Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 2: That Antichrist Will Be One Certain Man
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).
Now as concerns the second point, we agree with the adversaries in one thing, and differ in another. We agree in this, that as the name of Christ is taken in two ways — sometimes properly for a certain eminent and singular Christ, who is Jesus of Nazareth; sometimes commonly for all those who have a likeness to Christ as regards anointing, in which way Prophets, and Kings, and Priests are all called Christs, Psalm 104, Touch not my christs — so also the name of Antichrist is sometimes taken properly for a certain eminent enemy of Christ, of whom there is treatment in 2 Thessalonians 2, John 5, and elsewhere; but sometimes commonly for all who in any way oppose Christ. For 1 John 2 we read: You have heard that Antichrist cometh; and now there are become many Antichrists — that is, you have heard that Antichrist will come, and now, although that singular Antichrist has not yet come, yet many seducers have already come, who also can be called Antichrists.
But we differ concerning Antichrist properly so called, whether he is one singular man. For all Catholics think that Antichrist will be one certain man; whereas all the heretics cited above teach that Antichrist properly so called is not a singular person, but a singular throne, or tyrannical Kingdom, and the apostatic seat of those who preside over the Church.
The Magdeburgians, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 435: “The Apostles teach,” they say, “that Antichrist will not be one person only, but a whole kingdom, procured through false Doctors presiding in the temple of God, that is, in the Church of God, in the great city, that is, in the Roman city, by the work of the Devil, and by fraud and deception.” Thus they. Like things are in the others cited above.
Their reasons are these. The first: Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, says that already in his time Antichrist had begun to be at work in the World: For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; and yet in the same place he says that Antichrist is to be slain by Christ at the end of the World. Hence Beza concludes thus, on 2 Thessalonians 2: “They are manifestly deluded, whoever thought this understood of some one man, unless they give me some one who remains surviving from the age of Paul down to the day of judgment.” Similarly argues Calvin in the place cited. This reason is confirmed from John, who in his first epistle, chapter 4, says: Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
The second reason of Beza: Because Daniel, chapter 7, by the singular names of beasts — a Bear, a Lion, a Leopard — does not understand singular Kings, but singular Kingdoms, each of which contains many Kings. Therefore in the same way Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, who marvelously agrees with Daniel, by the man of sin and the son of perdition does not understand one singular person, but as it were a certain body of many tyrants.
The third reason of Calvin: on 1 John chapter 2, where he says that they rave and willingly err who believe that Antichrist will be one certain man, since Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, wrote that an Apostasy would come, and its head would be Antichrist; for Apostasy is a certain general defection from the Faith, which indeed makes one body and one Kingdom, and is not a matter of a few years, so as to be completed under one King.
These things notwithstanding, the truth is that Antichrist will be one singular man; which is proved from all the Scriptures and Fathers who treat of Antichrist. The places of Scripture are five. The first is in the Gospel of John 5: I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. These words Musculus and Calvin, in Marlorat's Commentary on this place, will have understood of false Prophets in general, not of any one; but their explanation is at war with the ancient Fathers and with the text itself. For that these words are said of one Antichrist, Chrysostom and Cyril on this place testify; likewise Ambrose on 2 Thessalonians 2, Jerome in his letter to Algasia, question 11, Augustine tract 29 on John, Irenaeus Book 5 against the heresy of Valentinus, Theodoret in the Epitome of the divine decrees, chapter on Antichrist, and others.
Moreover here the Lord opposes to Himself another man — that is, person to person, not Kingdom to Kingdom, nor sect to sect — as is plain from those words: I, another, in my name, in his own name, me, him. As therefore Christ was one and singular man, so also Antichrist will be one and singular man. Next, Christ here says that Antichrist is to be received by the Jews for the Messiah; but it is established that the Jews expect one certain and singular man. Likewise, all false Prophets came in the name of another, not in their own name. Jeremiah 14: The prophets prophesy falsely in my name: I sent them not, etc. But here the Lord speaks of a certain one who will come in his own name — that is, who will acknowledge no God, but will lift up himself, as Paul says, above all that is called God. Finally, very many false Prophets had come before the coming of Christ, and very many were also to come afterward; the Lord therefore would not have said If another shall come, but Many come, if He had wished to speak of false Prophets.
