Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 9: That by No Probability Can It Be Gathered from Chapter 2 of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians That the Roman Pontiff Is Antichrist
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The king afterwards sets about the disputation on Antichrist, which he treats at very great length from page 56 to 114; which disputation Bellarmine could have left untouched without any injury to the king, for the king touches almost nothing in this disputation which he himself has not refuted in book 3 on the Pontiff, which is wholly on Antichrist. Then, the king has borrowed much from Robert Abbot, who lately wrote on Antichrist; to which last year Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes of Cydonia, a Jesuit, answered; which answer we have heard is greatly approved by learned men, especially in Germany, where it was published. Besides, not a few of the things which the king brings forward we find in Thomas Brightman in the explanation of the Apocalypse; which explanation the same Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes took upon himself to refute. Lastly, in this disputation the king sets before readers not certain demonstrations, but his conjectures, or his own sense; for so he prefaces at the beginning of the disputation, page 56: “Certainly, as to the definition of Antichrist, I do not wish to urge a matter so obscure and involved as necessary for all Christians to believe; but what I think of this whole business I shall explain nakedly and simply.” And again at the end of the disputation, page 113: “This,” he says, “I most desire, that if anyone pleases to refute this my conjecture about Antichrist, he answer in order the several parts of my disputation.” He could therefore easily have passed over a disputation refuted by others, and by himself before, and in which it is a matter of conjectures and opinions, not of certain dogmas of the faith; but he wished nevertheless briefly to go through each point, and to set against the king's opinions the opinions of the ancient Fathers, hoping that he would not take it ill if the expositions of the ancient Fathers are preferred to his expositions.
So on page 56, treating those words of the Apostle Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2: Unless there come a revolt first, he takes as settled that those words are to be understood of a universal departure from the faith: “That general departure,” he says, “will be in the Church only in the times of Antichrist, all the papists constantly affirm.” And page 58: “Lest they be seduced,” he says, “fearing, thinking that the day of the Lord was drawing near, Paul says it seemed good to him to forewarn them that a universal departure from the faith would come first.” But it is false that all the papists so think; rather the papists think with the Fathers that that departure will be from the Roman empire. So Saint Cyril, catechesis 15, expounding this passage, says: “The foretold Antichrist will come when the times of the Roman empire are fulfilled.” Saint John Chrysostom in the commentary on this passage: “When,” he says, “the Roman empire has been taken out of the way, then Antichrist will come.” So Tertullian in the Apologeticus, chapter 32; so Lactantius, book 7, chapter 15; so Saint Ambrose on this passage; so Saint Jerome in the epistle to Algasia, question 11; so Saint Augustine, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19. Nor can it be that a universal departure from the faith will come before the coming of Antichrist, because then Antichrist, coming, would not find any to seduce; and the Church of Christ would have wholly perished; which are against the manifest testimonies of the Gospel, the Lord saying, Matthew 24: They shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive, if possible, even the elect; and Matthew 16: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and Matthew 28: I am with you even to the consummation of the world. And so far is it from being true that a general departure from the faith will come before the coming of Antichrist, or while Antichrist reigns, that Saint Augustine says, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 11, that in the time of Antichrist the Church of Christ will suffer through the whole world the greatest persecution from the city of the devil, and yet will persevere in the faith, and not desert her warfare. From which the king can understand that Antichrist has not yet come, since before his coming a general departure from the Roman empire must take place; which departure has not yet taken place, since the Roman emperor still remains, to whom the king himself sent his monitory preface, saying: To the most sacred and most invincible Prince and Lord Rudolf II, Roman Emperor ever Augustus.
