Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 6: The Third Demonstration: Henoch and Elijah Have 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).
The third demonstration is taken from the coming of Henoch and Elijah, who still live, and live for this end, that they may oppose themselves to Antichrist when he comes, and preserve the elect in the Faith of Christ, and at last convert the Jews — which it is certain has not yet been fulfilled. There are four Scriptures on the matter. The first, Malachi 4: Behold, I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great day of the Lord; and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. The second, Ecclesiasticus 48, where we read of Elijah: Who wast taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot of fiery horses; who art registered in the judgments of times, to appease the wrath of the Lord, to reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob. And chapter 44: Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations. The third, Matthew 17: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things. The fourth, Apocalypse 11: I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days.
All these places Theodore Bibliander too brings forward in his Chronicle, table 14, but says that by Henoch and Elijah are understood all the faithful ministers whom God raises up in the time of Antichrist, such as forsooth were Luther, and Zwingli, and the rest; and at last he concludes: “Wherefore,” he says, “it is a childish imagination, or a Jewish dream, to expect either Elijah or Henoch as persons defined by their singular properties.” And the same teaches Chytraeus in his Commentary on this place of the Apocalypse. And they prove it: because the things which are said of Elijah by Malachi, the Lord taught to be understood of John, Matthew 11: He is Elias that is to come. And Jerome, on chapter 4 of Malachi, expounds it of the whole choir of Prophets, that is, of the doctrine of all the Prophets.
But to us it seems not a childish imagination, but a most true opinion, that Henoch and Elijah will come in their own persons, and that the contrary is either a heresy or an error next to heresy. It is proved, first, from those four Scriptures. For that the words of Malachi cannot be understood of any Doctors whatever, as of Luther, Zwingli, and the like, is plain; for Malachi says that the Jews are to be converted by Elijah, and that he is to be sent chiefly for the Jews, as is plain from that, I will send you, and Ecclesiasticus, To restore the tribes of Jacob; but Luther and Zwingli converted no Jews.
And that they cannot be understood of John the Baptist literally, but only of Elijah, is plain, because Malachi speaks of the second coming of the Lord, which will be to judge; for so he says: Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. For the first coming is not called a great and dreadful day, but an acceptable time, and a day of salvation; whence also is added: Lest I come and strike the earth with anathema — that is, lest, coming to judgment and finding all iniquitous, I condemn the whole earth; therefore I will send Elijah, that I may have some whom I may save. But in the first coming the Lord came not to judge, but to be judged; not to destroy, but to save.
To the words of the Lord, Matthew 11, it will be answered a little later. To Jerome I say that he, although in his Commentary on Malachi he did not think that Malachi speaks of the true Elijah, yet in his Commentary on Matthew 11 and 17 thinks and teaches the contrary. Finally, that this is the common interpretation of the Faithful, Augustine testifies, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 29.
That Ecclesiasticus too speaks of the very persons Henoch and Elijah, not of some others, is proved: for Ecclesiasticus says that that Henoch will come, to give repentance to the nations, who was translated into paradise; and that that Elijah will come to restore the tribes of Israel, who had been caught up in a chariot of fiery horses — which certainly do not agree except with those particular persons.
At which place I cannot sufficiently wonder what came into the mind of Bishop Jansenius, that, expounding this place, he should write: that although it be the opinion of all the Ancients that Elijah will come, yet it is not proved from this place; for it can be said that Ecclesiasticus wrote this according to the opinion received in his time, by which it was believed, from the words of Malachi, that Elijah would truly in his own person come before the Messiah, though it was not to be fulfilled in his own proper person, but in him who was to come in the spirit and power of Elijah. For if it is as Jansenius says, it follows that Ecclesiasticus erred, and wrote falsely. But, if I am not mistaken, Jansenius changed his opinion; for writing on chapter 17 of Matthew, he teaches that the place of Malachi cannot be understood literally except of the true Elijah — which same he is forced to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus, which without doubt expounds Malachi.
Now that the words of the Lord, Matthew 17, are understood of the true Elijah, not of John, is plain, because John had already come and finished his course, and yet the Lord says: Elias shall come. And that they are not understood of all Doctors, but of the one true Elijah, can be proved. First, because the Apostles who raised the question about Elijah were Peter, James, and John, and took occasion from the transfiguration of the Lord, where they saw Moses and Elijah. And so when they ask, Why then do the scribes say that Elias must come first? they speak of that Elijah whom they had seen on the mountain with Christ. Therefore Christ, answering, Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things, also speaks of that particular Elijah who had appeared in the transfiguration. Secondly, the same is plain from those words, And he shall restore all things. For this John the Baptist did not do, nor any other. For to restore all things is to recall to the true Faith all the Jews, and heretics, and perhaps many Catholics deceived by Antichrist.