The second place is Paul's, 2 Thessalonians 2: Unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, etc. And below: And then that wicked one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. These words even the adversaries understand of the true Antichrist; but the Apostle speaks of a certain particular person, as is plain from the Greek articles: [apokalyphthē ho anthrōpos tēs hamartias, ho huios tēs apōleias] [the man of sin, the son of perdition]. And below: [kai tote apokalyphthēsetai ho anomos] [and then that lawless one shall be revealed]. For, as Epiphanius teaches, heresy 9, which is that of the Samaritans, the Greek articles contract the signification to one certain thing, so that [anthrōpos] signifies man in general, but [ho anthrōpos] a singular man. And it is truly strange that none of the adversaries, who yet boast a knowledge of tongues, noticed this.
The third is 1 John 2, where we read thus: [ēkousate hoti ho antichristos erchetai, kai nyn antichristoi polloi gegonasin] [you have heard that Antichrist cometh, and now there are become many Antichrists], where he prefixes the article to Antichrist properly so called, but without the article he utters the name of Antichrist commonly taken — most plainly indicating that Antichrist properly so called is one certain person, but Antichrist commonly taken is not a certain person, but in general all heretics.
The fourth is Daniel, chapters 7, 11, and 12, where he speaks of Antichrist, as Jerome and Theodoret teach on that place, Irenaeus Book 5, and Augustine Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 23, and Calvin, the Magdeburgians, and Beza, as above. But there Antichrist is not called one Kingdom, but a certain one King, who out of ten Kings whom he will find in the World will altogether take away three from the midst, and will subject to himself the other seven. Add that Calvin says that Daniel speaks literally of Antiochus the illustrious, and allegorically of Antichrist, whose figure Antiochus bore — which Cyprian too teaches, in his book on the exhortation to martyrdom, chapter 11, and Jerome on Daniel chapters 11 and 12. But Antiochus the illustrious must be a certain person.
The fifth and last place is Apocalypse 13 and 17, which places are understood of Antichrist, as Irenaeus teaches, Book 5, and is plain from the likeness of the words of Daniel and John. For each makes mention of ten Kings who will be on the earth when Antichrist comes, and each foretells that the reign of Antichrist will last three years and a half, etc. As therefore Daniel speaks of one certain King, so also John in the Apocalypse.
The same is proved from the Fathers, who by common consent teach of Antichrist: first, that he will be the most chosen instrument of the Devil, so that in him will dwell all the fulness of diabolical malice bodily, just as in the man Christ dwells all the fulness of the Divinity bodily; secondly, that Antichrist will not reign but three years and a half; and accordingly they teach that Antichrist will be only one man. See Irenaeus, Book 5 near the end; Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 15; Chrysostom on 2 Thessalonians 2; Theodoret on chapter 7 of Daniel; Lactantius in the Epitome of the divine Institutes, chapter 11; Ambrose on chapter 21 of Luke; Jerome on chapter 7 of Daniel, and question 11 to Algasia; Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God through many chapters, and on Psalm 9; Gregory, Book 32 of the Morals, chapter 12; Damascene, Book 4, chapter 28; and Hippolytus the Martyr in his Oration on the consummation of the World.
To the first argument of Beza I answer: in the time of the Apostles Antichrist began secretly to spread, not in his own person, but in his precursors. For as Christ began to come from the origin of the World in the Patriarchs and Prophets, who ran before Him and signified Him, so that it can be said that from the beginning of the World the mystery of piety began to work, and yet He did not come in His own proper person until He took flesh of blessed Mary — so Antichrist, soon after Christ was taken up into heaven, began to come in his precursors, and to work the mystery of iniquity, namely in the heretics and tyrants persecuting the Church, and especially in Simon Magus, who called himself Christ, and in Nero, who first began to assail the Church; and nevertheless he will not come in his own person until the end of the World. And so the spiritual persecution of Simon Magus, and the temporal persecution of Nero, is called the mystery of iniquity, because they were signs and figures of the persecution of Antichrist.
