Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 3: It Is Shown That Antichrist Has Not Yet Come
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).
As to the third point, on the time of the coming of Antichrist, many false suspicions and many errors have arisen, both of Catholics and of heretics — but with this difference, that the Catholics, knowing that Antichrist will not come but at the end of the World (which is the truth), yet erred in this, that they thought the end of the World nearer than it really was; but the heretics erred in this, that they think Antichrist will come long before the end of the World, and has in fact already come. Let us speak, then, of each error.
First of all, all the Ancients, marking the malice of their times, suspected that the times of Antichrist were imminent. So the Thessalonians, in the time of the Apostles, thought the day of the Lord was at hand, whom the Apostle corrects, 2 Thessalonians 2. Likewise Cyprian, Book 3, letter 1: “Antichrist being imminent, let the soldier prepare for the battle, etc.” And Book 4, letter 6: “You ought to know, and to believe and hold for certain, that the day of tribulation has begun to be over our heads, and that the end of the age and the time of Antichrist has drawn near.” Jerome, in his letter to Ageruchia on Monogamy: “That which withheld is taken out of the way, and we do not understand that Antichrist draws near?” Gregory, Book 4, letter 38: “All the things that are, come to pass; the King of pride is near.” And in his homilies on the Gospel he boldly pronounces that the end of the World is at hand. But these were suspicions, not errors; for these holy Fathers did not dare to define a certain time.
Moreover, others more boldly fixed a certain time. A certain Judas, as Jerome relates in his book on illustrious men, in the year of Christ 200, thought that Antichrist would come and the World be ended — who, as is plain, was deceived. Again Lactantius, Book 7, chapter 23 of the divine Institutes: “The whole expectation seems to be of not more than two hundred years.” Where he teaches that Antichrist was to come and the World to be ended before the 200th year from his own age. But he himself lived in the times of Constantine, in the year of Christ 300; and so in the year 500 from Christ he thought the end of the World would be — but he too, experience being witness, was deceived.
Blessed Augustine relates, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 53, the error of others, who said that the World would be ended in the 400th year from the ascension of the Lord; and again of others, who fixed the thousandth year — all of whom were deceived. So too it happened to the Pagans, who, the same Augustine being witness in the same place, had gathered from I know not what divine response that the Christian religion would last only 365 years. There was also a certain Bishop of Florence about the year of the Lord 1105, who asserted that Antichrist was then born, and accordingly that the end of the World was at hand. For which cause a Council of 340 Bishops was assembled at Florence by Paschal II. See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmerius, and Platina in the life of Paschal II.
Finally, there was always the famous opinion of many asserting that the World would last six thousand years, since God created the World in six days, and a thousand years with God are as one day. So Justin, question 71 to the Gentiles; Irenaeus, Book 5; Lactantius, Book 7, chapter 14; Hilary on chapter 17 of Matthew; Jerome on Psalm 89, to Cyprian. With which opinion agrees also the opinion of the Talmudists, who say that they have from the Prophet Elijah a prophecy by which it is asserted that the World will last six thousand years.
This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience; for, according to the true Chronology, there have elapsed from the founding of the World about five thousand six hundred years. Whence Ambrose, who, Book 7 on Luke, chapter 2, rejects this opinion, asserting that in his time six thousand years had already elapsed, is plainly deceived. Best is the moderation of blessed Augustine, who thought this opinion probable, and followed it as probable, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 7. Nor does it hence follow that we know the time of the last day; for we say that it is probable that the World will not last beyond six thousand years, but we do not say that it is certain. Wherefore the same Augustine sharply reproves those who assert that at some certain time the World will be ended, since the Lord said, Acts 1: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power. See Augustine in letter 80 to Hesychius, on Psalm 89, and Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 53. But, these things omitted, let us come to the heretics.
The heretics of this time, though all teach that Antichrist is the Roman Pontiff, and that he has already appeared and is in the World, yet do not agree among themselves about the time in which he appeared; for there are six opinions of theirs.
The first is that of the Samosatenes, who dwell in Hungary and Transylvania, who in a certain little book which they entitle “Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles concerning the abolishing of the true Christ by Antichrist,” teach that Antichrist appeared a little after the times of the Apostles, namely when it began to be preached that Christ is the eternal Son of God. For they think that Christ is a mere man, and that in God there is only one person, and that this faith was preached by Christ and the Apostles; but that a little after the death of the Apostles the Roman Antichrist came, and, the true Christ, a mere man, being abolished, introduced another eternal Christ, and made God threefold and Christ twofold.
