But whatever ultimately prevails, that is, in the confession of all Christians (if perhaps you may only except Hugo Grotius14 who rejected all doctrine about Antichrist for that of the Sicilian wars, a view we have long refuted both in our Dissertation On Antichrist and in our Antichrist Revealed, opposite the Appendix to Grotius), this prophecy of Daniel in a certain sense pertains to Antichrist, either literally as the previous opinion stated, insofar as the Roman empire was to continue, yet in some way about to be removed while exercising all the power of the first beast [Roman Empire] before it, Rev. 13:12, or figuratively and typically insofar as Antiochus Epiphanes bore and sustained the type of Antichrist. Hence, Paul the Apostle in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has parallels about the son of perdition sitting in the temple of God, namely that he would exalt himself above every name and deity, which are said of him in Daniel 11:36, namely that he would exalt and magnify himself above every God.
7. Therefore, in order to methodically differentiate between the God Maozim and that which is presently living [we must determine]: (1) Who he could be in the Roman Empire. (2) How he could be understood with respect to Antiochus. (3) Who he is with respect to Antichrist. This is what specifically concerns us here. The first and second pertain only to sacred Philology. The third to the Theological controversy with the Pontiffs.
8. And so, from the very beginning we note that those who render that word appellatively are not commended, preferring to keep their own Maozim, that is, the Seventy elders of Greece, as they are commonly called—or the Alexandrian interpreters, the Latin vulgate translator François Vatable, Arias Montanus, and the recent Belgian interpreters, who have demonstrated the utmost diligence and fidelity in their work. For it is harder to apply this epithet (which I see some learned interpreters do with Arabic) to the supreme God in whose seat this impious king would sit and then honor an unknown God, when on the contrary, the text simply makes the God Maozim the same as that unknown God [whom his fathers knew not].
9. For thus the text has it word for word according to the interlinear version of Pagnino:15 And the God Mauzzim shall be worshiped in his place, and the God whom his fathers did not know will be worshiped with gold, silver, and precious stones. The [Hebrew] accent [mark] of atnah which he bears, shows that he first worships him and that the conjunction vav following these words indicates that the latter part is an expository explanation of the former; nor should a foreign God be [considered as another] opposed to God Maozim, but rather the latter be understood within him.
10. Although God is said to be a fortress and strength for his people, we never read in Scripture that he is called Eloah Mauzzim in the plural, wherefore this epithet should be applied only to the God of that impious king. And here the impiety of Josephus Iachiades must be specifically condemned, who, drawing this comma, wrongly interprets it as referring to Constantine the Great’s God Maozim, Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord, because Constantine thought that he had been placed on the throne by Jesus and that he owed all the power he received to Christ.
11. Indeed, Constantine worshipped Jesus Christ, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, with true faith and piety, and in this he did not show himself impious or idolatrous, as the recalcitrant Apella [?] slanders, but rather pious and truly religious, since the Messiah himself must be said to be Jehovah from Jeremiah 23:6, and Jonathan the Paraphrastus,16 in addition to Rabbi David Kimhi,17 acknowledge he is also called Elohim, Psalm 14:7, which name designates the one true and supreme God. That the Messiah would ultimately be true God and true man in the unity of one person is amply proven against the Jews by Pietro Colonna Galatino.18
12. Wherefore, when the God Maozim is taken as evil here, it must correspond either to the Roman empire or to King Antiochus, but more openly and distinctly to Antichrist, of whom it has been persuaded by many ancient and modern writers that he should be treated distinctly from his type in verse 36 and the following. If this prophecy and the divinity Mars Gradivus19 and their weapons were to belong to the God Maozim, since Maximus in the Lexicon considers Maozim to be Mars, and although in appearance the Romans religiously venerated the gods, they nevertheless attributed their victories to their virtue, prudence, and fortune, each of them saying, “There is a God at my right hand,” etc.
13. Although in general it can be understood here as a god of the Romans since Rome has a name signifying strength [robore]……, and Rome itself was once worshipped as a Goddess [Roma] with Temples, Altars and Images, to which those names of blasphemy are referred in Rev. 13:1 and Algasiam’s 11 questions to Jerome. Indeed, that name is equally well suited to Jupiter Capitolinus, who was worshipped in the Capitoline Hill, and to whom Roman emperors were accustomed to consecrate spoils taken from their enemies, for the Hebrew word mauzzim properly signifies ‘fortresses.’