But Bibliander insists, because the Lord, Matthew 11, says of John the Baptist: He is Elias that is to come, as if He said, He is the Elijah promised by Malachi. I answer: the Lord means that John was the promised Elijah, not literally, but allegorically; for therefore He prefaced, And if you will receive it, as if He said: Elijah indeed, promised in his own person, will come in the last coming; yet if you will have also some Elijah in the first coming, receive John. Therefore also He subjoined: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, indicating that it was a mystery which He had said, that John was Elijah.
Finally, that the words of John, Apocalypse 11, are understood of the singular persons Henoch and Elijah, not of all Doctors, is plain from this, that in the same place John says that they are to be killed by Antichrist, and their bodies to remain unburied for three days in the street of Jerusalem, and after three days that they will rise again and ascend into heaven — which have hitherto befallen none.
Yet David Chytraeus tries to answer, in his Commentary on this place, and first he says: that John wished to signify many Lutheran ministers to be killed by the Papists, to whom nevertheless God restores life, when He carries them up to heaven to live for ever. Secondly he adds a little below, that, those Ministers being killed, the life of the body is to be restored on the last day of the resurrection. Finally, thirdly, he adds in the same place that it can also be signified by this restitution of life, that we see many other Ministers raised up by God in place of those killed, with the same zeal and power.
But these answers are too frivolous. For the first cannot be defended, because the beatitude of the soul is not the restoration of a lost life, but the acquisition of a new life. Next, those two witnesses in the Apocalypse will rise again before all, and will be elevated in body upward, which certainly is not fulfilled in the beatitude of the soul. The second solution also avails nothing. For John says that those two witnesses will rise again before the last day, this state of the World still lasting; for John adds that great fear will be struck into their enemies by that resurrection, and a little after that there will be an earthquake, and seven thousand men will perish. The third solution, finally, is not to the point. For the Scripture says that those same who had died are to be raised and taken up into heaven; but we have not yet seen any Lutheran Minister rise again, or be taken up into heaven. What of this, that John says that Henoch and Elijah, clothed in sackcloth, will preach, and the Lutherans so hate sackcloth that if perchance they have it, while they become Lutherans they straightway cast it off?
It is proved, secondly, that Elijah and Henoch will truly come in their own persons in the time of Antichrist, from the consent of the Fathers. For of Elijah this assert Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Chrysostom, and all the other interpreters of Matthew, on chapter 17; likewise Lactantius, Book 7, chapter 17, and Theodoret on the last chapter of Malachi, and Augustine tract 4 on John, and Primasius on chapter 11 of the Apocalypse.
Of Henoch and Elijah together, this assert many who write on the Apocalypse — as Bede, Richard, and Arethas; of whom Arethas also adds that it is invariably believed by the whole Church that Henoch and Elijah will come, to oppose themselves to Antichrist. Likewise Damascene, Book 4, chapter 28; Hippolytus the martyr, in his Oration on the consummation of the World; and also blessed Gregory, Book 14, chapter 11 or 12, and Book 9, chapter 4 of the Morals; and blessed Augustine, Book 9, chapter 6, on Genesis according to the letter.
It is proved, thirdly: because otherwise no reason can be given why these two were caught up before death, and still live in mortal flesh, one day to die. For although the Jews, as Rabbi Solomon on chapter 5 of Genesis says, say that Henoch was slain by God before his time, because he was soft and changeable, and assert that Elijah, when he was borne up in the fiery chariot, was burned up in his whole body by that fire — and perhaps the Lutherans, who deny that they will return, think the same — yet all Catholics hold with certain faith that both live in their bodies. For that Henoch is not dead, the Apostle teaches, Hebrews 11: Henoch was translated, that he should not see death; and that both he and Elijah are not dead, and yet are to die, clearly teach, besides those cited above, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and Epiphanius.