Then on page 58 the king treats those words of the same passage: “The man of sin, the son of perdition, shall lift himself up above all that is called God.” And he strives to prove that this is the Roman Pontiff, because he is lifted up above princes and prelates, who are called gods, according to that: I have said, You are gods, Psalm 81. But the answer is easy. For Antichrist will lift himself up not only above those who are called gods by a certain likeness or participation, such as are ecclesiastical or temporal princes, but above all that is called God, that is, above every god, whether by essence or by participation, whether false or true; which Daniel wrote more clearly, chapter 11: He shall not regard the God of his fathers, nor care for any of the gods, because he shall rise up against all. But the Roman Pontiff, by the doctrine of Catholics, is the Vicar of God, and thereby is not lifted up above God; by the doctrine of the Protestants he worships as many gods as there are saints in heaven, as there are images in churches, as there are relics in tombs; therefore neither by the opinion of Catholics nor of heretics does he lift himself up above all that is called God; and thereby he is not the man of sin, is not the son of perdition, is not Antichrist. Third, on the same page, he treats those words of the same chapter: “So that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.” And for the temple he says the bosom and inner parts of the Church are to be understood. And that the Pontiff sits in the Church as God he strives to prove because, as he himself says, the Pope forgives sins, redeems souls, defines articles of faith, is the censor and judge of all men, himself to be judged by no one. But that the seat of Antichrist will not be the Catholic Church, but the temple of Solomon, which he will try to restore, or certainly another temple in the city of Jerusalem, is known from Apocalypse 11, where Antichrist is said to be going to reign in that city in which the Lord was crucified; which by the consent of all is Jerusalem. Second, from the most ancient Fathers; for Saint Irenaeus, book 5, speaks thus: “When Antichrist shall sit in the temple at Jerusalem, then will the Lord come.” The same has Saint Hippolytus the martyr in the oration on the consummation of the world; Saint Cyril, catechesis 15; Saint Hilary, canon 25 on Matthew; Saint Martin in Sulpicius, book 2 of the dialogues; Saint Ambrose on chapter 21 of Luke. Further, Saint John Chrysostom, and those who follow him, Theodoret and Theophylact, say indeed that Antichrist will sit in the churches of Christians, which he will occupy and profane; but they add also that he will sit in the temple of Jerusalem. For so Chrysostom speaks in the commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2: “He will order himself to be worshipped as God, and to be set in the temple, not that of Jerusalem only, but also in the churches.” Saint Jerome in the epistle to Algasia, question 11, and Saint Augustine, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19, expound it a little otherwise, but do not deny that Antichrist will sit in the temple of Jerusalem. There is one, Oecumenius, who, expounding this passage, denies that Antichrist will sit in Jerusalem; but the passage seems corrupted by the omission of the particle only. For this author is accustomed always to follow Chrysostom; but neither is he to be made so much of, since he is a recent author, as to be set before Saint John Chrysostom and the others cited. Add lastly that, since Antichrist is to be received by the Jews as the Messiah, as the Fathers commonly teach, without doubt he will set up his palace at Jerusalem. From which it follows that the Roman Pontiff can by no colour be called Antichrist, who has never sat at Jerusalem, nor been held by the Jews for the Messiah. Nor does the Pope show himself to be God because he forgives sins, redeems souls, defines articles of faith, judges all, himself to be judged by no one; for he forgives sins not by his own authority, but by the ministry of the sacraments. He does not properly redeem souls, but teaches that sins are to be redeemed by alms, according to that of Daniel 4: Redeem thou thy sins with alms. He does not properly make articles of faith, but declares which are the articles of faith, according to the Scriptures and the Apostolic traditions. He judges all men, himself to be judged by no man, yet to be judged by God, and to give account before the tribunal of Christ of his own deeds with the rest of men; therefore he neither is God, nor makes himself God, who names himself the servant of the servants of God. I pass over that on page 58 the king labours much to prove what we do not deny, that the Apostle speaks of an Antichrist to come after many times.