14. The Capitoline Hill was truly the most precious among the Romans and was almost the seat of all idolatry, as Camillus’ words in Livy, book 5 show: “This is the Capitoline Hill where once it was said that a human head had been found, that in that place the head of all things and the summit of the empire would be; Here, when the Capitol was liberated with augural rites, Juventus and Terminus, to the great joy of our fathers, refused to be moved; here the shields of heaven were sent down, here all the propitious gods remained with you.”
15. Therefore, after the Capitol was restored by Vespasian, Rome rose again, as certain coins of that time testify, and it was believed that the end of that time was at hand in Tacitus, History, book 4, when the dissension of the Flavians and Vitellians was extinguished, and the statues in the Capitol were struck from heaven and the images of Jupiter and Juno were thrown down, and the laws introduced and inscribed on its columns around the time of the birth of Christ, foreshadowing the imminent ruin of idolatry, as Baronius reports, among others, in Apperatu annalium N. Epit. Spond. 13.
16. If, however, Antiochus is called the God Maozim with respect to him, he will be of almost the same kind as the Capitoline Jupiter of the Romans, the Olympian Jupiter [called Zeus by the Greeks] whom he brought to Jerusalem and placed in the Temple itself after he had built a fortress there, so that in other cities of Judea and their fortresses he had established this idol of his as a protective deity, 2 Macc. 6:2.20 Moreover, Jupiter Capitolinus and Mars were the gods of the Romans, whom their own ancestors—the Phrygians, that is, the Trojans—did not recognize, nor, I dare say, did the Romans themselves know as new and foreign deities unfamiliar to their ancestors; hence Lucan wrote: “We have received into your Roman rites Isis and the demigods; singing and sistrums command mourning, And whom you, lamenting, testify to as a man, Osiris.” Thus, also Jupiter Olympus [Zeus] was the God of Antiochus, whom his fathers did not know, for they were Syrians and worshipped Atargatis21 along with the other deities of Syria, of which Strabo,22 book 16, speaks.
17. But as Cornelius a Lapide rightly observes in that passage of Daniel, this will be clearer and truer in Antichrist; for it is almost a solemnity of the Scriptures that those which have the more emphatic type are far more suitable in a certain special way to the prototype and thing signified. Therefore, two things occur here to be noted. First, this God Maozim is distinguished from the lawless and impious man who was to worship him. Second, the impious man, namely the man of sin and the son of perdition, proposed this God Maozim to be worshipped by himself and others.
18. In the first place, therefore, we observe that Theodoret,23 who, in 2 Thess. 2, established that the Antichrist would assume the name of this God Maozim, that is, the strength of God, to which opinion Bellarmine tends, book 3, de Pontiff, chap. 14 & 21; although he says he would be chiefly more pleased if the God Maozim were not Antichrist but the God of Antichrist. Daniel Heinsius24, in Exercit. sac. lib. 13, chap. 3, seems to incline towards the view that, when establishing the typology of Antichrist, along with Chrysostom, he associates him with Nero, then the restrainer or reigning one, as Paul wrote, and asserted that Antichrist is to be called gnos or God Maozim, which is to say, the language of the Sabines for Nero. But Daniel’s mind is more explicit than this opinion can admit, when he eloquently asserts that the God Maozim should be worshipped by that impious man.
19. We also observe that according to some Papists who, wishing to prove that the Roman Pontiff should not be called the Antichrist—that he would not only usurp some divine authority in the Church (which they tacitly acknowledge is happening from their own Pontiff) but also that he would desire to be worshiped and regarded as God. Thus, Bellarmine, book 3, de Pont., chap. 14. First of all, the Roman Pontiff not only usurps all the authority of God in the Church, but also expressly claims the very name of God for himself and admits it when offered by flatterers, presenting himself as a Deity to be worshipped, both of which we prove clearly elsewhere.25
20. Furthermore, it is a fallacy to say that Antichrist would so openly profess to be God that he would acknowledge no other deity above himself, even in appearance: for the mystery of iniquity was to be established under the pretext of piety, and although the beast imitates the speech of the dragon, yet he tries to adapt the horns of the lamb to himself, Rev. 13:11. Chrysostom eloquently warns in 2 Thessalonians 2 that Antichrist will not [openly] claim to be God but will attempt to show himself to be such. He [Antichrist] would also imitate Nero, who wanted to be considered a god, but he would do it “more covertly, not so openly and shamelessly as he.” And indeed, it is certainly gathered from this that he who worships the God Maozim and proposes to be worshipped himself does not openly seize upon God’s authority and name as to wish to be called and held to be the supreme God himself.
