Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 1: The Disputation on Antichrist Is Proposed
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Antichristo, On Antichrist (On the Roman Pontiff, Book III). 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).
We have demonstrated thus far that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter in the supreme principality of the whole Church. It remains to see whether at any time the Roman Pontiff has fallen from that grade; for the adversaries contend that there is at this time no true Bishop at Rome, whatever there may have been before. And indeed Nilus, at the end of his little book against the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, speaks thus: “But let this be the sum and head of my discourse: so long as the Pope keeps the fitting, heavenly, and anciently instituted order in the Church; so long as he holds and guards the heavenly truth; and so long as he cleaves to Christ, the supreme and true Lord and Head of the Church — I will readily grant that he is both the Head of the Church and the supreme Priest, and the successor of Peter, or even, if it please, of all the Apostles, and that all obey him, and that nothing which pertains to his honor be diminished. But if he has departed from the truth, and will not return to it, he deservedly ought to be held for condemned and rejected.” Thus he.
But he ought to have shown into what errors the Roman Pontiffs have fallen, and when, and by whom they were condemned; for we know that in the general Council of the Lateran under Innocent III, and of Lyons under Gregory X, and of Florence under Eugene IV, the Greeks, convicted of error, returned to the Faith of the Latins, and afterward always returned to their vomit, and therefore were most grievously punished by God; but that the Latins ever came to the Faith of the Greeks we nowhere read. Nor can any Ecclesiastical judgment be brought forward against the Latins, as we bring forward many against the Greeks.
Now Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, § 23: “Let all those things be true,” he says, “which nevertheless we have already wrung from them — that Peter was constituted by the voice of Christ the Head of the universal Church, and that he deposited the honor conferred on him in the Roman See; that this was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient Church, confirmed by long use; that the supreme power was always owed to the Roman Pontiff by all, and that he was the judge of all causes and men, subject to the judgment of no one; let them have even more, if they will. Yet I answer in one word: none of these avails, unless there be at Rome a Church and a Bishop.” And below, § 24: “Let the Romanists solve me this knot: I deny that their Pontiff is the Prince of Bishops, since he is not a Bishop.” And below: “Let Rome have been, of old, the mother of all Churches; but from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist, it ceased to be what it was.” And below, § 25: “We seem to some too railing and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist; but those who think this do not understand that they charge Paul with immodesty, after whom we speak, nay, out of whose mouth we so speak. And lest anyone object that we wrongly wrest Paul's words, which pertain to another matter, to the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can be understood of nothing but the Papacy.” Thus he.
Like things all the heretics of this time teach, and especially Luther in the Supputation of times, and in the Assertion, articles 28 and 36, and elsewhere passim. Likewise the Magdeburgians, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 434 and following, and in all the following Centuries, chapters 4, 7, and 10. Illyricus in his book on the primacy; David Chytraeus on chapters 9 and 13 of the Apocalypse. Likewise Wolfgang Musculus in his Common Places, title on the Church; Theodore Beza on 2 Thessalonians 2; Theodore Bibliander in his Chronicle, tables 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; Henricus Pantaleon in his Chronology; Henricus Bullinger in the preface to his homilies on the Apocalypse; and before all these, John Wyclif, article 30 (among those condemned in the Council of Constance, session 8), pronounced the Pontiff to be Antichrist.
That this question, therefore, may be diligently explained, nine heads must be treated. First, of the very name of Antichrist. Second, whether Antichrist is one man, or a kind of men. Third, of the time of his coming and death. Fourth, of his proper name. Fifth, from what Nation he is to be born, and by whom chiefly he is to be received. Sixth, where he will fix his seat. Seventh, of his doctrine and morals. Eighth, of his miracles. Ninth, of his kingdom and battles. From all these it will appear most clearly with how great impudence the heretics make the Roman Pontiff Antichrist; to which we will add a chapter in which we will prove that the Roman Pontiff not only is not Antichrist, but has not in any way ceased to be the Bishop and Pastor of the whole Church — so that nothing may remain undissolved of the objections of Calvin.
As to the first: some of the adversaries teach that the name of Antichrist properly signifies the Vicar of Christ, and accordingly that the Pope, who asserts himself the Vicar of Christ, is himself Antichrist. So teaches Wolfgang Musculus in his Common Places, chapter on the power of ministers; and he proves it because that word [anti] signifies in place of, whence also in place of Christ; just as [antistratēgos] signifies him who thrusts himself forward for a General, that is, who wishes to be held the Vicar of a General. The Magdeburgians too, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 433, teach that the Pope is therefore truly Antichrist, because he makes himself the Vicar of Christ.