Fourth, on page 59, treating those words of the same chapter: Whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth, the king writes that by these words is signified that the power of Antichrist is little by little lessened by the preaching of the word of God; which is the old interpretation of Luther, a thousand times refuted by Catholics. But it is a wonder how variously the adversaries play with the word of the Lord; for now they say Antichrist is to be killed by the word of the Lord; now on the contrary they say the word of the Lord is to be killed by Antichrist; for Robert Abbot, and the king himself on page 81, openly writes that the two prophets to be killed by Antichrist, as is written in Apocalypse 11, are the two Testaments, that is, the word of God written in the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Then, the sword of the word of God must be very blunt, or certainly the spirit of Christ's mouth very weak, if the Lord Jesus has not yet been able with that sword or spirit of his to dispatch Antichrist, reigning, by the opinion of the adversaries, above a thousand years. But, they say, the Lord Jesus through his preachers has weakened the power of Antichrist; but Scripture does not say, will weaken, but, will kill. It is better, then, to hear the holy and ancient Fathers, who by the spirit of Christ's mouth understand not the preaching of the word of God, which is wont to be applied for salvation, not for destruction, but the power and command of Christ, who will kill Antichrist even by a mere nod. Saint Jerome in the epistle to Algasia, question 11: “Whom the Lord Jesus,” he says, “shall kill with the spirit of his mouth, namely by his divine power and the command of his Majesty, whose to have ordered is to have done.” Saint John Chrysostom, homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians: “As fire rushing on everywhere terrifies and consumes small creatures even before it fully arrives, while still set at a distance; so Christ too, it will suffice only that he command and be present, and all these things will perish.” So he.
Fifth, on the same page, treating those words of the same chapter: Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, he tries to show that our Church is Antichristian, because she boasts innumerable miracles, which nevertheless are contrary to her own doctrine; and he sets the example of a miracle which Bellarmine mentions in book 3 on the Eucharist, chapter 8, that a beast of burden, forgetting its fodder, adored the Sacrament with bended knees: “And yet,” says the king, “Bellarmine will certainly blush to say that the most holy Sacrament was instituted for sheep and oxen and the beasts of the field to adore.” But that the miracles which are done in the Catholic Church are not lying wonders we hold for certain, from this, that they are of the same kind as those which the Prophets and Apostles and Christ the Lord himself did. Nor are the miracles of the Church in any way opposed to our doctrine, but wonderfully confirm it; for although the most holy Sacrament was not instituted to be adored by creatures without reason, yet when that happens, God, to whom nothing is impossible, moving the limbs of those creatures beyond the order of nature so that they seem to adore the Sacrament, without doubt that adoration shows that the presence of the Lord is in the Sacrament. A miracle of that kind, done at the prayers of Saint Anthony, even if it is now laughed at by the king, nevertheless brought it about before a huge multitude that the Catholic faith triumphed over the Sacramentarian heresy. For the same God brought it about that a hungry beast, the fodder shown it being neglected, should run to show reverence to the most holy Sacrament, who brought it about that cows with calf and untamed, their calves left behind, without any driver carried the ark of the Lord, and turned aside neither to the right nor to the left, 1 Kings 6; and who brought it about that a beast without reason once spoke, and reproved the folly of a prophet, Numbers 22; and who commanded the whale to carry Jonah three days in its belly, and a little after to vomit him up unharmed on the shore, Jonah 2; and who ordered the ravens to carry bread and flesh to Elijah twice a day, 3 Kings 17; and who ordered the hungry lions not to touch Daniel lying among them, Daniel 6. Nor yet was the ark of the Lord instituted for this, to be carried by untamed cows; nor prophets instituted to be admonished by a beast, or fed by ravens, or kept in the belly of a whale as in a prison, or guarded untouched by hungry lions.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX.
Nulla probabilitate ex cap. ii. Epist. secundae
ad Thessal. colligi posse Romanum Pontifi¬
cem esse Antichristum,
Agreditur postea rex disputationem de
Antichristo, quam fusissime tractat a pag. 63.
ad 1 14. {a) quam disputationem Bellarminus
sine ulla regis injuria, intactam relinquere
potuisset, nihil ferre in hac disputatione
rex attingit, quod ipse in lib. m. de Pontifi¬
ce, qui totus est de Antichristo, non refuta¬
verit.
