Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 5: The Second Demonstration: The Roman Empire Not Yet Made Desolate
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).
The second demonstration is taken from the other sign preceding the times of Antichrist, which will be the utter Desolation of the Roman Empire. For it must be known that the Roman Empire is at last to be divided into ten Kings, none of whom will be, or be called, King of the Romans, although all will occupy some provinces of the Roman Empire — just as now the King of France, the King of Spain, the Queen of England, and perhaps some others, hold parts of the Roman Empire, and yet are not Roman Kings or Emperors. But until this comes to pass, Antichrist cannot come.
This Irenaeus proves, Book 5, from Daniel chapters 2 and 7, and from Apocalypse chapter 17. For in Daniel chapter 2 is described the succession of the chief kingdoms down to the end of the World, by a certain statue, whose golden head signifies the first kingdom, that is, of the Assyrians; the silver breast is the second kingdom, that is, of the Persians; the brazen belly the third kingdom, that is, of the Greeks; the iron legs the fourth kingdom, that is, of the Romans, which for a very long time was bipartite, as the legs are two and very long. Moreover, from the two legs arose ten toes, and in them all that statue ended, because forsooth the Roman Empire was at last to be divided into ten Kings, none of whom will be King of the Romans, as no toe is a leg. Now in chapter 7 Daniel most clearly designates the same four kingdoms by four beasts, and adds that from the last beast will come forth ten horns, which signify the ten last Kings, who will indeed arise out of the Roman Empire, but will not be Roman Emperors — just as the horns themselves arise out of the beast, but are not the beast itself.
Finally, John, in Apocalypse chapter 17, describes a beast with seven heads and ten horns, upon which a certain woman sat; and he explains that the woman is the great city which sits upon seven hills, that is, Rome; that the seven heads are those seven mountains, and also seven Kings, by which number are understood all the Roman Emperors. The ten horns he says are ten Kings who will reign together at one time; and lest we think these will be Roman Kings, he adds that these Kings will hate the harlot, and make her desolate, because they will so divide the Roman Empire among themselves that they utterly destroy it.
Next, the same is proved from Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, where he says: And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed, etc. Where Paul, not daring to write openly of the overthrow of the Roman Empire, which yet he had openly explained to them in person, speaks thus; and the sense is: You know what hinders the coming of Antichrist? For I told you that the Roman Empire hinders, because its sins are not yet fulfilled, and Antichrist, who is to take this Empire out of the way for its sins, will not come before. Therefore let him who now holds the Roman Empire hold, that is, reign, until he be taken out of the way, that is, abolished, and then that wicked one shall be revealed. So expound the Greek Fathers and the Latins. Cyril, catechesis 15, disputing of this place: “The foretold Antichrist will come,” he says, “when the times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled.” Chrysostom on this place: “When,” he says, “the Roman Empire shall be taken out of the way, then Antichrist will come.” Like things have Theophylact and Oecumenius.
Of the Latins: Tertullian in the Apologetic, chapter 32, says that the Christians pray for the long duration of the Roman Empire, because they know that, that Empire being overthrown, the utmost calamity threatens the World. And Lactantius, Book 7, chapter 15, explaining the things which will precede Antichrist and the end of the World: “The Roman name,” he says, “by which the world is now ruled (the mind shudders to say it, but I will say it, because it is to be), shall be taken away from the earth, and the Empire shall return into Asia, and again the East shall have dominion, and the West shall serve.” Ambrose, on 2 Thessalonians 2, says that after the defection and abolition of the Roman kingdom Antichrist will come.
Jerome, question 11 to Algasia, expounding the same place of Paul: “Unless there come a departure first, so that all the Nations which are subject to the Roman Empire fall away from them, and unless the Roman Empire be first made desolate, and Antichrist go forth, Christ will not come; only that the Roman Empire, which now holds all the Nations, fall away and be taken out of the way, and then Antichrist will come.” Finally Augustine expounds the place: “Only let him who now rules, rule, until he be taken out of the way, that is, be removed from the midst, and then that wicked one shall be revealed, whom no one doubts to signify Antichrist.”