But without doubt they are deceived, or try to deceive. For the name of Antichrist cannot in any way signify the Vicar of Christ, but only someone contrary to Christ — and contrary not in any manner whatever, but so that he contends with Him for the Seat and dignity of Christ; that is, one who is the rival of Christ, and wishes to be held Christ, He being cast down who truly is Christ.
That this is the signification of this name is proved in three ways. First, because among the Greeks that word [anti] properly signifies opposition; and since not only those things are said to be opposed which fight among themselves, but also those which are of equal force, hence it came to pass that [anti] in composition sometimes signifies contrariety, sometimes equivalence, but never subordination — as is plain in the examples of all such names: [antipalos] signifies a rival in wrestling; [antidoton], a contrary remedy; [antiphrasis], a contrary expression; [antistrophos], an equivalent; [antitheos], equal to God; [anticheir] is the thumb, because it is set over against, and is equivalent to, the whole rest of the hand; and so of the rest. But Vicar does not signify opposition, but subordination to another; and therefore it cannot be expressed by the word [anti].
Moreover that [antistratēgos] does not signify the Vicar of a General, but ordinarily a contrary General; just as [antistrateuomai] is to make war, and sometimes means him who is in the place of a General, not as subject to him, but as equal — in the way that among the Latins Propraetor or Proconsul does not signify the Vicar of a Praetor or Consul, but him who is in some province that which the Praetor or Consul is in the city. And in this Musculus was deceived; for because he read in Budaeus that [antistratēgos] signifies Propraetor, he himself thought it signifies the Vicar of a Praetor, which is false.
Secondly, the same is proved from Scripture. For although this name were of itself ambiguous, yet as it is taken in Scripture it is not ambiguous; and our question ought not to be of the word [antichristos] absolutely, but as it is taken in the Scriptures. Now in the Scriptures he is called Antichrist who is lifted up above all that is called God, 2 Thessalonians 2 — which certainly is not to be a Vicar, but an enemy of Christ the true God. And 1 John 2, Antichrist is said to be he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ — that is, who denies that Jesus is the Christ, in order to sell himself for Christ. And Matthew 24, Antichrist is said to be about to affirm that he himself is Christ, which surely belongs not to a Vicar but to a rival.
Finally, thirdly, from all the authors who have written of Antichrist, and from the common sense of all Christians, who by Antichrist understand a certain eminent Pseudo-christ. In which way also Damascene expounds this word from the ancient Greeks, Book 4 on the Faith, chapter 28; and in the same way Jerome expounds it from the Latins (who yet was most skilled also in the Greek tongue), letter 11 to Algasia. Finally, in like manner Henricus Stephanus expounds it in his Thesaurus of the Greek tongue — who yet is one of the number of the Genevan heretics. Hence we have the first argument against the adversaries. For since the name of Antichrist signifies the enemy and rival of Christ, and the Roman Pontiff confesses himself the servant of Christ, and subject to Christ in all things, and in no way says that he himself is Christ, nor makes himself equal to Him, it is manifest that he is not Antichrist.