That this is the true explanation of the Pauline place can be proved in two ways. First, from all the Interpreters of that place; for all, by the mystery of iniquity in Paul, understand either the persecution of Nero, as Ambrose and Chrysostom on this place, and Jerome, question 11 to Algasia; or the heretics, who secretly deceive, as Theodoret and Sedulius on this place, and Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19. Secondly, by a reason drawn from the confession of the adversaries; for they say that Antichrist is properly the Seat of the Roman Pontiff.
If therefore Antichrist properly so called was born in the time of the Apostles, it follows that Peter and Paul were Antichrists properly so called, though hidden; and that Nero, or Simon Magus, was the true Christ. For it is established that in the time of the Apostles there were at Rome no other Bishops than Peter and Paul; for Irenaeus expressly affirms, Book 3, chapter 3, that the Roman See was founded by Peter and Paul, and that they sat first as Bishops in it. Which same all the Ancients teach, whom we cited above. It is established also that both Simon Magus and Nero fought with the Apostles Peter and Paul.
But if it does not please the adversaries that Peter and Paul were Antichrists, and Simon and Nero the true Christ, they are forced to confess that in the time of the Apostles Antichrist did not exist in himself, but only in a certain type of himself. From which the consequence of Beza — by which he inferred that Antichrist could not be one man, unless we granted one man who lived from the times of the Apostles down to the end of the World — is shown to be ridiculous.
To the confirmation I say: John speaks in the manner in which the Lord speaks of Elijah, Matthew 17: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things: but I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not — that is, Elijah in his own person is to come, but Elijah has already come in his like, that is, in John the Baptist.
To the second argument it is denied, first, that Daniel always by singular beasts understands singular kingdoms; for by one beast he sometimes signifies one kingdom, as chapter 7, where by the Lion he understands the kingdom of the Assyrians, by the Bear the kingdom of the Persians, by the Leopard the kingdom of the Greeks, and by another unnamed beast the kingdom of the Romans; and sometimes one King, as chapter 8, where by the Ram he understands Darius the last King of the Persians, by the He-goat Alexander the Great. Next, the consequence of the argument is denied. For Paul by the Man of sin does not understand any one of the four beasts described by Daniel, but understands that little horn which in Daniel prevailed over the ten horns of the fourth beast — that is, that one King who from a small beginning so grew that he subjugated to himself all the other Kings.
To the last argument I answer in many ways, that it may be understood how impudently Calvin wrote that they willingly err who from that argument of his do not gather that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist. First, by Apostasy in Paul, Antichrist himself can most rightly be understood: for so teach by common consent the Greek interpreters, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, and besides Saint Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19. Now Antichrist is called Apostasy, both by metonymy, because he will be to many the cause of departing from God; and also by a certain excellence, for he will be so signal an Apostate that he could be called Apostasy itself.
Secondly, by Apostasy can be taken the defection from the Roman empire, as many of the Latins expound — as Ambrose, Sedulius, and Primasius. For, as we will demonstrate in the following chapter, Antichrist will not come before the Roman Empire utterly perishes.
Thirdly, if we admit that by Apostasy is understood the defection from the true Faith and religion of Christ (as Calvin holds), yet we are not on that account constrained by any straits. For it is not necessary that Paul speak of an Apostasy of many centuries; for he could have spoken of a certain greatest and singular Apostasy, which will be only in that very short time in which Antichrist will reign. And that this place was so understood by many of the Ancients, Augustine writes in the place noted, that is, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19; who probably taught that, when Antichrist appears, absolutely all hidden or feigned Christian heretics will go over to him, and from that there will then be the greatest Apostasy, such as had not been before.
Fourthly, if we grant Calvin that Paul speaks of an Apostasy of many centuries, still he will obtain nothing; since we shall be able to say that that Apostasy does not necessarily pertain to one body and kingdom of Antichrist, nor require one head, but is a disposition toward the kingdom of Antichrist, and is made in various places, under various Kings, on various occasions — as now we see that Africa has fallen away to Mohammed, a great part of Asia to Nestorius and Eutyches, and other provinces to other sects.