Now that this sign was not fulfilled in those times in which the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians say Antichrist came, that is, about the year 200, is plain, because then the Roman Empire chiefly flourished, and long afterward flourished. And that it has never yet been fulfilled is plain, because the succession and name of Roman Emperors still remains; and by the wonderful providence of God, when the Empire failed in the West, which was one of the legs of Daniel's statue, the Empire remained unharmed in the East, which was the other leg. But because the Empire of the East was to be destroyed by the Turks, as we now see done, again God raised up in the West the former leg, that is, the Western Empire, through Charlemagne — which Empire still lasts.
Nor is it any objection that Rome itself, according to John's prophecy, has in some manner fallen and lost the Empire. For the Roman Empire can well subsist without the city of Rome, and he can be called Roman Emperor who lacks Rome, provided he succeed another Roman Emperor in the same dignity and power, whether he have more or fewer provinces under his Empire. Otherwise neither Valens, nor Arcadius, nor Theodosius the younger, nor others of their successors down to Justinian, who all lacked Rome, could have been called Roman Emperors. Nor even would Charlemagne and his successors, who also did not possess the city of Rome, ever have been Emperors — which is false, as is plain from two things.
First, because for this cause alone the Emperor who now is precedes all Christian Kings, even those otherwise greater and more powerful than himself. Next, because it is established that, the Romans consenting, Charles was created Emperor, Paul the Deacon witnessing, Book 23 of Roman affairs; and that he was saluted Emperor by the Greek Emperor himself, through Legates, Ado witnessing in the Chronicle of the year 810; and that he was honored with gifts as Emperor by the Persians and Arabs, Otto of Freising witnessing, Book 5, chapter 31. Finally, the Lutherans boast that they have three Princes who are electors of the Roman Emperor; and accordingly they cannot deny that the Roman Empire still lasts.
Rightly therefore Orosius, Book 2, chapter 4, comparing the Babylonian Empire with the Roman, says that God dealt far more gently with the Romans than with the Babylonians. For after 1164 years from the founding of Babylon, in one day Babylon, the head of the Empire, was taken, the Emperor slain, and the Empire made desolate and destroyed. But after just as many years, that is, 1164, from the beginning of Rome, Rome was taken by the Goths, but with the Emperor Honorius unharmed, who then presided over affairs, and with the Roman Empire safe.
Hence appears the deception of the adversaries. For they thought that the inclination of the Roman Empire suffices for the coming of Antichrist; but Paul, John, and Daniel, and the Fathers — Irenaeus, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Tertullian, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine — say that not the inclination, but the desolation, is necessary.
But Luther, Illyricus, and Chytraeus object that this demonstration makes very much for them; for it was foretold by John in Apocalypse 13 that the Beast, which signified the Roman Empire, would be wounded to death, and again healed by Antichrist; which indeed was then done, when the Pope again restored the Western Empire, which had already nearly perished, the title and dignity of Emperor being conferred on Charlemagne; therefore from this very translation or restoration of the Empire it is manifestly gathered that the Roman Pope is truly Antichrist. See Illyricus in his book against the Primacy of the Popes, and Century 8, chapter 10, column 751, and Chytraeus on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse. Illyricus confirms this argument from Ambrose, who, explaining the words of blessed Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, says that Antichrist will seem to restore to the Romans... which the Pope seems to have done, when he created an Emperor for the Romans, who yet would depend on himself.
I answer: in John we nowhere read that the beast which signified the Roman Empire was to be healed by Antichrist; but this we read, that one of the heads of the Beast would die, and a little after rise again, by the work of the Dragon, that is, the Devil — which almost all the ancients expound of Antichrist himself, who will feign himself dead, and by diabolical art will himself raise himself again, that he may imitate the true death and resurrection of Christ; and in this way will seduce very many.