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT I. Proponitur disputatio de Antichristo. Demonstravimus hactenus, Romanum Pon¬ tificem Petro succedere in summo totius Ec¬ clesiae principatu. Restat ut videamus, num aliquo tempore Romanus Pontifex ab isto gradu exciderit ; id enim adversarii conten¬ dunt , non esse hoc tempore Romae verum Episcopum , quidquid antea fuerit. Et qui¬ dem Nilus ad finem libelli sui contra prima¬ tum Romani Pontificis ita loquitur : « Sed summa caputque mei sermonis illa sit , do¬ nec Papa in Ecclesia convenientem, coeles¬ tem , olimque institutum ordinem servat : donec veritatem coelestem tenet ac tuetur; et donec Christo summo veroque Ecclesiae Domi¬ no et Capiti adhaeret, facile patiar, eum et Ca¬ put Ecclesiae esse et summum Sacerdotem, et 'Petri, veletiam si libet, omnium Apostolorum successorem esse, omnes ei obedire, ac nihilo id quod ad ejus honorem pertinet diminui : sed si a veritate discessit, nec ad eam redire vult, merito pro damnato rejectoque haberi debet. » Haec ille. Sed debuisset ostendere , in quos errores inciderint Romani Pontifices, et quando, et a quibus damnati fuerint : scimus enim in Concilio generali Lateranensi sub Innocen- tio III, et Lugdunensi sub Gregorio X, et Florentino sub Eugenio IV, Graecos erroris convictos ad Fidem Latinorum rediisse , ac deinde ad vomitum suum semper esse re¬ versos , ac propterea a Deo gravissime pu¬ nitos : Latinos autem ad Fidem Graecorum venisse nusquam legimus. Nec ullum pro¬ ferri potest Ecclesiasticum judicium contra Latinos , ut nos proferimus multa contra Graecos. Jam vero Calvinus lib. IV Inst. cap. 7, §. 23 : « Sint, inquit, vera illa omnia , quae ta¬ men illis jam extorsimus, Petrum voce Chris¬ ti constitutum fuisse universae Ecclesiae Ca¬ put, ipsumque honorem sibi collatum in Ro¬ mana Sede deposuisse , id veteris Ecclesiae auctoritate fuisse sancitum, longo usu confir¬ matum, Romano Pontifici summam potesta¬ tem fuisse semper ab omnibus debitam, ip¬ sumque fuisse omnium et causarum et homi¬ num judicem, nullius judicio subjectum fuis¬ se; habeant etiam plura si velint. Respondeo tamen uno verbo , nihil istorum valere, nisi Romae sit Ecclesia et Episcopus. » Et infra, §. 24 : « Hunc nodum mihi solvant Roma¬ nenses : nego ipsorumPontificem esse Epis¬ coporum Principem , cum non sit Episco¬ pus. » Et infra : « Fuerit sane olim Roma omnium Ecclesiarum mater ; verum ex quo Antichristi sedes fieri coepit , desiit esse id quod erat. » Et infra §. 25 : «Videmur non¬ nullis nimis maledici ac petulantes, cum Ro¬ manum Pontificem vocamus Anti christum : sed qui hoc sentiunt non intelligunt, se Pau¬ lum immodestiae insimulare, post quem nos loquimur, imo. ex cujus ore sic loquimur. Ac ne quis objiciat nos Pauli verba, quae alio pertineant, perperam torquere in Romanum Pontificem , breviter ostendam , non aliter quam de Papatu intelligi posse. » Haec ille. Similia docent omnes haeretici hujus tem¬ poris ; ac praecipue Lutherus in Supputat. temp. et in Assert. art. 28 et 36. et alibi pas- sim. Item Magdeburgenses Gentur. I , lib. II, cap. 4 , coi. 434. et. sequ. et in omnibus seq. Gentur. cap. 4, 7 et 10. Illyricus in lib. de prim. David Chytraeus in cap. 9 et 13. Apocal. Item Wolfgangus Musculus in loc. commun. tit. de Eccles. Theodorus Beza in Gom. II. Thessal. II. Theodorus Bibliander in Ghron. tabui. 10, 11, 12, 13, et 14. Hen- ricus Pantaleon in Chronol. Henricus Bul- lingerus praefat. in suas hom. ad Apocal. et ante hos omnes Joannes Wiclef art. 30. inter eos qui damnantur in Concilio Constantien- si, ses. 8. Pontificem esse Antichristum pro¬ nuntiavit. Ut igitur quaestio haec diligenter explice¬ tur, novem capita tractanda erunt. Primum de ipso nomine Antichristi. 2. An Antichris- tus sit unus homo ,' an genus hominum. 3. De tempore adventus et mortis ejus. 4. De nomine ejus proprio. 3. Ex qua Gente nasci- turus sit, et a quibus praecipue suscipiendus. 6. Ubi sedem suam fixurus. 