Fifthly and last, if we should grant Calvin that a general Apostasy from the Faith, lasting now many years, is the kingdom of Antichrist, it would not straightway follow that the Pope is Antichrist; for still the question would have to be treated, who have fallen away from the Faith and religion of Christ — we, or they; that is, the Catholics, or the Lutherans. For although they themselves say that it is we who have fallen away, yet they have not yet proved it, nor has it been declared so by any common judge.
And indeed we can much more easily prove that the Lutherans are those who have fallen away, than they prove that the Catholics have fallen away; since that they fell away from the Church in which they were before, not even they themselves deny. For, to pass over the rest, Erasmus Sarcerius, on that of 2 Thessalonians 2, Then shall that wicked one be revealed, ingenuously confesses that almost all the predecessors of the Lutherans, and himself too at one time, obeyed the Roman Pontiff. And so they themselves fell away from the Church and religion of their predecessors; but that we have fallen away from any Church they have neither thus far demonstrated, nor will they ever be able to demonstrate. Since therefore they read in Paul, Unless there come a departure, or apostasy, and that wicked one be revealed, etc., and consider that they have departed from the Church in which they were, but that we persevere always in the same institutions, it is a wonder if they do not at least fear that Paul spoke of their very selves.
From this second chapter we have the second argument to prove that the Pontiff is not Antichrist; for if Antichrist is only one person, but the Pontiffs have been and will be many, endowed with the same dignity and power, certainly Antichrist is to be sought elsewhere than in the Roman See.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. ' Antichristum certum quemdam hominem futurum. Jam quod ad secundum attinet , nos cum adversariis in uno convenimus, in altero dis¬ crepamus. Convenimus in eo, quod sicut no¬ men Christi accipitur dupliciter , interdum propriepro quodam eximio et singulari Chris¬ to, qui est Jesus Nazarenus : interdum com¬ muniter pro his omnibus , qui habent cum Christo similitudinem quantum ad unctio¬ nem, quomodo Prophetae, etReges et Sacer¬ dotes omnes dicuntur Christi, Psal. CIV. No¬ lite tangere Christos meos (1) ; ita etiam no¬ men Antichristi interdum accipi proprie pro quodam eximio Christi hoste, de quo agitur II. ad Thessal. II. Jo. V, et alibi : interdum vero communiter pro omnibus qui quoquo modo Christum oppugnant. Nam I. Jo. II, legimus : Audistis, quia Antichristus venit , et nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt (2) , id est, audistis venturum Antichristum, et nunc li¬ cet ille singularis Antichristus nondum ve¬ nerit, tamen multi seductores jam venerunt, qui etiam Antichristi dici possunt. At dissentimus de Antichristo proprie dic¬ to, an ille sit unus homo singularis. Catho¬ lici enim omnes ita sentiunt, fore Antichris¬ tum unum quemdam hominem ; ut haeretici omnes supra citati docent , Antichristum proprie dictum non esse singularem perso¬ nam , sed singularem thronum , sive Reg¬ num tyrannicum, ac sedem apostaticam eo¬ rum qui Ecclesiae praesident. Magdeburgenses Cent. I. lib. II. cap. 4. coi. 435 : « Docent Apostoli, inquiunt, An¬ tichristum non fore unam tantum personam, sed integrum regnum , per falsos Doctores in templo Dei, id est, in Ecclesia Dei praesi¬ dentes, in urbe magna , id est, in Romana civitate, opera Diaboli, et fraude, ac decep¬ tione comparatum. » Haec illi. Similia sunt apud alios supra citatos. Rationes eorum hae sunt. Prima, Paulus II. Thes. II. dicit, jam suo tempore coepisse in Mundo versari Antichristum : Mysterium, inquit, jam operatur iniquitatis (3), et tamen ibidem dicit , Antichristum in fme Mundi a Christo occidendum. Hinc ita concludit Be- za in II. Thessal. II : « Manifeste sunt hallu- cinati, quicumque de uno quopiam homine putarunt hoc intelligi, nisi dent mihi quem¬ piam, qui a Pauli saeculo ad diem usque ju¬ dicii superstes maneat. » Similiter argu¬ mentatur Calvinus loc. cit. Confirmatur haec • ratio ex Joan. qui in epist. I, cap. IV. dicit: Omnis spiritus , qui solvit Jesum , ex Deo non est , et hic est Antichristus, de quo audistis quo¬ niam venit, et nunc jam in mundo est (4). Secunda ratio Bezae est. Quoniam Daniel cap. VII. singularibus nominibus bestiarum, Ursi, Leonis, Pardi, non intelligit singulares Reges, sed singula Regna , quorum unum¬ quodque multos Reges continet. Igitur eo¬ dem modo Paulus II. Thess. II , qui mire cum Daniele consentit, per h ominem peccati et filium perditionis non intelligit unam sin¬ gularem personam, sed quoddam quasi cor¬ pus multorum tyrannorum . Tertia ratio Calvini est , in cap. II, I. Jo., ubi ait, delirare et sponte errare eos, qui unum certum hominem futurum credunt Antichristum, cum Paulus II. Thessal. II. scripserit, Apostasiam venturam, et ejus ca¬ put Antichristum futurum : siquidem Apos¬ tasia est generalis quaedam defectio a Fide, quae quidem unum corpus, et unum Regnum facit, et non est res paucorum annorum, ut sub uno Rege compleri possit. His non obstantibus, veritas est, Antichris¬ tum fore unum singularem hominem : id (1) Psal. CIV, 15. — (2) I. Joan. II, 18. — (3) II. Thessal. II, 7. — (4) I. Joan. IV, 3. quod probatur ex omnibus Scripturis et Pa¬ tribus, qui de Antichristo agunt. Scripturae loca sunt quinque. Primus est in Evang. Jo. Y : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei , et non re¬ cepistis me , si alius venerit in nomine suo , il¬ lum recipietis (1). Haec verba de falsis Pro¬ phetis in generali, non de uno aliquo intelli- gi volunt Musculus et Calvinus apud Mario- ratum in Com. hujus lpci: sed eorum expli¬ catio cum antiquis Patribus et cum ipso tex¬ tu pugnat. Nam haec verba dicta esse de uno Antichristo, testantur Chrysostomus, et Gyrillus in hunc locum ; item Ambrosius in II. Thessal. II. Hieronymus in epist. adAlga- siam, quaest. 11. Augustinus tract. 29. inJo. Irenaeus lib. Y, cont. haer. Yalentini; Theo- doretus in Epit. divin. decret. cap. de Anti' christo et alii. Praeterea hic Dominus opponit sibi alium hominem, hoc est, personae personam , non Regnum Regno, neque sectam sectae, ut pa¬ tet ex illis vocibus : Ego , alius , in nomine meo , in nomine suo , me, illum ; sicut ergo Christus unus et singularis homo fuit; ita et Antichristus unus et singularis homo erit. Deinde, Christus hic dicit, Antichristum a Judaeis pro Messia recipiendum: constat au¬ tem, Judaeos unum certum et singularem hominem expectare. Item, omnes falsi Pro¬ phetae venerunt in nomine alterius , non in nomine suo. Hiere. XIY : Falso Prophetoe vaticinantur in nomine meo , non misi eos etc. (2) At hic Dominus loquitur de uno quo¬ dam, qui veniet in nomine suo , id est, qui non agnoscet Deum aliquem, sed extollet se, ut Paulus ait, supra omne quod dicitur Deus. Denique, failsi Prophetae permulti venerant ante Christi adventum : permulti etiam pos¬ tea venturi erant; non igitur Dominus dixis¬ set : Si alius venerit , sed multi veniunt, si de falsis Prophetis loqui voluisset. Secundus