Deinde multa rex ex Roberto Abbato, qui
nuper de Antichristo scripsit, mutuatus est :
ad quse anno superiore respondit Andreas
Eudemon Joannes Cydonius Jesuita, quam
responsionem doctis viris, praesertim in Ger¬
mania, ubi edita est, valde probari accepi¬
mus.
Praeterea non pauca eorum, quse rex ad¬
ducit, invenimus apud Thomam Brigman-
num in explicatione Apocalypsis ; quam ex¬
plicationem idem Andreas Eudemon Joannes
sibi refellendam desumpsit.
Denique in hac disputatione rex non certas
demonstrationes, sed conjecturas suas, vel
sensum suum lectoribus proponit, sic enim
initio disputationis prsefatur pag. 56 : « Sa¬
ne, inquid, quod ad definitionem Antichristi
nolo rem tam obscuram, et involutam tam¬
quam omnibus Christianis ad credendum ne¬
cessariam urgere, sed quid de toto hoc ne¬
gotio sentiam, nude, et simpliciter explica
bo. » Et rursum in extrema disputatione
pag. 113 : « Id, inquit, mihi maxime in votis
est, ut si cui hanc meam de Antichristo con¬
jecturam libebit refellere, singulis disputa¬
tionis mese partibus ordine respondeat. »
Poterat igitur disputationem ab aliis, at¬
que a se antea refutatam, et in qua de con¬
jecturis et opinionibus, non de certis fidei
dogmatibus agitur, facile prseterire : sed
voluit tamen breviter singula persequi, et
sententiis regis sententias veterum Patrum
opponere, sperans non eum moleste laturum,
si Patrum veterum expositiones ipsius expo¬
sitionibus anteferantur.
Igitur pag. 56. tractans verba illa Apostoli
(a) Cur disputatio de Antichristo nova responsione non egeat.
APOLOGIS CAP. IX.
167
Pauli II Thessal. ii : Nisi venerit discessio pri¬
mum (1) : accipit ut exploratum, ea verba in-
telligenda esse de universali discessione a fi¬
de: « Discessionem, inquit, illam generalem
tantum Antichristi tempoiabus fore in Eccle¬
sia omnes Pontificii constanter affirmant. »Et
pag. 58. « Ne seducerentur, inquit, veritus,
diem Domini appropinquare existimantes, ait
Paulus, visum esse sibi prmmonere eos, uni¬
versalem a fide discessionem ante ventu¬
ram. »
Atqui (a) falsum est omnes Pontificios ita
sentire : quin potius Pontificii sentiunt cum
Patribus, discessionem illam fore a Romano
imperio. Sic S. Cyrillus Catechesi 15. hunc
locum exponens ait : « Veniet praedictus A n-
tichristus, cum impleta fuerint tempora Ro¬
mani imperii. » S. Joannes Chrysostomus in
commentario hujus loci : « Quando, inquit,
de medio sublatum fuerit Romanum impe¬
rium, tunc veniet Antichristus. » Sic Tertul¬
lianus in Apologetico cap. 32. sic Lactantius
lib. vir. cap. 15. Sic S. Ambrosius in hunc
locum. Sic S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Al-
gasiam qusest. 1 !. Sic S. Augustinus lib. xx.
de Civit. Dei cap. 19.
Neque potest fieri, ut universalis discessio
a fide sit futura ante adventum Antichristi,
quia tunc Antichristus adveniens, non inve¬
niret q os seduceret : et Christi Ecclesia om¬
nino periisset, quae sunt contra manifesta
Evangelii testimonia, dicente Domino Matth.
xxiv. Dabunt prodigia , et signa magna, ita
ut in errorem inducantur , si fieri potest etiam
electi. Et Matth. xvi. Portae inferi non prae¬
valebunt adversus eam. Et Matth. xxvm. Ego
vobiscum sum usque ad mundi consummatio¬
nem (2). Tantum autem abest, ut verum sit,
discessionem a fide generalem futuram esse
ante adventum Antichristi, vel Antichristo
regnante ; ut S. Augustinus dicat lib. xx.
de Civ. cap. 11 tempore Antichristi, Eccle¬
siam Christi toto orbe passuram persecutio¬
nem maximam a civitate Diaboli ; et tamen
perseveraturam in fide, nec deserturam mi¬
litiam suam.