This opinion, besides the arguments which we will bring below against all heretics, is most easily refuted in two ways. First, because Antichrist, when he comes, will make himself God, not some other, as the Apostle says, 2 Thessalonians 2; but the Roman Pontiff, as they themselves say, did not make himself God, but preached Christ, and from a mere man made Him God. Secondly, because they say that soon after the falling asleep of Christ and the Apostles the true Faith of Christ was utterly extinguished by Antichrist, and that thenceforth in the whole World Christ was adored as God. But Christ foretold that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church, Matthew 16; and the Angel foretold that the reign of Christ would be eternal, Luke 1; and David foretold that all Kings would serve Christ, Psalm 71. How then is it true that at the very beginning the nascent Church was destroyed by Antichrist?
The second opinion is that of Illyricus, who in the Catalogue of witnesses teaches that Antichrist came when the Roman Empire began to incline to ruin; and it is established that the Roman Empire began to incline after the tenth year of Honorius, when Rome was first taken, that is, in the year of the Lord 412, as Blondus shows. But this Illyricus seems to understand of the conception, not the nativity, of Antichrist; since he himself, Century 6, chapter 1 at the beginning, teaches that Antichrist was in some manner conceived at the beginning of the year 400, then animated, and formed, and nourished in the womb of his mother about the year five hundred, and last of all born in the year 606, when namely Phocas granted to the Roman Pontiff... [and, as] he teaches, Book 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 438, that Antichrist would reign and rage with the spiritual sword for 1260 years, but with the temporal sword for 666 years, and that then the end of the World would be at hand.
The former number he gathers from Apocalypse chapter 11, where it is said that the time of Antichrist will last 1260 days; for Illyricus will have a day taken for a year. The latter number he gathers from Apocalypse 13, where it is said that the number of the beast is 666.
This opinion can be refuted in two ways. For it follows, first, that Antichrist is now not only born, but also dead; and accordingly that the end of the World has already come. For the Roman Pontiff began to have the temporal sword, that is, temporal dominion, at least from the year 699; for then Aripert gave to the Roman Pontiff the Cottian Alps, where Genoa now is; and afterward, in the year 714, Luitprand confirmed that donation, as Ado of Vienne writes in the Chronicle of these years, and Blondus, Book 10, decade 1; and the same the Magdeburgians confess, Century 8, chapter 10, column 683, and Theodore Bibliander, who notes that in this year 714 the first Papal province was made.
Not long after, that is, in the year 755, Pippin gave to the Roman Pontiffs the Exarchate of Ravenna with a great part of Italy, as Regino, Ado, Sigebert, Blondus Book 11 of the decade, Paulus Aemilius testify, and the Centuriators themselves too, Century 8, chapter 10, column 724, and Theodore Bibliander in the Chronicle. If therefore in this year 755 the kingdom of Antichrist began, and lasted 666 years, then it received its end in the year of Christ 1421; therefore it is now more than 150 years since Antichrist died. But if the beginning of his reign is placed higher, that is, in the year of the Lord 699, then the end must be placed in the year 1365, and there will then be more than 200 years passed since the death of Antichrist.
They will answer perhaps: after the 666th year of his temporal reign, Antichrist will not die, but only lose his temporal dominion. For since they say that the spiritual reign of Antichrist will last 1260 years, which would not yet be finished even if they began from the year of Christ 606, they must consequently say that the spiritual reign of Antichrist will last some time after the destruction of his temporal reign; but certainly this is absurd, and against all authors; and moreover it follows at least that already 200 years ago the Pontiffs should have lost their temporal dominion, which is against experience.
Secondly, the same error can be refuted because it follows from this error that the Centuriators know exactly when the World will be ended — which yet is against the words of the Lord, Acts 1 and Matthew 24. That it follows is plain; for they know that Antichrist began to reign with the spiritual sword in the year 606; they know also that he will reign only 1260 years, and that then straightway the Lord will come to judgment, as they themselves gather from Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2; they know therefore that the last judgment will be in the year of Christ 1866. Or, if they know not this, they are forced also not to know whether Antichrist has come.
The third opinion is that of David Chytraeus, who in his Commentary on chapter 9 of the Apocalypse teaches with Illyricus that Antichrist appeared about the year of the Lord 600, and signifies plainly enough that Saint Gregory was the first Antichristian Pontiff. But the same Chytraeus, in his Commentary on chapters 11 and 13, does not agree with Illyricus as to the time of the duration of Antichrist, but prudently warns that this is not to be rashly defined. He proves, however, by three reasons, that Antichrist appeared in the year 600.