21. But the flight of Bellarmine, and also of Cornelius a Lapide and Manuel de Sá26 to that [fictional] place [of their opinion] is quite pitiful. [They claim] the God Maozim, that is, of strength (speaking of the last one), from whom the Antichrist will receive his powers, must be worshipped secretly by him when he openly calls himself God. However, to worship him secretly as a God whom you openly denigrate is not to glorify and venerate him, as he was to do according to Daniel. Moreover, since he was going to build fortifications or castles for him, as the following paragraph shows, and he was going to honor him with increase, silver, gems, and precious things, this should have been done in public worship, not clandestinely and secretly.
22. Nor should we fear to reconcile the fact that it is said Maozim should publicly be worshipped as God, though Daniel had previously stated that he would exalt himself against every God and would not care for any of the Gods but would rise up against all of them. This shows that he himself would be a fearless and notable despiser of religions, such as Antiochus was; and such as were many Roman bishops, Apostate or rather Apotactic,27 as [Gilbert] Genebrard28 himself is said to have been, although he was very Papal rather than Apostolic. Let Leo X be a witness under which the matter broke into a nerve, who responded dissolutely to Cardinal Bembo proposing something from the Gospel.29 How much that story about Christ has benefited us and our group is well known throughout the ages. But this latter nevertheless publicly shows some idolatry on the part of the professors. And a prince who will resort to Machiavellian schemes, even if he is profane and impious both within and without, will nevertheless either adapt himself to religion or religion to himself, so that, as the Arab proverb says, all evil is done in the name of the Lord.
23. Furthermore, this God Maozim cannot be the Devil as the Jesuits wish, with whom Antichrist has occult intercourse, as the Magi are wont to do, except in the sense that the worship of any idol is reduced to the Devil, 1 Cor. 10:19-20. For the Devil himself is not worshipped directly and immediately by the Magi with gold, silver and gems. He does not ask for these, but rather promises them, Matt. 4:9. Nor do they build fortresses in which to place the Devil, as is foretold here in verse 39, he will raise up his God Mauzzim, that is, as Emmanuel Sá says, “strong fortresses where he can place his God.” Although the Roman See was not without Magi who secretly worshipped the Devil and reached the Papacy by evil arts, a list of whom anyone who wishes to see should go to the Pontifical Mirror by Zegedini, for we do not write histories.
24. Therefore, the God Maozim is to be worshipped by the Antichrist as a Roman God or some idol of Rome which is Roman, according to Heinsius, book 11, exercit, sacr., chap. 8. He interprets the God Maozim as the God of Rome and, looking at pagan Rome, he thinks Mars is the father figure of that city. For I previously mentioned that the Greek and Latin name of Rome, Valentia,30 by which the city itself was once distinguished, has the same meaning as does the Hebrew word, Mauzzim. And nowhere else than in Rome, which is the City of Seven Hills and Babylon of the Revelation, according to the acknowledgement of Jesuits Ribera31 and Viega in Rev. 14, as well as all the ancients, where the Antichrist would have his seat, and in the name of Lateinos (Λατεινός) [Latin Man] the Antichrist would establish the mystical number 666, as St. Irenaeus, book 5, observed long ago.