So expounds blessed Gregory, Book 11, letter 3, and also Primasius, Bede, Haymo, Anselm, Richard, and Rupert on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse. And the text itself plainly compels us to understand, by that head of the beast which was dead and revived, not Charlemagne, but Antichrist; since that head, as John writes, had power only forty-two months, and blasphemed God and those who dwell in heaven, and had command over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation, and all who dwell on the earth adored it — of which things we have seen none, nor read, in Charlemagne, or in any of his successors. For Charles reigned longer than forty-two months; nor did he blaspheme God and the Saints, but rather worshipped them marvelously, and many of his successors imitated his piety. Finally, neither Charles himself, nor any of his successors, had command over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation, as is known to all. Moreover Saint Ambrose does not say that a new Roman Emperor was to be created by Antichrist, which the Pope did; but that, the Roman Empire being overthrown, liberty was to be restored to the Romans — which the Pope is not read to have done.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput v. Explicatur secunda Demonstratio . Secunda demonstratio sumitur ex altero signo antecedente tempora, Antichristi,quod erit Desolatio omnimoda Romani Imperii*. Sciendum est enim, Romanum Imperium tandem dividendum in decem Reges, quo¬ rum nullus erit vel dicetur Rex Romanorum, etsi omnes occupabunt provincias aliquas Romani Imperii : sicut modo Rex Galliae, Rex Hispaniae, Regina Angliae, et forte ali¬ qui alii tenent partes Romani Imperii, et ta¬ men non sunt Romani Reges, vel Imperato¬ res : donec autem hoc non fit, non potest Antichristus venire. Probat hoc Irenaeus lib. V ex Daniele cap. II et VII, et ex Apoc. cap. XVII. Nam cap. II Danielis describitur successio praecipuo¬ rum regnorum usque ad finem Mundi per statuam quamdam, cujus caput aureum sig¬ nificat primum regnum, id est, Assyriorum; pectus argenteum est regnum secundum, id est Persarum : venter aeneus regnum ter¬ tium, id est, Graecorum : tibiae ferreae, reg¬ num quartum, id est, Romanorum : quod longissimo tempore fuit bipartitum, sicut ti¬ biae duae sunt et longissimae. Porro ex dua¬ bus tibiis oriebantur decem digiti, et in eis tota illa statua desinebat, quia videlicet Ro¬ manum Imperium tandem in decem Reges dividendum erat, quorum nullus erit Rex Romanorum, sicut nullus digitus est tibia. Jam vero cap. VII clarissime Daniel per quatuor bestias eadem quatuor regna desi¬ gnat, et addit, ex ultima bestia proditura decem cornua, quue decem ultimos Reges significant, qui orientur quidem ex Romano Imperio, sed non erunt Romani Imperatores: sicut cornua ipsa oriuntur ex bestia, sed bes¬ tia ipsa non sunt. (1) Psal. LXXI, 11. —(2) Matth. XXIV, 14. — (3) Rora. X, 18. — (4) Coloss. 1/23. Denique Joannes cap.XY Apoc. describit bestiam cum septem capitibus, et decem cornibus, super quam mulier quaedam sede¬ bat, et explicat, mulierem esse urbem ma¬ gnam, quae sedet super septem colles, id est, Romam : septem capita esse septem illos montes, et etiam septem Reges,- quo numero intelliguntur omnes Romani Imperatores. Decem cornua dicit esse decem Reges, qui Uno tempore simul regnabunt, et ne pute¬ mus hos fore Romanos Reges, addit, quod hi Reges odio habebunt fornicariam, et de¬ solatam facient, quia ita inter se divident Romanum Imperium, ut illud penitus des¬ truant. Deinde idem probatur ex Paulo II. Thess. II, ubi dicit : Et nunc quid detineat scitis , ut reveletur in suo tempore , tantum ut qui nunc tenet , teneat , donec de medio