7. De doctrina et moribus ejus. 8. De miraculis ejus. 9. De regno et praeliis ejus. Ex his omnibus claris¬ sime apparebit, quanta impudentia haeretici Pontificem Romanum Antichristum faciunt, quibus addemus caput, quo probabimus, Ro¬ manum Pontificem non solum non esse An¬ tichristum, sed nec ullo modo desiisse esse Episcopum et Pastorem totius Ecclesiae , ut nihil remaneat non dilutum ex objectionibus Calvini. Quod ad primum attinet, aliqui ex adver¬ sariis docent, nomen Antichristi proprie si¬ gnificare Christi Vicarium : ac proinde Pa¬ pam qui se Christi Vicarium asserit , ipsum esse Antichristum. Ita docet Wolfgangus Musculus in loc. cap. depot. ministr. et pro¬ bat, quia illa vox avri significat Vice; unde et vice Christi ; sicut avucrraar»!- 70 ? significat eum, qui pro Duce se obtrudit, id est, qui Vicarius Ducis vult haberi. Mag¬ deburgenses etiam Centur. I, lib. II, cap. 4, coi. 433. docent , Papam ideo verum esse Antichristum , quia se Christi Vicarium fa¬ cit. At sine dubio falluntur, vel fallere conan¬ tur. Nomen enim Antichristi non potest ullo modo significare Vicarium Christi, sed solum aliquem Christo contrarium , et contrarium non quomodocumque, sed ita, ut cum eo de Sede et dignitate Christi certet, id est, qui sit aemulus Christi, et velit haberi Christus, dejecto eo qui vere est Christus. Hanc esse hujus nominis significationem, probatur tripliciter. Primo, quia apud Grae¬ cos illa vox dvri , proprie significat opposi¬ tionem, et quoniam opponi dicuntur non so¬ lum ea quae pugnant inter se ; sed etiam ea, quae aequipollent, inde factum est, ut cari in compositione interdum significet contrarie- tatem, interdum aequivalentiam , nunquam autem subordinationem, ut patet in exemplis omnium talium nominum, ocurinoch? , signifi¬ cat aemulum in lucta; «vtiSotov , contrarium remedium, ari^pcurig, contrariam locutionem; uvriarpoyog, eequivalenlem, ariQzog, aequalem Deo ; mri^stp, est pollex, quia e regione op¬ ponitur , et aequivalet toti reliquae manui, et sic de caeteris. Vicarius autem non signi¬ ficat oppositionem, sed subordinationem ad aliud ; et ideo non potest exprimi per vocem cari. Porro illud ar^rpur^oi;, non significat Vi¬ carium Ducis, sed ordinarie contrarium Du¬ cem; sicut «vri(TT/3aT£uop«j : est bellum infero, et interdum eum qui est loco Ducis, non ut illi subjectus, sed ut aequalis; quomodo apud Latinos Propraetor, vel Proconsul non signi¬ ficat Vicarium Praetoris , vel Consulis sed eum qui est in aliqua provincia id quod est Praetor, vel Consul in urbe : et in hoc decep¬ tus est Musculus ; quia enim legit apud Bu- daeum ariurpocm^ significare Propraetorem, putavit ipse , significare Vicarium Praetoris, quod est falsum. Secundo idem probatur ex Scriptura. Nam etiamsi hoc nomen esset ex se ambiguum, tamen ut in Scriptura accipitur non est ambiguum, et nostra quaestio non debet esse de voce ari%piarro; absolute, sed ut in Scrip¬ turis accipitur : porro in Scripturis Anti- christus dicitur is, qui extollitur super omne, quod dicitur Deus , II ad Thessal. II. (I) quod certe non est esseVicarium, sed hostem Chris¬ ti veri Dei. Et I. Jo. II. Antichristus dicitur esse is, qui negat Jesum esse Christum (2), id est, qui negat Jesum esse Christum , ut se- ipsum pro Christo venditet. EtMatth.XXIV. Antichristus dicitur affirmaturus , se ipsum esse Christum, quod sane non est Vicarii sed aemuli. Denique tertio, ex omnibus auctoribus qui de Antichristo scripserunt , et ex communi sensu omnium Christianorum, qui per Anti- (1) II. Thessal. II, 4. — (2) I. Joan. II, 22. christum intelligunt eximium quemdam Pseudochristum. Quomodo etiam exponit hanc vocem ex veteribus Graecis, Damasce¬ nus lib. IV de Fid. cap. 28. et eodem modo exponit Hieronymus ex Latinis , qui tamen etiam Graecae linguae peritissimus fuit, quae. 11. ad Algasiam. Denique, similiter exponit in suo Thesau¬ ro linguae Graecae Henricus Stephanus , qui tamen unus est de numero haereticorum Ge- nevensium. Hinc habemus argumentum pri¬ mum contra adversarios. Nam cum Antichris¬ ti nomen significet hostem et aemulum Chris¬ ti, et Romanus Pontifex se Christi famulum, et Christo subjectum in omnibus fateatur, non autem Christum se ullo modo esse di¬ cat, neque illi se parem faciat; manifestum est, eum non esse Antichristum.