25. In particular, it could be said that [the Apostle] Peter is this God Maozim Antichrist, for his name comes from Strength and Rock, and is the one whom Rome and the people of the Roman communion seem to have chosen to be their protector, [a type of God]; which is the opinion of the most eminent Brockmann, Copenhagen Professor, Art. de Eccl. chap. 5, section 4. For indeed, they claim nothing other than Peter and his authority: He gave Petra [the name ‘rock’] to Peter, and Peter a diadem to Rudolph; yet even then, Peter was not superior to the other Apostles in authority, as evidenced by Luke 22:25-26; 2 Corinthians 11:5; Galatians 2:6, 8, 11; 1 Peter 5:1, from which Cyprian author, On the Unity of the Church, says, “Surely, the other Apostles were equal in sharing in the same honor and authority that Peter possessed by common right and privilege.” And recently the most learned Arnold of the Sorbonne, in an explicit treatise on that subject, has equated Paul with Peter in authority, as well as the foundation of the Roman Church and the dignity of the capital. Nor, if he had anything special, was it to be passed on to any successors, but to end in his own person. Nor, if he should have had a successor, would he necessarily be a Roman rather than an Alexandrian or Antiochene bishop; for it is stated from the Scriptures that Peter was at Antioch,32 but it is not established that he was at Rome; nor is he Peter’s successor who does not have the faith of Peter. And the foul errors of the Roman See, the schisms which befell it, and the numerous simoniac elections, if any had existed, would not only have disturbed that entire imaginary succession, but would have completely abolished it. See an Italian writer in a book entitled, The Roman Papacy, in the last chapter of which he proves the Papacy was extinguished by a simoniac election of Julius II or at least of Sixtus V.
26. However, we believe that the Papal idols are Maozim Gods in such a way that the Holy Spirit specifically wished to designate by this name the Universal Cure-all and Deity of the Mass, the primary foundation of the Papal Religion. Thus, the Belgian Notes to the chapter on Daniel 11, as well as the notes of many others, warn you against thinking that I have invented a new subtlety here with the zeal and spirit of a conquistador, when, in fact, I am far removed from such an endeavor. We can and must demonstrate this accurately, and all the more so because in that worship the Papists establish the pinnacle of their religion and try by every means to force ours to a similar worship, whereby he looked forward to that harsh decree of the Council of Bordeaux made two years before, concerning the imprisonment of all Reformed men who did not render due honor to the passing Host. The authority of the Holy Council intervened here, and with moderation applied, they decreed that at least the head of the law should be opened [to allow] for their own Divinity, unless they preferred to depart from the way. But it is as certain that our people have always both hated and done this, as it is true they would rather suffer the most fearful things than show any honor to the most offensive idol if there were no opportunity to withdraw.
27. For first, what was either Jupiter Capitolinus in the days of Heathen Rome or Jupiter [Zeus] Olympus in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom the highest honors were bestowed, is the same in the Papal Kingdom, namely, that Christ, or a consecrated host, should be worshipped and carried around in processions in the adoration of latria, which is the highest [worship] in the Papal States (as the Gentiles made their idols, as can be seen in the Epistle of Baruch, chapter 6, which is Canonical in the Papal States), the Council of Trent decreed in session 13, chap. 5. Moreover, Caelius Rhodiginus33, book 16, Antiquarum Lectionum, chap. 14, compares his Mass god, who is briefly separated or summoned from his heavenly seat by the presiding priest, with Jove Elicius [Jupiter Summoned] of the Heathens, whom they summoned from heaven with magical spells.
28. Then, Mauzzim properly signifies strongholds/fortresses and very narrow places whose entrances are fortified, as if you were saying, “Fortress”: hence, perhaps the French word, Magasin [storehouse]. Wherefore the God Maozim is the God of fortresses not from power but from place: whence it is predicted that the Antichrist will build Maozim strong castles and dungeons in which he is placed, as Emanuele Sá, the Jesuit, testifies, and that is most fitting for the Papal Hosts [breaden sacrificial offerings in the Mass]. For although Origen said on Leviticus, chap. 7, “The Lord gave bread to his disciples, saying to them, Take, eat; he did not delay it, nor did he save it until the next day.” And Cyprian or anyone else who is regarded by him as the author of the discourse, On the Lord’s Supper, is received but not included; however, since the dogma of Transubstantiation was approved by the Lateran Council and Innocent III after the year of Christ 1200, they began to designate fortified vaults, sacristies,34 ciboria,35 chests, shrines, sacramental tabernacles, and similar objects intended for idols, in which custody is kept under seal and key as a safeguard, as stated in the Decretals of Gregory [IX], book 3.
29. But these sacred Ciboria, the inner chambers and fortifications for their God which are of their workmanship, these words are inscribed: “Here worship God,” and “Bend the knee,” “this venerable stone,” “Christ the Host,” are properly the ταμεια [stewards], of whom Christ, Matt. 24:26, had predicted that there would be those who would come and say, “Christ is here in the Conclaves,” or “Ciboria,” and at the same time warning them not to believe: For ταμεῖον [secret chamber] properly means a Ciborium and storage compartment, as is seen in Isocrates’ on Demon. and Plutarch’s Symp. 5.