fiat , et tunc reve¬ labitur ille iniquus etc. (1) Ubi Paulus non ausus aperte scribere de eversione Romani Imperii, quod tamen aperte illis coram ex¬ plicuerat, sic loquitur, et sensus est : Scitis, quid impediat adventum Antichristi? Dixi enim vobis, Romanum Imperium impedire, quia non suut adhuc impleta ejus peccata, et non ante veniet Antichristus, qui hoc Im¬ perium propter sua peccata tollat e medio. Ideo qui nunc tenet Romanum Imperium, teneat, id est, regnet, donec de medio fiat, id est, aboleatur, et tunc revelabitur ille ini¬ quus. Ita exponunt Graeci Patres, et Latini ; Cyrillus Catech. 15. de hoc loco disputans : « Veniet, inquit, pr8edictusAntichristus,cum impleta fuerint tempora Romani Imperii. » Ghrysostomus in hunc locum : « Quando, inquit, e medio sublatum fuerit Imperium Romanum, tunc veniet Antichristus. » Si¬ milia habent Theophylactus , et OEcume- nius. Ex Latinis. Tertullianus in Apolog. cap. 32. dicit, Christianos orare pro diuturnitate Romani Imperii, quod sciant illo Imperio everso, imminere Orbi summam calamita¬ tem, et Lactantius lib. VII, cap. 15. expli¬ cans ea quae preecedent Antichristum , et Mundi finem : « Romanum, inquit, nomen, quo nunc regitur orbis (horret animus di¬ cere, sed dicam quia futurum est) tolletur de terra, et Imperium in Asiam revertetur, ac rursum Oriens dominabitur : atque Occi¬ dens serviet. » Ambrosius in II. Thess. II, post defectum et abolitionem Romani regni venturum dicit Antichristum. Hieronymus qusest. 11. ad Algasiam, eumdem locum Pauli enarrans : « Nisi ve¬ nerit, inquit, discessio primum, ut omnes Gentes, qum Romano Imperio subjacent, re¬ cedant ab eis, et nisi fuerit Romanum Impe¬ rium antea desolatum, et Antichristus pro¬ cesserit, Christus non veniet: tantum ut Ro¬ manum Imperium , quod nunc universas Gentes tenet, recedat, et e medio fiat, et tunc Antichristus veniet. » Denique Augustinus locum expqnit : « Tantum qui modo impe¬ rat, imperet, donec de medio fiat, id est, de medio tollatur, et tunc revelabitur ille ini¬ quus, quem significari Antichristum nullus ambigit. » Quod autem hoc signum non sit impletum illis temporibus, quibus Transylvani Antitri- nitarii dicunt venisse Antichristum, id est, circa annum 200, patet, quia tunc maxime florebat Romanum Imperium, et diu postea floruit. Quod etiam non §it impletum unquam hactenus, patet, quia adhuc manet succes¬ sio, et nomen Imperatorum Romanorum, et mirabili providentia Dei, quando deficit Im¬ perium in Occidente, quod erat altera tibia¬ rum statuae Danielis, mansit incolume Im¬ perium in Oriente, quod erat altera tibia. Quia vero Imperium Orientis destruendum erat per Tureas, ut nunc factum videmus ; iterum Deus erexit in Occidente priorem ti¬ biam , id est , Imperium Occidentale per Carolum Magnum, quod Imperium adhuc durat. Neque obstat, quod Roma ipsa juxta Joan- nis vaticinium quodammodo ceciderit, et Imperium amiserit. Nam Imperium Roma¬ num sine urbe Roma bene consistere potest, et dici Romanus Imperator qui Roma caret, modo succedat alteri Romano Imperatori in eadem dignitate et potestate, sive plures, sive pauciores provincias sub Imperio suo habeat. Alioqui nec Valens, nec Arcadius, nec Theodosius junior, nec alii eorum suc¬ cessores, usque ad Justinianum, qui omnes Roma caruerunt, Romani Imperatores dici potuissent. Nec etiam Carolus Magnus, et successores, qui etiam urbe Romana potiti non sunt, unquam fuissent Imperatores, quod falsum esse ex duobus patet. Prirnum, quia hac sola de causa Impera- (1) II. Tkessal. II, 6 et seq. tor, qui nunc est, praecedit omnes Christia¬ nos Reges, etiam se alioqui majores, et po- tentiores. Deinde, quia constat, consentien¬ tibus Romanis, Carolum Imperatorem crea¬ tum, teste