locus est Pauli ll.Thess. II: Ni¬ si venerit discessio primum , et revelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius perditionis etc. Et infra : Et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus interficiet Spiritu oris sui (3). Ilaec ver¬ ba etiam adversarii intelligunt de vero An¬ tichristo , sed Apostolus loquitur de certa quadam et particulari persona , ut patet ex articulis Graecis : «7rox«^ycp0vj 6 uoQpomoz rvj; ip.ctprl.xg 6 vtog Tvj? amusias. Et infra : /ai TOT£ a7roxataw0v)<7£Tat 6 avogo; ; ut enim docet Epi- phanius haer. 9. quae est Samaritanorum, articuli Graeci contrahunt significationem ad unam rem certam , ita ut av0pw7ro5 significet hominem in communi , at 6 xuQpoi nog homi¬ nem singularem. Et sane mirum est, nullum adversariorum, qui tamen jactant linguarum peritiam, hoc animadvertisse. Tertius est I. Joan. II. ubi sic legimus : •/iy.ovgkzz orto Kvriypicrog ipyjrxt, /at vOv ctvriypttT— r ot tto/Xoi qzqoitous tv , ubi articulum praeponit Antichristo proprie dicto : sine articulo ve¬ ro effert nomen Antichristi communiter ac¬ cepti , apertissime indicans , Antichristum proprie dictum esse unam personam certam Antichristum communiter acceptum, non es¬ se certam personam , sed in genere omnes haereticos. Quartus est, Daniel. YI1, XI et XII. cap. ubi loquitur de Antichristo, ut docent Hiero¬ nymus et Theodoretus in eum locum. Ire- neeus lib. Y et Augustinus lib. XX de Civit. Dei, cap. 23. et Calvinus, Magdeburgenses, et Beza , ubi supra. Ibi autem Antichristus non vocatur unum Regnum , sed unus qui¬ dam Rex , qui ex decem Regibus , quos in Mundo inveniet, tres omnino tollet e medio, et alios septem sibi subjiciet. Adde , quod Calvinus dicit , ad litteram Danielem loqui de Antiocho illustri , et allegorice de Anti¬ christo cujus figuram gerebat Antiochus : quod etiam docet Cyprianus lib. de exhort. martyr, cap. 11, et Hieronymus in Danielis XI et XII. cap. Sed Antiochus illustris certa quaedam persona esse debet. Quintus et ultimus locus est Apoc. XIII et XYII, quae loca intelligi de Antichristo , do¬ cet Irenaeus lib. Y, et perspicuum est ex si¬ militudine verborum Danielis et Joannis. Uterque enim mentionem facit decem Re¬ gum, qui erunt in terra quando veniet An¬ tichristus, et uterque Antichristi regnum tri¬ bus annis cum medio duraturum praedicit etc. Sicut ergo Daniel de uno certo Rege lo¬ quitur, ita et Joannes in Apocalypsi. Idem probatur ex Patribus , qui communi consensu de Antichristo docent. Primo, eum fore instrumentum Diaboli electissimum, ita ut in eo inhabitet omnis plenitudo diaboli¬ cae malitiae corporaliter , sicut in homine Christo, habitat, omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter. Secundo, Antichristum non re¬ gnaturum nisi tres annos cum medio; ac proinde docent , Antichristum unum homi¬ nem tantum futurum. Vide Irenaeum lib. V (1) Joan. V, 43. — (2) Jerem. XIV, 14. —(3) II. Thessal. II, 3 et 8. cir. fin. Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum catech. 15. Chrysostomum in II. Thessal. II. Theo- doretum in cap. VII Danielis; Lactantium in Epit. div. Instit. cap. 11. Ambrosium in cap. XXI Lucae ; Hieronymum in cap. VII Danielis, et quaest. 11. ad Algasiam : Augus¬ tinum lib. XX de Civit.