First, because at that time Gregory established the invocation of the Saints, and Masses for the dead. Secondly, because in the year 606 the Roman Pope Boniface III obtained from Phocas the title of universal Bishop. He adds a third reason in his Commentary on chapter 13: because this time plainly and clearly agrees with the number of the name of Antichrist, which contains 666, as is had in Apocalypse chapter 13.
Chytraeus adds in the same place that from this same number of the name of Antichrist is gathered the time in which the reign of Antichrist was confirmed by Pippin; for there are about so many years from the year 97, in which John wrote the Apocalypse, down to Pippin, namely 666. Likewise is gathered the time in which the Roman Pope was first cast down and declared Antichrist by John Huss; for there are about 666 years from Pippin to John Huss.
This opinion can easily be refuted; for it rests on lies alone. For, first, Gregory was not the first who taught the invocation of the Saints and the offering of Masses for the dead; all the Ancients taught this very thing, as we have demonstrated elsewhere. Now let Ambrose alone suffice, who preceded Gregory by 200 years, in his book on widows: “The Angels are to be entreated,” says Ambrose, “the Martyrs are to be entreated.” And Book 2, letter 8 to Faustinus, on the death of his sister: “And so I think she is not so much to be deplored as to be followed with prayers, nor to be saddened with thy tears, but her soul is to be commended to God by oblations.” Finally, Phocas did not confer the title of universal Pope, but called him the Head of the Churches. But this same thing had been done long before by Justinian, in his letter to John II, and even before by the Council of Chalcedon, in its letter to Leo. Without cause therefore is the coming of Antichrist placed in the time of Phocas.
But what Chytraeus adds, of the number 666, is altogether inept, because that number does not agree precisely with the times in which Chytraeus will have Antichrist to have appeared, or been confirmed, or declared. For from Christ to the sanction of Phocas there are 607 years, not 666. From the revealing of the Apocalypse to Pippin there are 658 years; from Pippin to John Huss there are, as he himself says, 640 years. But certainly John in the Apocalypse noted a precise number, since he even added the smaller figures. Add that John Huss did not first declare that the Pope is Antichrist; for Wyclif had done that before. Nay, John Huss never even said that the Pope is Antichrist; for in article 19, condemned at Constance, he says that Clerics by their avarice prepare the way for Antichrist. Finally, all the Lutherans boast that Antichrist was detected by Luther.
The fourth opinion is that of Luther, in the Supputation of times, who sets two comings of Antichrist: one, with the spiritual sword, after the year of the Lord 600, when namely Phocas called the Roman Pontiff Head of all the Churches — where also he says that Gregory was the last Roman Pontiff; the other, with the temporal sword, after the year of the Lord one thousand. The very same teaches Bibliander in the Chronicle, tables 11 and 13. And so in the first coming Luther and Bibliander agree with the Centuriators and Chytraeus, except that Luther and Bibliander say that Gregory was a holy and good Pontiff, whereas the Centuriators, Century 6, chapter 1, column 2, and Chytraeus say that Gregory beyond all others plied his labor in introducing Antichrist, and accordingly was the worst — which is a most horrible blasphemy. In the second coming Luther and the Centuriators openly disagree.
This opinion, besides the common arguments which will be made later, is easily refuted. For altogether without reason Luther sets the coming of Antichrist in the year 600 and in the year one thousand. And of the year 600 we have already spoken in the refutation of Chytraeus; of the year one thousand it can easily be proved. For Luther sets at that time the beginning of the temporal reign of Antichrist because then Pope Gregory VII deposed the Emperor Henry IV, and ruled temporally, and waged wars; but all these things were done even before. For Gregory II excommunicated the Emperor Leo, and deprived him of the kingdom of Italy, in the year 715, Cedrenus and Zonaras witnessing in the life of that same Leo; and temporal dominion we have already shown that the Roman Pontiffs had from the year 700, that is, three hundred years before the year one thousand.
Finally, the Magdeburgians testify, Century 8, chapter 10, that Stephen III waged wars about the year of the Lord 750, and the same can be said to have been done by Adrian I and others of their successors. Likewise about the year 850 Leo IV, a holy man and illustrious for miracles, waged war against the Saracens and carried off a signal victory, and fortified the city of Rome with towers and bulwarks, and also girded the Vatican hill with a wall, which thence from his name was called the Leonine city — as almost all the Historians of his time write, and the Magdeburgians themselves too, Century 9, chapter 10.