Paulo Diacono lib. XXIII Rerum Rom. et ab ipso Graeco Imperatore, per Le¬ gatos Imperatorem salutatum, teste Adone in Chron. anni 810, et a Persis atque Ara¬ bibus ut Imperatorem muneribus ornatum, teste Othone Frisingensi lib. Y, cap. 31. De¬ nique, Lutherani gloriantur, se tres Princi¬ pes habere electores Romani Imperatoris ; proinde negare non possunt, quin adliuc Ro¬ manum Imperium duret. Recte igitur Orosius lib. II, cap. 4, com¬ parans Babylonicum Imperium cum Roma¬ no, dicit : Deum longe mitius egisse cum Romanis, quam cum Babyloniis. Nam post annos 1164, ex quo Babylon condita erat; uno die capta est Babylon caput Imperii, necatus est Imperator, et Imperium desola¬ tum destructumque est. At post annos toti¬ dem, id est 1164, ex quo ccepit esse Roma, capta est Roma a Gothis, sed incolumi Im¬ peratore Honorio, qui tunc rebus praeerat, et salvo Imperio Romano. Hinc apparet deceptio adversariorum. Illi enim putabant, sufficere inclinationem Ro¬ mani Imperii ad Antichristi adventum : sed Paulus, Joannes, et Daniel : et Patres, Ire- naeus, Cyrillus, Chrysostomus, Theophylac- tus, QEcumenius, Tertullianus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Augustinus, non inclinationem, sed desolationem dicunt ne¬ cessariam . Sed objiciunt Lutherus, Illyricus, et Chy- treeus, hanc demonstrationem pro se maxi¬ me facere; nam prsedictum erat a Joanne in Apoc. XIII, Bestiam, quae Romanum Impe¬ rium significabat, vulnerandam ad mortem, et ab Antichristo iterum sanandam ; quod sane tunc factum est, cum Papa Imperium Occidentale, quod jam fere perierat, iterum instauravit, collato in Carolum Magnum ti¬ tulo ac dignitate Imperatoris ; igitur ex hac ipsa translatione seu instauratione Imperii manifeste colligitur, Papam Romanum vere esse Antichristum. Yide Illyricum in lib. cont. Prim. Papas, et Centur. VIII, cap. 10, coi. 751. et Chytrseum in cap. XIII Apocal. Confirmat hoc argumentum Illyricus ex Am¬ brosio, qui explicans verba B. Pauli If. Thes. II dicit, Antichristum redditurum Romanis videtur fecisse, cum Imperatorem Romanis creavit, qui tamen a se dependeret. Respondeo : apud Joannem nusquam legi¬ mus, ab Antichristo sanandam bestiam, quae Romanum Imperium significabat; sed hoc legimus, unum ex capitibus Bestiae moritu¬ rum, et paulo post iterum resurrecturum, opera Draconis, id est, Diaboli i id quod omnes fere veteres exponunt de ipso Anti¬ christo, qui fmget se mortuum, et arte dia¬ bolica iterum se ipse excitabit, ut imitetur veram Christi mortem et resurrectionem; et eo modo plurimos seducet. Ita exponit B. Gregorius lib. XI, epist. 3. necnon Primasius, Beda , Haymo, Ansel- mus, Richardus et Rupertus in cap. XIII Apoc. Et textus ipse cogit plane, ut per il¬ lud caput bestiae, quod mortuum erat et re¬ vixit, non intelligamus Carolum Magnum, sed Antichristum : siquidem illud caput, ut Joannes scribit, potestatem habuit solum mensibus quadraginta duobus : et blasphe¬ mabat Deum, et eos qui in coelo habitant : et imperavit in omnem tribum, et populum, et linguam, et gentem : et adoraverunt il¬ lud omnes qui habitant in terra ; quarum rerum nullam vidimus, nec legimus in Ca- rolo Magno, aut in aliquo successorum ejus. Regnavit enim Carolus diutius quam mensi¬ bus quadraginta duobus; nec Deum et Sanc¬ tos blasphemabat, sed eos potius mirifice coluit, et pietatem ejus multi successorum ejus imitati sunt. Denique; nec ipse Carolus, nec ullus suc¬ cessorum ejus, in omnem tribum, populum, linguam, et gentem Imperium habuit, ut omnibus notum est. Porro S. Ambrosius non ait, novum Romanum Imperatorem ab An¬ tichristo creandum fuisse, quod Papa fecit : sed everso Romano Imperio, libertatem Ro¬ manis restituendam, quod Papa fecisse non legitur.