Ex quo intelligere potest rex, Antichristum
nondum venisse, cum ante ejus adventum
discessio generalis fieri debeat a Romano
imperio : quae discessio nondum facta est,
cum adhuc maneat Romanus imperator, ad
quem rex ipse misit monitoriam praefationem
suam dicens : Sacratissimo, et invictissimo
principi ac domino Rodolpho II Rom. imper.
semper Augusto.
Deinde pag. 58. tractat rex illa verba ejus¬
dem loci : « Homo peccati, filius perditionis,
extollet se super omne quod dicitur Deus. »
Et probare nititur hunc esse Romanum Pon¬
tificem, quia extollitur super principes, et
praelatos, qui dicuntur dii juxta illud : Ego
dixi dii estis. Psalm. lxxxi.
Sed facilis est responsio. ( b ) Antichristus
enim non extollet se tantum super eos, qui
dicuntur dii per quamdam similitudinem,
vel participationem, quales sunt principes
Ecclesiastici, vel temporales; sed super om¬
ne quod dicitur Deus id est, super omnem
Deum, sive per essentiam, sive per partici¬
pationem ; sive falsum, sive verum : quod
clarius scripsit Daniel cap. xi. Deum Patrum
suorum non reputabit , nec quemquam deorum
curabit , quia adversum universa consurget.
Romanus autem Pontifex ex doctrina Ca¬
tholicorum Vicarius Dei est, ac per hoc noti,
extollitur super Deum : ex doctrina Prote-
stantium, tot deos colit, quot sunt Sancti in
Coelo, quot sunt imagines in templis, quot
sunt reliquiae in sepulcris : ergo neque ex
sententia Catholicorum, neque haereticorum
extollit se super omne quod dicitur Deus : ac
per hoc non est homo peccati, non est filius
perditionis, non est Antichristus.
Tertio eadem pag. tractat verba illa ejus¬
dem capitis : « Ita ut in templo Dei sedeat,
ostendens se tamquam sit Deus. » Ac pro
templo dicit esse intelligendum sinum, et
penetralia Ecclesiae. Sedere autem Pontifi¬
cem in Ecclesia tamquam Deum, probare
nititur, quia, ut ipse dicit, Papa peccata
condonat, animas redimit, fidei articulos de¬
finit, omnium hominum censor, et judex est,
ipse a nemine judicandus.
At (c) sedem Antichristi non fore Eccle¬
siam Catholicam, sed templum Salomonis,
quod instaurare conabitur ; aut certe aliud
templum in civitate Hierusalem, notum est
in Apoc. xi. Ubi Antichristus regnaturus
dicitur in ea urbe, in qua Dominus crucifi¬
xus est : quse omnium consensu Hierosolyma
est.
Secundo ex Patribus antiquissimis : nam
(1) Thes. II, 3. — (2) Matth. XXIV, 24; Matth. XVI, 18 ; Matth. XXVIII, 20.
(a) Non loquitur Paulus de discessione a fide u. Thess. n. — (b) Quo sensu Antichristus, extollet
se super omnem Deum. — (c) Quce sit futura sedes Antichristi.
1G8
APOLOGIS CAPUT IX.