30. It is also predicted that this God Maozim is to be honored in his place or seat36 which, of course, is the true or honorable place, namely the Roman See, or rather the altar itself, upon which it is placed, during the ceremony of the election of the Pope [inaugural Mass] to be adored by Cardinals and others; or consider the place of honor, for this idol receives special honors in its ciboria, altars, corporals,37 and patens.38 For the Hebrew word “Canno” seems to properly signify the paten of the Mass, for Schindler in his Lexicon interprets it as a small round base on which vessels are placed.
31. Indeed, if we wish to refer that relatively to the supreme God about whom Daniel had spoken in verse 36, it will also be true that this idol was to be worshipped in his seat and place, that is, in the same Church as Antiochus had erected a statue of Olympian Jupiter [Zeus] in the temple of Jerusalem. For the Antichrist was [prophesied] to sit there, that is, he would seize the office of the supreme and infallible Teacher and supreme Shepherd and Monarch in the temple of God, that is, in his Church, as Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, in 2 Thess. 2 teach, as well as Jerome in Question 11 to Algasia. Indeed, according to Augustine, book 20, City of God, chap. 19: “he would sit in the Temple of God, which is the Church, as we say, sit in it friendly or as a friend.” This is especially fitting for the Roman Pontiff, who antonomastically calls his authority the Holy See, [See = Seat], and he should not be called anything else except what is properly said of himself, which is to be also said of the Church, as Bellarmine teaches in Book 11, de Concil., chapter 16.
32. The Pontiffs worship that host, with gold, silver, gemstones, and desirable things. The liturgical paraphernalia they call altars, patens, chalices, ciboria, thecas [receptacles] and shrines, are distinguished by gold, gemstones, marble and silk, and who knows what other ornamentations. In the larger cities, whenever the solemn festival of that idol occurs, although it was a very recent institution at the instigation of Urban IV, the author of the reclusive Eve of Leo who uttered revelations, the streets are decorated with carpets and all kinds of precious furniture which are destined for the construction of small shrines in which their Jupiter Stator [Jupiter the Sustainer] may perform his stations. Let Persius the Roman Gentile poet speak: “Tell me, Pontiffs, what is the purpose of gold in the sacred rites? Surely this, that Virgins have dedicated their dolls as gifts to Venus.”
33. Finally, this God [of Daniel’s] is called unknown and foreign [v. 38] in many ways. For the pagans of ancient Rome did not know such idolatry, whereby men devoured the very God whom they adored, (just as Cicero cheerfully reproached the Egyptians in whose gardens their deities grew). Theodoret was permitted to say in both question 55 in Genesis and question 11 in Leviticus there is nothing more foolish than to adore and consider as God that which is eaten. And we can say to the Pontifical Christivores [ i.e., who eat Christ] what Augustine said to the Manichaeans, book 20, Against Faustus, chap. 19 [?] who wanted Christ to be attached to food, “For when you eat your God, you are replenished by his failure, and when you digest him, you are deficient in his restoration.” Nor are the ancient Christians read to have either adored or carried around the Sacrament [in Procession]; nor to have built fortresses and shrines, or in any way acknowledged the foundation of all that idolatry, namely, the dogma of Transubstantiation was comparatively new in the Church, as Scotus himself thought, (refer to Bellarmine, book 3, de Eucharist, chap. 23); [for this doctrine] did not belong to the faith before the [Fourth] Lateran Council [1215].
34. Also, it clearly conflicts with Scripture which teaches that the bread of the Eucharist is the body of Christ not by Transubstantiation but by signification & commemoration, Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-26; 1 Cor. 10:4. Along with the articles of faith concerning the Ascension of Christ into heaven and the nature and truth of His body, John 12:8; Acts 1:11; Luke 14:29; Col. 3:1-2. And with the essence of the Sacrament which is overturned by the annihilation of the sign or element of the bread through transubstantiation, with that spiritual eating which Christ commends to us in the whole of John 6, which is not by pressing with the tooth, as Augustine says, but by believing with the heart. Eph. 3:17; Matt. 4:4. The ancient Fathers taught that the words, This is my body, must be rendered as figurative, as Tertullian speaks against Marcion in book 4. And Christ gave the name of His body and blood to the symbols, not by changing His nature, as Theodoret has in Dialogue 1, but by adding grace to nature. See Augustine’s Epistle 23, which is to Boniface [sic: Maximin], and book 3, On the Doctrine of Christ, chap. 16. Let it suffice to briefly note this, for we do not wish, at this time, to engage in a detailed and in-depth discussion of the controversy over Transubstantiation.