The fifth opinion is that of Henry Bullinger, who in the preface to his homilies on the Apocalypse writes that Antichrist appeared in the year of the Lord 763 — which opinion disagrees with all the foregoing, and can thence easily be refuted, because it rests on a most feeble foundation. For Bullinger teaches that in Apocalypse chapter 13, where the number of the name of the Beast, 666, is set, there is signified by that number the time of the coming of Antichrist — that is, how many years after the writing of the Apocalypse Antichrist would come. And since it is established from Irenaeus, Book 5, that the Apocalypse was written about the end of the reign of Domitian, that is, about the year of the Lord 97, he gathers that Antichrist was to come in the year 763; for so many are made if 666 be added to 97.
Hither can be referred the opinion of certain Catholics, who, as Jodocus Clichtove relates in his Commentaries on chapter 28, Book 4 on the Faith of John Damascene, think that Antichrist properly so called was Mohammed, because he came about the year 666, as John had foretold. But this reason avails nothing. For, first, the Magdeburgians cry out against it, and contend that that number from the Apocalypse does not signify the time of the nativity of Antichrist, but the time of his death. And John the Evangelist, in Apocalypse chapter 13, rejects the invention both of Illyricus and of Bullinger; for, explaining himself, he says that that number is not a number of time, but the number of the name of Antichrist — that is, that Antichrist will have a name whose Greek letters will make the number 666, as Irenaeus, Book 5, and all the others expound.
Moreover, in that year 763 no change is read to have been made in the Roman Pontiffs. Mohammed too did not come, for he was born in the year of the Lord 597; he began to call himself a Prophet in the year of the Lord 623; then he died in the year of the Lord 637, Palmerius witnessing in his Chronicle. And so he did not reach the year 666.
The sixth opinion is that of Wolfgang Musculus, who in his Common Places, title on the Church, chapter 12, affirms that Antichrist came a little after the times of blessed Bernard, that is, about the year 1200; and he proves it because blessed Bernard, sermon 6 on Psalm 90, having enumerated many vices of men, and especially of Ecclesiastics, and most grievous persecutions of the Church, subjoins: “It remains that the man of sin be revealed.”
But this opinion too is refuted with no trouble; for blessed Bernard suspected, from the evils which he saw, that Antichrist was near — just as we said that Cyprian, Jerome, and Gregory suspected in their times; and as theirs, so also Bernard's suspicion was false. Moreover there were Pontiffs, beyond all comparison worse, from the year 900 to the thousandth, than from 1100 to 1200. If therefore those were not Antichrists, why will these be?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Ostenditur Antichristum nondum venisse. Quantum ad tertium, de tempore adven¬ tus Antichristi, multae falsae suspiciones, roul- tique errores exstiterunt, tam Catholicorum, quam haereticorum : sed cum hoc discrimi¬ ne, quod Catholici scientes Antichristum non venturum nisi in fine Mundi, quae est veritas, erraverunt tamen in eo, quod puta¬ verunt, Mundi finem propinquiorem esse , quam revera esset ; haeretici autem in eo erant quod existimant, Antichristum ven¬ turum diu ante Mundi finem, etjamreipsa venisse. Dicamus igitur de utroque errore. In primis, omnes Veteres animadvertentes suorum temporum malitiam, suspicati sunt, (1) II. Thessal. II, 8. Ii tempora Antichristi imminere. Ita Thessalo- nicenses, tempore Apostolorum, putabant instare diem Domini, quos Apostolus corri¬ git, II. Thess. II. Item Cyprianus lib. III. epist. I. «Imminente, inquit, Antichristo pa¬ ret ad praelium milites etc. »Etlib. IV epist. 6. Scire debetis, inquit, etpro certo credere ac tenere, pressurae diem super caput esse caepisse, et occasum seculi atque Antichristi tempus appropinquasse. » Hieronymus epist. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia: « Quid tene¬ bat, de medio fit, et non intelligimus Anti- christum appropinquare ? » Greg. lib. IV. epist. 38. « Omnia quae sunt, fiunt, Rex su¬ perbiae prope Ost. » Ethom. in Evang. audac¬ ter pronuntiat Mundi finem instare, sed istae suspiciones erant, non errores : non enim sancti isti Patres certum tempus definire au¬ si sunt. Porro alii audacius certum tempus cons¬ tituerunt. Judas quidam, ut Hieronymus re¬ fert in lib. de viris illustr. anno Christi 200, putavit, Antichristum venturum, et Mundum finiendum, qui ut patet, deceptus est. Rur¬ sum Lactantius lib. VII. cap. 23. div. Ins- tit: « Omnis, inquit, expectatio non amplius quam ducentorum videtur annorum. » Ubi docet Antichristum fuisse venturum, et Mun¬ dum finiendum ante annum 200 a sua aetate. Ipse autem vixit temporibus Constantini anno Christi 300 ; itaque anno 500, a Chris¬ to putavit fore Mundi finem, sed ipse quo¬ que, experientia teste, deceptus est. Refert B. Augustinus lib. XVIII.de Civit, Dei, cap. 53. aliorum errorem, qui dixerunt Mundum finiendum anno 400. ab ascensione Domini, et rursum aliorum, qui annum millesimum statuerunt, qui omnes decepti sunt : sic etiam accidit Paganis, qui, teste eodem Augustino ibidem, ex nescio quo res¬ ponso divino collegerant: Christianam religi¬ onem solum duraturam annis 365. Fuit etiam Episcopus quidam Florentinus circa annum Domini 1105, qui asseruit, Antichristum tunc natum fuisse, proinde Mundi finem ins¬ tare. Qua de causa coactum est Concilium Florentiae Episcoporum 340, a Paschali II. VideGhronica Matthaei Palmerii, et Platinam in vita Paschalis II. Denique, fuit semper celebris opinio mul¬ torum asserentium, Mundum duraturum sex millibus annorum, cum sex diebus Deus Mundum creaverit, et mille anni apud Deum sint quasi dies una. Ita Justinus q. 71 adGent. Irenaeus lib. V. Lactantius lib. VII. cap. 14. Hilarius in cap. XVII. Matth. Hieronymus in Psal. LXXXIX. ad Cyprinaum. Cui sententiae concordat etiam Thalmudistartim opinio, qui ex Elia Propheta dicunt se vaticinium habere, quo asseratur Mundus sex millibus annorum duraturus. Haec sententia nondum potest per experien¬ tiam redargui: nam secundum veram Chro- nologiam sunt elapsi a Mundo condito anni plus minus quinquies mille sexcenti. Unde Ambrosius qui lib. VII. in Luc cap. 2. hanc opinionem rejicit asserens, tempore suo jam fuisse elapsos annos sex mille, aperte deci¬ pitur. Optima est moderatio B. Augustini, qui hanc sententiam probabilem putavit, et eam ut probabilem secutus est lib. XX de Civit Dei cap. 7. Neque hinc sequitur , nos scire tempus ultimae diei : Dicimus enim probabile esse, Mundum non duraturum ultra sex mil¬ lia annorum : non autem dicimus id esse certum. Quocirca idem Augustinus acriter reprehendit eos qui asserunt, certo aliquo tempore Mundum finiendum, cum Dominus dixerit Act. I: Non esse nostrum scire tempora et momenta , quae Pater posuit in sua potestate (1). Vide Augustinus in epist. 80. adHesych. in Psal. LXXXIX et lib. XVIII de Civit. Dei cap. 53. Sed his omissis, ad haereticos ve¬ niamus. Haeretici hujus temporis cum omnes do¬ ceant, Antichristum esse Romanum Pontifi¬ cem, jamque apparuisse, et in Mundo ver¬ sari : tamen inter se non consentiunt de tem¬ pore, quo apparuit ; sunt enim sex eorum opiniones. Prima Samosatenorum, qui inHungaria et Transylvania degunt, qui in quodam li¬ bello quem inscribunt : « Praemonitiones Christi et Apostolorum de abolendo vero Christo per Antichristum, » docent Anti¬ christum paulo post tempora Apostolorum apparuisse, nimirum, quando coeptum est praedicari, Christum esse Filium Dei aeter¬ num. Ipsi enim existimant, Christum esse purum hominem, et in Deo unam tantum esse personam, et hanc fidem a Christo et Apostolis praedicatam : sed paulo post mor¬ tem Apostolorum venisse Romanum Anti¬ christum, et vero Christo puro homine abo¬ lito, introduxisse alium Christum aeternum et fecisse Deum trinum, et Christum binum. (1) Act. I, 