S. Irenseus lib. v. sic. ait : u Cum Antichri-
tus sederit in templo Hierosolymis, tunc ve¬
niet Dominus. » Idem habet S. Hippolytus
martyr in oratione deMundi consummatione;
Sanctas Cyrillus Catechesi 15. S. Hilarius
can. 25. Matthaei ; Sanctus Martinus apud
Sulpitium lib. ii. dialogorum ; Sanctus Am¬
brosius in cap. xxi Lucae. Porro sanctus Jo-
annes Chrysostomus, et qui eum sequuntur,
Theodoretus, et Theophylactus, dicunt qui¬
dem Antichristum sessurum in Ecclesiis
Christianorum, quas occupabit, et propha-
nabit ; sed addunt etiam eum sessurum in
templo Hierosolymitano. Sic enim Chryso¬
stomus loquitur in comment. ad II Tessal. n :
a Jubebit seipsum pro Deo coli, et in templo
collocari, non Hierosolymitano solum, sed
etiam in Ecclesiis. » Sanctus Hieronymus in
epist. ad Algasiam qusest. II. Et S. Augusti¬
nus lib. xx. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. paulo ali¬
ter exponunt, sed non negant, Antichristum
sessurum in templo Hierosolymorum. Unus
est OEcumenius, qui hunc locum exponens
negat, Antichristum sessuruni in Hierusalem;
sed videtur locus depravatus, omissione par¬
ticulae, tantum. Hic enim auctor perpetuo
sequi solet Chrysostomum ; sed neque tanti
faciendus est, cum sit auctor recens, ut S.
Joanni Chrysostomo, et aliis citatis antepo¬
nendus sit.
Adde postremo, quod cum Antichristus sit
a Judaeis pro Messia recipiendus, ut Patres
communiter docent, sine dubio regiam suam
in Hierosolymis constituet. Ex quo sequitur,
Romanum Pontificem nullo colore Antichri¬
stum posse dici, qui numquamin Hierosoly¬
mis sedit, neque a Judaeis pro Messia habitus
est.
(a) Neque vero Deum se esse Papa de¬
monstrat, quia peccata condonait, animas
redimit, articulos fidei delinit, judicat omnes,
ipse a nemine judicandus : nam peccata con¬
donat, non auctoritate propria, sed ministe¬
rio Sacramentorum. Animas non proprie re¬
dimit, sed peccata eleemosynis redimere
docet, juxta illud Danielis iv. Peccata tua
eleemosynis redime. Articulos fidei non pro¬
prie condit, sed qui sint articuli fidei, juxta
scripturas, Apostolicasque traditiones de¬
clarat. Judicat omnes homines, ipse a nullo
homine judicandus, sed judicandus tamen a
factis propriis cum eseteris hominibus reddi¬
turus ; proinde neque Deus est, neque Deum
se facit, qui servum servorum Dei se nomi¬
nat. Omitto quod pag. 58. rex multum labo¬
rat, ut probet, quod nos non negamus, Apo¬
stolum loqui de Antichristo venturo post
multa tempora.
Quarto pag. 59. tractans illa verba ejusdem
capitis : Quem Dominus Jesus interficiet
spiritus oris sui , scribit rex, per haec verba
significari, Yerbi Dei praedicatione potentiam
Antichristi paulatim minui : quae est antiqua
Lutheri interpretatio a Catholicis millies re¬
futata. Sed mirum est, quam varie ludant
adversarii in Yerbo Domini : nunc enim di¬
cunt Yerbo Domini Antichristum interficien¬
dum ; nunc vero contra, verbum Domini ab
Antichristo interficiendum dicunt : nam Ro-
bertus Abbatus, et rex ipse pag. 81. aperte
scribit, duos Prophetas ab Antichristo inter¬
ficiendos, ut scribitur Apocalyp. xi esse duo
testamenta, id est, verbum Dei scriptum in
libris testamenti veteris, et testamenti novi.
Deinde valde hebetem gladium verbi Dei esse
oportet, vel certe valde debilem spiritum
oris Christi, si Antichristum supra mille an¬
nos regnantem, ex opinione adversariorum,
adhuc Dominus Jesus isto suo gladio, vel
Spiritu conficere non potuit.