35. This God Maozim or Missaticus [Mass God] is also unknown, because no one can distinguish a consecrated host from an unconsecrated one by certain documentation once mixed together. As a result, those who worship him set up altars to an unknown God, Acts 17:23, as did the Athenians of old, and worship him like the Samaritans, rejecting Christ, who they do not know, John 4:22. For since the entire mystery depends on the intention of the one who consecrates as well as the legitimate ordination of the consecrator, and if these are lacking, transubstantiation will not take place, so no one will ever be able to know with certainty that the host he adores is consecrated, and that it can be adored without the danger of idolatry. Others prefer the conditional adoration expressed thus: “I adore you, if you are God.”
36. Nor do the Pontiffs admit they offend Christ when they build these fortresses and shrines. Bellarmine is also in agreement, book 3, de Pont. Rom., chap. 21. For, in their opinion, Christ’s [warning against] ‘inner chambers’ [of Matt. 24:26] does not refer to these. Nor are they less idolatrous than the Israelites who worshipped Jehovah in a golden calf, Exod. 32:4-5, in that they falsely imagine Christ to be present in the Host in bodily actuality; which was imitated afterwards by Jeroboam in the calves of Dan and Bethel,1 Kings 12:28-29, 2 Kings 10:29, or Micah and his mother similarly worshipped Jehovah himself in their idol, Judg. 17:3-4. They themselves do not deny they are, materially speaking, idolatrous, however, they falsely maintain that such idolatry is not blameworthy of the one who worships an unconsecrated host instead of a consecrated one.
37. Each and every sacrificer also deceives the people by presenting to them a Host to be adored with the utmost veneration, which none of those present can know for certain to be actually consecrated and worthy of that veneration. Indeed, not even the consecrating Priest himself dares or can affirm with indubitable certainty that the Host contains the body of Christ, since he himself does not know for certain that an ordained priest who, with the most sacred breath of his mouth, can immediately make God out of bread (thus becoming the Creator of his Creator, more powerful than the Angels and the Blessed Virgin).
38. It would be better to abstain from the adoration of that host as [the Catholic Church] commands, since there is always in it, or in the admonitions of those who confess it, the danger of idolatry, especially that which they call material [idolatry].39 Those attending [the Mass] base their faith and worship primarily upon the fables told them concerning the [alleged] flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Martin Becanus,40 the Jesuit, establishes in chapter 19, on the Sacraments, question 9, that such worship can also be caused by either a damaged imagination or through the illusion of demons. And so, far be it from us that those [alleged] appearances of Christ’s presence and adorability, if it is permissible to speak thus of the Eucharist, should be the most certain arguments that, contrary to the second argument of Becanus, question 10, Christ ceases to be under those species whenever such a change occurs in their qualities when the [Christ] child [allegedly] appears in flesh or blood, so that the substance of bread and wine cannot be preserved under them.
39. We, therefore, rightly shun such dangerous and uncertain worship, preserving our honor to Christ the Savior intact and undefiled. But the Papists themselves treat Christ with contempt, who through this dogma, with various insults, separate the vomit of mice and dogs, and indeed the wicked devil himself, who, having received a consecrated host, must be compelled to return it through exorcisms – so much so that without the help of exorcists Christ could not be rescued from the clutches of Satan. Indeed, in their Manual of Exorcisms, part 2, p. 210, they demonstrate a special exorcism for compelling demons to restore the Eucharist which had been handed them, who is, according to them, Christ himself.
40. It is absurd that men attempt to make themselves Gods. And what Minutius Felix41 elegantly said about the idol in his Octavius, is particularly appropriate to this one: “Behold, it is cast, it is fashioned, it is carved, it is not yet God: Behold, it is plumbed, it is constructed, it is erected, and it is not yet God. Behold, it is adorned, consecrated, prayed for. Then, finally, God exists, when that man willed and consecrated it. How much more truly do dumb animals – mice, swallows and kites – naturally judge of your gods. They know not to feel, they gnaw, they insult, they intrude, and unless you drive them away, they nest in the very mouth of your God. And spiders weave their webs around his face and hang their threads from his very head. You wipe, clean, shave those whom you make, protect and fear.”