7. Haec opinio, praeter argumenta, quae infra afferemus contra omnes haereticos, facillime refutatur dupliciter. Primo, quia Antichris- tus cum venerit, seipsum faciet Deum (1), non aliquem alium ut Apostolus ait II. Thessal. II. Romanus autem Pontifex, ut ipsimet dicunt, non seipsum fecit Deum, sed Christum prae¬ dicavit, et ex puro homine Deum fecit. Se¬ cundo, quia ipsi dicunt, mox post Christi et Apostolorum dormitionem, extinctam fuisse penitus per Antichristum veram Christi Fi¬ dem ; et in toto Mundo deinceps adoratum fuisse Christum Deum. At Christus praedixit, contra Ecclesiam suam non praevalituras portas inferi, Matth. XYI. Et Angelus prae¬ dixit, aeternum fore Christi regnum, Lucae I Et David praedixit, omnes Reges servituros Christo, Psal. LXXI. Quomodo ergo verum est, in ipso initio nascentem Ecclesiam ab Antichristo esse deletam ? Secunda opinio est Illyrici, qui in Cata¬ logo testium docet, Antichristum venisse, quando csepit Romanum Imperium inclinare ad ruinam, constat autem Romanum Impe¬ rium inclinare caepisse post annum decimum Honorii, quando Roma primum capta est, id est, anno Domini 412. ut Blondus ostendit Imp. Sed hoc intelligere videtur Illyricus de conceptione, non de nativitate Antichristi : siquidem ipse idem Cent. VI. cap. J. in prine, docet, Antichristum conceptum quo¬ dam modo initio anni 400. deinde anima¬ tum, et formatum, atque nutritum in utero matris, circa annum quingentesimum : et postremo, anno 606. natum, quando videli¬ cet Phocas concessit Pontifici Romano, ut I. lib. II, cap. 4, coi. 438. docet, Antichris¬ tum regnaturum et saeviturum gladio spiri¬ tuali annis 1260. gladio autem temporali an¬ nis 666. et tunc finem Mundi adfuturum. Priorem numerum colligit ex Apoc. XI. cap. ubi dicitur, duraturum tempus Anti¬ christi diebus 1260. Vult enim Illyricus ac¬ cipi diem pro anno. Posteriorem numerum colligit ex Apoc. 13. ubi dicitur numerus bestiae esse 666. Potest refelli duobus modis haec opinio. Sequitur enim primo, jam Antichristum non solum esse natum, sed etiam mortuum ; et proinde Mundi finem jam advenisse. Nam Pontifex Romanus coepit gladium tempora¬ lem, id est, temporale dominium habere sal¬ tem ab anno 699. tunc enim Aripertus dona¬ vit Pontifici Romano Alpes Cottias , ubi nunc Genua est: et postea anno 714. eam donationem confirmavit Luitprandus, ut scri¬ bit Ado Viennensis in Chron. horum anno¬ rum, Blondus lib. X. decad. 1 et idem fa¬ tentur Magdeburgenses, Centur. VIII. cap. 10. coi. 683, et Theodorus Bibliander, qui hoc anno 714. annotat, factam esse primam provinciam Papisticam. Non diu post, id est, anno 755, donavit Pipinus Romanis Pontificibus Exarchatum Ravenme cum magna parte Italiae, ut testa¬ tur Rhegino, Ado, Sigebertus', Blondus lib. 11. Decad. P. iEmilius, et ipsi etiam Gentu- riatores, Cent. VIII. cap. 10. coi. 724. ac Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. Si igitur hoc anno 755. ceepit regnum Antichristi, et duravit annis 666. igitur finem accepit anno Christi 1421. igitur sunt jam anni plusquam 150. ex quo obiit Antichristus. Quod si ini¬ tium regni ejus ponitur altius, id est, anno domini 699. tunc finis ponendus erit anno 1365. et erunt tunc plusquam 200 anni transacti post mortem Antichristi. Respondebunt fortasse : post annum 666 regni sui temporalis, Antichristum non mo¬ riturum, sed tantum amissurum temporale dominium. Cum enim ipsi dicant, regnum spirituale Antichristi duraturum 1260 annis qui adhuc finiti non essent, et si caepissent ab anno Christi 606. consequen¬ ter dicere debent, duraturum regnum Anti¬ christi spirituale aliquanto tempore post de¬ letum regnum ejus temporale : sed certe est absurdum, et contra omnes auctores ; et praeterea saltem sequitur, jam ante annos 200. debuisse Pontifices amittere temporale dominium, quod est contra experientiam. Secundo, idem error potest refelli, quia sequitur ex hoc errore, nosse Centuriatores exacte quando finietur Mundus, quod tamen est contra verba Domini, Act. I, et Matth. XXIV. Quod sequatur, patet