At, inquiunt, Dominus Jesus per praedi¬
cantes suos, potentiam Antichristi debili¬
tavit, sed Scriptura non dicit debilitabit,
sed interficiet. Satius igitur est audire San¬
ctos, ac veteres Patres, (6) qui per Spi¬
ritum oris Christi, non intelligunt praedica¬
tionem verbi. Dei, quae ad salutem, non ad
perditionem adhiberi solet ; sed potestatem
atque imperium Christi, qui vel solo nutu
Antichristum interficiet. S. Hieronymus in
epist. ad Algasiam quaest. 1 1 : « Quem Do¬
minus Jesus, inquit, interficiet spiritu oris
sui, divina videlicet potestate, et suae Maje¬
statis imperio, cujus jussisse fecisse est. »
S. Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 4. in II ad
Thess. « Quemadmodum ignis irruens pas-
sim minuta animalcula etiam antequam pla¬
ne adveniat, procul adhuc situs terrefacit, et
consumit : ita et Christus, sufficiet solum
jubere, atque adesse illum, atque ista omnia
peribunt. » Haec ille.
Quinto eadem pag. tractans illa verba
ejusdem capitis : Cujus est adventus se-
Deo, et ante tribunal Christi rationem de
(a) Solvuntur objectiunculce hcereticorum. — (b) Quo sensu Dominus Jesus interficiet Antichri¬
stum spiritu oris sui.
I
APOLOGLE CAP. X.
169
eundum operationem Satanae in omni vir¬
tute ( a ) et signis, et prodigiis mendacibus;
conatur ostendere, Ecclesiam nostram esse
Antichristianam , quia jactet innumerabilia
miracula, quae tamen sint contraria suae ip¬
sius doctrinae, et ponit exemplum miraculi,
cujus meminit Bellarminus lib. m. de Eu¬
charistia cap. 8. quod oblitum jumentum
pabuli Sacramentum curvatis genibus ado¬
ravit : <c Et tamen, inquit rex, certe erube¬
scet dicere Bellarminus, institutum esse San¬
ctissimum Sacramentum, quod adorent oves,
et boves, et pecora campi. »
At miracula, quae fiunt in Ecclesia Catho¬
lica, non esse prodigia mendacia, pro com¬
perto habemus, ex eo quod ejusdem sunt
generis cum iis, quae faciebant Prophetae, et
Apostoli, et ipse Christus Dominus. Neque
miracula Ecclesiae adversantur ullo modo
nostrae doctrinae, sed eam mirifice emi ar¬
mant : quamvis enim non sit institutum san¬
ctissimum Sacramentum, ut ab animantibus
rationis expertibus adoretur : tamen cum id
fit, Deo cui nihil impossibile est, praeter na¬
turae ordinem, membra animantium illorum
movente, ut Sacramentum adorare videan¬
tur, sine dubio praesentiam Domini in Sa¬
cramento adesse, adoratio illa demonstrat.
Ejusmodi miraculum factum precibus
S. Antonii, etiamsi a rege nunc rideatur, ef¬
fecit tamen coram ingenti multitudine, ut
fides Catholica de Sacramentaria haeresi
triumpharet. Idem enim Deus feciti ( b ) ut
jumentum famelicum , pabulo sibi ostenso
neglecto ad reverentiam sanctissimo Sacra¬
mento exhibendam accurreret ; qui fecit,
ut vaccae foetae et indomitae, dimissis vitulis,
sine ullo rectore arcam Domini ferrent, nec
declinarent ad dexteram, neque ad sinistram
I Reg. vi. Et qui fecit, nt jumentum ratio¬
nis expers aliquando loqueretur, et Prophe¬
tae insipientiam redargueret. Num. xxn. Et
qui ceto mandavit, ut Jonam tribus diebus
in ventre suo gereret, ac paulo post incolu¬
mem ad littus evomeret, Ion. ii. Et qui
corvis praecepit, ut ad Eliam panes, et carnes
bis in die deferrent. III Reg. xvn. Et qui Leo-
hus famelicis jussit, ut Danielem inter ipsos
cubantem, non attingerent. Dan. vi. Nec ta¬
men arca Domini ad hoc instituta erat, ut a
vaccis indomitis deferretur ; nec Prophetae
instituti, ut a jumento admonerentur ; vel a
corvis pascerentur ; vel in ventre ceti, tam¬
quam in carcere detinerentur ; vel a fameli¬
cis leonibus intacti custodirentur.