Thus, these things are sufficient in expressing and distinguishing the God Maozim in his own colors.
- Dutch Protestant professor of Hebrew and Theology; (d. 1669). ↩︎
- Roman historian; (d. circa 130 AD). ↩︎
- Joseph bar Chijah was a prominent Jewish historian known for his expert biblical exegesis and Aramaic translation of certain books; (d. 4th century CE). ↩︎
- There are authors who claim the name Rome was first given by Evander. Previously it had been called Valentia, meaning ‘strength.’ He preserved that meaning by calling it Ῥώμη in Greek. ↩︎
- French Franciscan professor at the Sorbonne renowned for his biblical exegesis; (d. 1349). ↩︎
- Flemish Jesuit theologian and exegete; (d. 1637). ↩︎
- Belgian Jesuit biblical scholar; (d. 1636). ↩︎
- Spanish Jesuit philosopher, theologian, and exegete; (d. 1610). ↩︎
- Philip Melanchthon, German Lutheran Reformer and theologian; (d. 1560). ↩︎
- Fransiscus Junius, French Protestant Reformer and theologian; (d. 1602). ↩︎
- Giovanni Diodati, Italian Calvinist theologian and translator; (d. 1649). ↩︎
- Jerome Vignier, French priest learned in the Greek, Chaldaic, Hebrew and Syriac languages; (d. 1661). ↩︎
- French priest and theologian; (d. 1678). ↩︎
- Dutch jurist, scholar, philosopher and theologian; (d. 1645). ↩︎
- Santes Pagnino was an Italian Dominican friar and one of the leading philologists and Biblical scholars of his day; (d. 1536). ↩︎
- Probably referring to Jonathan ben Uzziel, a first century significant figure in Hebrew scholarship. He translated the major and minor prophets into Aramaic. ↩︎
- He was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian; (d. 1235). ↩︎
- He was an Italian Friar Minor, philosopher, theologian and ‘Orientalist.’ ↩︎
- The Roman war god Mars who marches as leader of their armies. ↩︎
- “Also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and to call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place.” ↩︎
- The Great Mother, goddess of fertility, protection and well-being. ↩︎
- Greek historian and geographer; (d. 24 AD). ↩︎
- Bishop of Cyrus, theologian and biblical commentator; (d. 457). ↩︎
- One of the most famous scholars of the Dutch Renaissance; (d. 1655). ↩︎
- See https://testallthings.com/2007/03/19/the-pope-is-claimed-to-be-god-on-earth/ ↩︎
- Portuguese Jesuit priest, theologian and exegete; (d. 1596). ↩︎
- I. e., “those who renounced.” ↩︎
- French Benedictine exegete and Orientalist; (d. 1597). ↩︎
- The controversy involves an alleged quote by Leo X, allegedly cited by Cardinal Bembo: “All ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and our company.” ↩︎
- The Goddess of health and strength. ↩︎
- Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the futurist Christian eschatological view; (d. 1591). ↩︎
- Galatians 2:11. ↩︎
- Venetian writer and professor in Latin and Greek; (d. 1525). ↩︎
- A sacristy is the room in a Catholic church where religious objects and vestments are kept which are used during rituals like Holy Communion [The Mass] are stored. ↩︎
- A ciborium is a goblet-shaped lidded vessel used to hold consecrated wafers in Holy Communion [The Mass]. ↩︎
- The 1599 Geneva Bible has Dan. 11:38 to read “in his place shall he worship the god Mauzzim.” The Zodhiates Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible translates the passage “as for the Almighty God, in his seat he shall honor, yea, he shall honor a god whom his fathers knew not.” ↩︎
- A square while linen cloth placed on top of the altar cloth used during Mass to catch any fragments of the consecrated bread or wine which may fall during the ritual. ↩︎
- A plate made of gold or silver used to hold the bread during Mass. ↩︎
- I. e., worshiping that which is not God. ↩︎
- Dutch Jesuit priest, theologian and controversialist; (d. 1624). ↩︎
- One of the earliest Roman apologists for Christianity; (d. circa 250 AD). ↩︎
Be First to Comment