nam ipsi sciunt Antichristum caepisse regnare gladio spiri¬ tuali anno 606. sciunt etiam regnaturum tan¬ tum annis 1260, et tunc statim venturum Dominum ad judicium, ut ipsimet ex Pau¬ lo II. Thessal. II, colligunt; sciunt igitur ju¬ dicium extremum futurum anno Christi 1866. vel si hoc nesciunt, coguntur etiam nescire, an Antichristus venerit. (1) II. Thessal. II, 4. Tertia opinio est Davidis Chytraei, qui in Comment. cap. IX Apoc. cum Illyrico do¬ cet, Antichristum apparuisse circa annum Domini 600, et satis aperte significat, S. Grego rium fuisse I. Pontificem Anticbristia- num. Idem vero Chytreeus in Comment. cap. XI et XIII non assentitur Illyrico quantum ad tempus durationis Antichristi, sed pru¬ denter monet, non esse id temere definien¬ dum. Probat vero tribus rationibus, Anti¬ christum apparuisse anno 600. Primo, quia eo tempore Gregorius stabili¬ vit invocationem Sanctorum, et Missas pro defunctis. Secundo, quia anno 606, Papa Romanus Bonifacius III impetravit a Phoca titulum Episcopi universalis. Addit tertiam rationem in Comment. cap. XIII, quia hoc tempus plane et perspicue congruit cum numero nominis Antichristi, quod continet 666, ut in Apoc. cap. XIII habetur. Addit ibidem Chytreeus, ex hoc eodem numero nominis Antichristi colligi tempus, quo confirmatum fuit a Pipino Antichristi regnum : nam tot fere anni sunt ab anno 97, quo Joannes scripsit Apocalypsim usque ad Pipinum, nimirum 666. Item colligi tem¬ pus, quo primum a Joanne Huss fuit Papa Romanus dejectus et declaratus Anticbris- tus : sunt enim fere anni 666, a Pipino ad Joannem Huss. Hsec sententia facile refelli potest ; nititur enim solis mendaciis. Nam in primis non fuit Gregorius primus, qui Sanctos invocare, et Missas pro defunctis offerre docuit : do¬ cuerunt idipsum omnes Veteres, ut nos alibi demonstravimus. Nunc unus Ambrosius suf¬ ficiat, qui 200 annis Gregorium praecessit, in lib. de viduis « Obsecrandi, inquit Am¬ brosius, sunt Angeli, Martyres obsecrandi. » Et lib. II, epist. 8 ad Faustin. de obitu so¬ roris : « Itaque, inquit, non tam deploran¬ dam, quam prosequendam orationibus reor, nec maestificandam lacrymis tuis : sed obla¬ tionibus animam ejus Deo commendandam. » Denique Phocas non titulum universalis Pap a3 tribuit, sed eum Caput Ecclesiarum appellavit. Sed hoc idem multo antea fece¬ rat Justinianus in epist. ad Joan. II et antea etiam Cone. Chalced. in epist. ad Leonem. Sine causa igitur tempore Phocae ponitur adventus Antichristi. Quod vero addit Chytrseus, de numero 666, omnino ineptum est, quia non congruit praecise numerus ille cum temporibus, qui¬ bus vult Chytreeus Antichristum apparuisse, vel confirmatum, vel declaratum esse. Nam a Christo ad Phocae sanctionem, sunt anni 607 non 666. Ab Apocalypsi revelata, sunt ad Pipinum anni 658, a Pipino ad Joannem Huss sunt, ut ipse dicit, anni 640. At certe Joannes in Apocalypsi praecisum numerum notavit, cum etiam minutias addiderit. Adde quod Joannes Huss non declaravit primus Papam esse Antichristum : id enim antea fecerat Wiclef. Imo nec unquam dixit Joan¬ nes Huss, Papam esse Antichristum : nam in art. 19. Constantiae damnato dicit, Cleri¬ cos per avaritiam suam parare viam Anti- christo. Denique Lutherani omnes glorian¬ tur, a Luthero Antichristum esse detectum. Quarta opinio est Lutheri in Supput. temp. qui duos adventus Antichristi ponit : unum, cum gladio spirituali, post annum Domini 600, quando videlicet Phocas Ponti¬ ficem Romanum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum vocavit : ubi etiam dicit, Gregorium fuisse ultimum Pontificem Romanum. Alterum, cum gladio temporali post annum Domini millesimum. Idem prorsus docet Bibliander in Chron. tab. 11 et 13. Itaque in primo ad¬ ventu conveniunt Lutherus et Bibliander cum Centuriatoribus et Chytreeo, eo excep¬ to, quod Lutherus et Bibliander dicunt, Gregorium fuisse sanctum et bonum Ponti¬ ficem : Centuriatores autem Centur. VI, c. I, coi. 2, et Chytreeus dicunt, Gregorium prse omnibus navasse operam introducendo Antichristo, et