- Dei, per multa capi¬ ta , et in Psal. IX , Gregorium lib. XXXII Moral. cap. 12. Damascenum lib. IV, c. 28. et Hippolytum Martyrem in Orat, de consum. Mundi. Ad primum argumentum Bezse respondeo : tempore Apostolorum occulte grassari coe¬ pisse Antichristum, non in sua persona, sed in suis praecursoribus. Sicut enim Christus venire caepit ab origine Mundi in Patriar¬ chis et Prophetis, qui eum praecurrebant, et significabant, ita ut dici possit , a principio Mundi coepisse operari mysterium pietatis ; et tamen in sua propria persona non venit, nisi quando carnem de B. Maria suscepit : ita Antichristus mox post Christum in coe¬ lum assumptum coepit venire in suis praecur¬ soribus , et mysterium operari iniquitatis, nimirum in haereticis et tyrannis Ecclesiam persequentibus, ac praecipue in Simone Ma¬ go, qui se Christum dicebat, et in Nerone, qui primus Ecclesiam oppugnare coepit , et nihilominus in propria persona non veniet, nisi in fine Mundi. Itaque persecutio spiri¬ tualis Simonis Magi, et temporalis Neronis, dicitur mysterium iniquitatis , quia signa erant et figurae persecutionis Antichristi. Hanc esse veram loci Paulini explicatio¬ nem, dupliciter probari potest. Primo , ex omnibus Interpretibus ejus loci : omnes enim per mysterium iniquitatis apud Pau¬ lum intelligunt, vel Neronis persecutionem, ut Ambrosius et Chrysostomus in hunc lo¬ cum, et Hieronymus quaest. 11. ad Algasiam: vel haereticos, qui clam decipiunt, ut Theo- doretus et Sedulius in hunc locum , et Au¬ gustinus lib. XX de Civit. Dei, cap. 19. Se¬ cundo, ratione desumpta ex confessione ad¬ versariorum : illi enim dicunt, Antichris¬ tum esse proprie Sedem Romani Pontificis. Si ergo Antichristus proprie dictus natus est tempore Apostolorum ; sequitur, Petrum et Paulum fuisse proprie dictos Antichristos, licet occultos : et Neronem , vel Simonem Magum, fuisse verum Christum. Constat enim, tempore Apostolorum non fuisse Ro¬ mae alios Episcopos quam Petrum et Pau¬ lum : diserte enim affirmat Irenaeus lib. 111, cap. 3. a Petro et Paulo Sedem Romanam fundatam, et primos in eaEpiscopos sedisse. Quod idem omnes Veteres docent, quos su¬ pra citavimus. Constat etiam, tam Simonem Magum , quam Neronem cum Apostolis Pe¬ tro et Paulo dimicasse. Quod si adversariis non placet, Petrum et Paulum fuisse Antichristos , et Simonem et Neronem verum Christum; coguntur fa¬ teri, tempore Apostolorum non exstitisse An¬ tichristum in se , sed solum in suo quodam typo. Ex quo, consequentia Bezae, qua effi¬ ciebat , non posse Antichristum esse unum hominem , nisi daremus unum hominem, qui viveret a temporibus Apostolorum us¬ que ad finem Mundi , ridicula esse ostendi¬ tur. Ad confirmationem dico : Joannem loqui eo modo , quo loquitur Dominus de Elia, Matth. XVII : Elias quidem venturus est, et restituet omnia : dico autem vobis , quia Elias jam venit , et non cognoverunt eum (1), id est, Elias in sua persona venturus est, sed jam Elias venit in suo simili, id est, in Joanne Baptista. Ad secundum argumentum , negatur in primis, quod semper Daniel per singulares bestias intelligit singula regna : nam per unam bestiam interdum significat unum re¬ gnum, ut cap. VII , ubi per Leonem intelli¬ git regnum Assyriorum, per Ursum regnum Persarum, per Pardum regnum Graecorum; per aliam bestiam innominatam regnum Ro¬ manorum : interdum unum Regem, ut cap. VIII, ubi per Arietem intelligit Darium Re¬ gem Persarum ultimum; per Hircum Ale¬ xandrum Magnum. Deinde, negatur conse¬ quentia argumenti. Nam Paulus per Homi¬ nem peccati non intelligit aliquam ex quatuor bestiis a Daniele descriptis, sed intelligit il¬ lud cornu parvulum , quod apud Danielem praevaluit decem cornibus quartae bestiae, id est , unum illum Regem , qui ex modico adeo crevit , ut omnes alios Reges sibi sub¬ jugaverit. Ad postremum argumentum respondeo multis modis, ut intelligatur quam impu¬ denter scripserit Calvinus eos sponte errare, qui ex illo suo argumento non colligunt, Romanum