proinde pessimum fuisse, quae est blasphemia horrendissima. In secundo adventu dissident aperte Lutherus et Centu¬ riatores. Haec opinio prseter argumenta communia, quae postea fient, facile refellitur. Nam om¬ nino sine ratione Lutherus ponit adventum Antichristi anno 600, et anno millesimo : ac de anno quidem 600, jam diximus in refu¬ tatione Chytrsei ; de anno millesimo facile probari potest. Nam ideo Lutherus ponit eo tempore initium regni temporalis Antichris¬ ti, quia tunc Papa Gregorius VII, deposuit Imperatorem Ilenricum IV, et temporaliter dominabatur, et bella gerebat : atqui haec omnia etiam antea fiebant ; nam Gregorius II. excommunicavit Leonem Imperatorem, eumque privavit regno Italias, anno 715. te¬ stibus Cedreno et Zonara in vita ejusdem Leonis : Dominium autem temporale jam ostendimus ab anno 700, id est, trecentis annis ante annum millesimum habuisse Ro¬ manos Pontifices. Denique testantur Magdeburgenses Cent. VIII, cap. 10. Steplianura III bella gessisse circa annum Domini 750, et idem dici po¬ test fecisse AdrianumI, et alios eorum suc¬ cessores. Item circa annum 850, Leonem IV, virum sanctum, et miraculis illustrem, bel¬ lum gessisse contra Saracenos, et insignem victoriam reportasse, et urbem Romanam turribus, et propugnaculis munivisse, ncc- non montem Vaticanum muro cinxisse, qui inde ab ejus nomine civitas Leonina appel¬ latus est ; scribunt omnes fere Historici ejus temporis, et ipsi etiam Magdeburgenses Cent. IX, cap. 10. Quinta opinio est Henrici Bullingeri, qui praefat. in hom. suas ad Apoc. scribit, Anti- cliristum apparuisse anno Domini 763, quae opinio dissidet ab omnibus superioribus, et inde facile refelli potest, quod nititur debi¬ lissimo fundamento. Docet enim Bullinge- rus, in Apoc. cap. XIII, ubi ponitur numerus nominis Bestiae 666, significari eo numero tempus adventus Antichristi, id est, quot annis post Apocalypsim scriptam Antichris- tus venturus esset. Et quoniam constat ex Irenseo lib. V. Apocalypsim scriptam circa finem Imperii Domitiani, id est, circa annum Domini 97, colligit ipse, Antichristum ven¬ turum fuisse anno 763, tot enim fiunt si ad¬ dantur 666 ad 97. Huc referri potest opinio quorumdam Ca¬ tholicorum, qui, ut refert Jodocus Clicto- vaeus in Commentariis ad cap. 28, lib. IV de Fid. Joan. Damasceni, existimant, Antichri¬ stum proprie dictum fuisse Mahumetum; quia venit circa annum 666, prout Joannes praedixerat : at haec ratio nihil valet. Nam in primis Magdeburgenses reclamant , et contendunt, numerum illum ex Apocalypsi non significare tempus nativitatis Antichri¬ sti , sed tempus mortis. Joannes autem Evangelista cap. XIII Apoc. tam Illyrici, quam Bullingeri commentum rejicit : seip- sum enim explicans dicit, illum numerum non esse numerum temporis, sed numerum nominis Antichristi, id est, Antichristum habiturum nomen, cujus litterae Graecae effi¬ cient numerum 666, utlrenaeus lib. V et om¬ nes alii exponunt. Praeterea isto anno 763 , nulla mutatio facta legitur in Romanis Pontificibus. Mahu- metus etiam non venit, nam natus est anno Domini 597. Coepit se Prophetam dicere an¬ no Domini 623. Deinde obiit anno Domini 637, teste Palmerio' in CJiron. Itaque non pervenit ad annum 666. Sexta opinio est Wolfgangi Musculi, qui in loc. tit. de Eccl. cap. 12 affirmat, Anti¬ christum venisse paulo post tempora beati Bernardi, id est, circa annum 1200, et pro¬ bat, quia B. Bernardus serm. 6 in Psal. XG enumeratis multis vitiis hominum, et praeci¬ pue Ecclesiasticorum, et gravissimis Eccle¬ siae persecutionibus, subjungit : « Superest, ut reveletur homo peccati. » At haec etiam opinio nullo negotio refelli¬ tur, nam B. Bernardus suspicabatur ex ma¬ lis quae videbat, Antichristum prope esse ; sicut etiam diximus suspicatos suis tempo¬ ribus Cyprianum , Hieronymum , Grego- rium ; et sicut illorum, ita et Bernardi sus¬ picio falsa fuit. Praeterea fuerunt Pontifices sine comparatione ulla pejores ab anno 900 ad millesimum, quam ab 1100 ad 1200. Si ergo illi non fuerunt Antichristi, quare isti erunt ?