Pontificem esse Antichristum . Primo, per Apostasiam rectissime apud Pau¬ lum ipse Antichristus intelligi potest : sic (I) Matth. XVII, 11 et 12. / nec ab ullo communi judice id declaratum est. Et sane multo facilius nos probare possu¬ mus Lutheranos esse qui defecerunt, quam ipsi Catholicos defecisse probant. Siquidem eos defecisse ab Ecclesia, in qua prius erant ne ipsi quidem negant. Nam, utcsetera prae¬ termittam, Erasmus Sarcerius in illud II. Thess. II. Tunc revelabitur ille iniquus (1) in¬ genue confitetur, omnes fere praedecessores Lutheranorum, et se etiam aliquando Ro¬ mano Pontifici paruisse. Itaque defecerunt ipsi a praedecessorum suorum Ecclesia et religione : nos vero ab aliqua Ecclesia de¬ fecisse, nec hactenius demonstrarunt, nec unquam demonstrare poterunt. Cum igitur apud Paulum legunt : Nisi venerit discessio, seu apostasia, et . revelatus fuerit ille iniquus etc. et se cogitant discessisse ab Ecclesia, in qua erant, nos autem in iisdem sernper institutis perseverare ; mirum est, si non saltem metuunt, ne de se ipsis Paulus sit locutus. Ex hoc II. cap. habemus secundum argu¬ mentum ad probandum, Pontificem non esse Anti christum ; si enim Antichristus una tan¬ tum persona est , Pontifices autem multi fuerunt et erunt, eadem dignitate et potes¬ tate praediti ; certe alibi quaerendus est Anti¬ christus, quam in Romana Sede. enim docent communi consensu Graeci inter¬ pretes, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Theo- phylactus, et QEcumenius, et praeterea S. August. lib. XX. de Civit. Dei, cap. 19. Di¬ citur autem Antichristus Apostasia , tum per metonymiam, quia multis causa erit recedendi a Deo : tum etiam per excellen¬ tiam quamdam, erit enim tam insignis Apos¬ tata, ut apostasia ipsa dici posset. Secundo , per Apostasiam potest accipi defectio a Romano imperio, ut exponunt multi Latinorum ; ut Ambrosius, Sedulius, et Primasius. Nam, utinsequ. cap. demons¬ trabimus, non antea veniet Antichristus, quam omnino intereat Romanum Imperium. Tertio, si admittamus, per Apostasiam in- telligi defectionem a vera Christi Fide et religione (ut Calvinus ostendit) non tamen propterea ullis angustiis constringimur. Nam non est necesse , ut Paulus loquatur de Apostasia multorum seculorum ; potuit enim loqui de Apostasia quadam maxima et sin¬ gulari, quae solum erit in illo brevissimo tempore, quo Antichristus regnabit. Atque ita hunc locum intellectum fuisse a multis Veteribus, scribit Augustinus loc. not. hoc est, XX. de Civit. Dei, cap. 19 qui probabili¬ ter docebant, A ntichristo apparente, omnes omnino haereticos occultos, seu fictos Chris¬ tianos ad eum accessuros, et ex eo Aposta¬ siam maximam, qualis antea non fuerat, tunc futuram. Quarto, si concedamus Calvino, loqui R. Paulum de Apostasia multorum seculorum, adhuc nihil ipse obtinebit : siquidem dicere poterimus, eam Apostasian non necessario ad unum corpus et regnum Antichristi per¬ tinere, nec postulare unum caput, sed esse dispositionem ad regnum Antichristi, et in variis locis, sub variis Regibus, variis occa¬ sionibus fieri, ut nunc cernimus, defecisse Africam ad Mahumetum, Asiae magnam par¬ tem ad Nestorium et Eutychetem, aliasque provincias ad alias sectas. Quinto ac postremo, si daremus Calvino, generalem Apostasiam a Fide, et multis jam annis durantem esse regnum Antichristi; non continuo sequeretur, Papam esse Anti- christum : nam adhuc quaestio tractanda es¬ set, quinam defecerint a Fide et religione . Christi ; nosne, an illi, id est, Catholici, an Lutherani. Nam etsi dicant ipsi, nos esse qui defecimus, tamen nondum probarunt,