Irenaeus, Book 5, speaking of Henoch and Elijah: “The Presbyters say,” he says, “who are the disciples of the Apostles, that those who were translated were translated thither (into the earthly Paradise), and there remain until the consummation, beholding incorruption.” Tertullian, in his book against the Jews, chapter 2, of Henoch thus says: “Who has not yet tasted death, as a candidate of eternity.” Epiphanius in the Anchored, of Henoch and Elijah thus says: “These two remain in body and soul, because of hope.” Jerome, in his letter to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem: “Henoch was translated in the flesh; Elijah, fleshly, was caught up into heaven, not yet dead, and dwellers of Paradise, etc.” Augustine, in his book on original sin, chapter 23: “We do not doubt that Henoch and Elijah live in the bodies in which they were born.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPDT VI. Explicatur tertia Demonstratio , Tertia demonstratio sumitur ex adventu Henoch et Eliae, qui adhuc vivunt, et ad hoc vivunt, ut venienti Antichristo se op¬ ponant, et conservent electos in Fide Chris¬ ti, et tandem Judteos convertant : quod ta- men certum est nondum esse impletum. Quatuor Scripturae exstant de haere. Pri¬ ma Malach. IV: Ecce ego mittam vobis Eliam Prophetam , antequam veniat dies Domini ma - gnus, et convertet corda patrum ad filios , et corda filiorum ad patres eorum. Secunda Ec- cles . XLVIII : ubi de Elia legimus : Qui re-> ceptus es in turbine ignis, in turbine equorum, igneorum. Qui inscriptus es in judiciis tempo¬ rum lenire iracundiam Domini , conciliare cor patris ad filium, et restituere tribus Jacob. Et cap.XLIV : Henoch placuit Deo, et translatus est in paradisum , ut det Gentibus poenitentiam. Tertia, Mattii. XVII : Elias quidem venturus est, et restituet omnia. Quarta, Apocal. XI : Dabo duobus testibus meis , et prophetabunt die¬ bus 1260 (I). Haec omnia loca profert etiam Theodorus Bibliander in suo Chron. tabui. 1 h. sed ait, per Henoch et Eliam intelligi omnes minis¬ tros fideles, quos Deus excitat tempore An- tichristi, qualis nimirum fuit Lutherus, et Zwinglius, et caeteri : et tandem concludit : « Quare, inquit, puerilis imaginatio est, vel Judaicum somnium, expectare vel Eliam, vel Henoch, ut personas suis proprietatibus singularibus definitas. » Et idem docet Chy- traeus in Gom. ad hunc locum Apoc. Et' pro¬ bant: quia quae dicuntur de Elia aMalachia, Dominus docuit intelligi de Joanne Mat. XI : Ipse est Elias qui veniimus est (2) . Et Hiero¬ nymus in cap. IV Malachiae, exponit de om¬ ni choro Prophetarum, id est, de doctrina omnium Prophetarum. Nobis vero non puerilis imaginatio, sed verissima sententia videtur, Henoch et Eliam in suis personis venturos, et contrariam, vel esse haeresim, vel errorem haeresi proxi¬ mum, probatur primo ex illis Scripturis qua- tuor. Nam quod verba Malachiae non pos¬ sint intelligi de quibuscumque Doctoribus, ut de Luthero, Zwinglio, et similibus, patet: nam Malachias dicit, ab Elia convertendos esse Judaeos, et propter Judaeos praecipue mittendum, ut patet ex illo : Mittam vobis, et Ecclesiastico : Restituere tribus Jacob ; at Lutherus et Zwinglius nullum Judaeorum converterunt. Quod etiam non possint intelligi de Joan¬ ne Baptista ad litteram , sed solum de Elia, patet, quia Malachias loquitur de secundo adventu Domini, qui erit ad judicandum, sic enim ait : Antequam veniat dies Domini magnus et horribilis. Primus enim adventus non vocatur dies magnus et horribilis, sed tempus acceptabile, et dies salutis, unde etiam subditur : Ne forte veniens feriam ter¬ ram anathemate , id est, ne veniens ad judi¬ cium, et inveniens omnes iniquos, omnem terram condemnem; ideo mittam Eliam, ut habeam aliquos, quos salvem. At in pri¬ mo adventu Dominus non venit judicare, sed judicari : nec perdere, sed salvare. Ad verba Domini Matth. XI paulo post respondebitur. Ad Hieronymum dico , eum, etsi in Com. Malach. no.n putavit, Malachiam loqui de vero Elia * tamen in Gom. Matt. XI et XVII contrarium sentire et docere. Deni¬ que, hanc esse communem Fidelium inter¬ pretationem, testatur Augustinus lib. XX de Civit. Dei cap. 29. Quod etiam Ecclesiasticus loquatur de per¬ sonis ipsis Henoch et Elia, non de aliquibus aliis, probatur : Nam Ecclesiasticus dicit, il¬ lum Henoch venturum, ut det Gentibus poeni¬ tentiam, qui translatus esi in paradisum ; et illum Eliam venturum ad restituendas tribus Israel, qui in curru equorum igneorum rap¬ tus fuerat ; quae certe non conveniunt , nisi illis particularibus personis. Quo loco non possum satis mirari, quid Episcopo Jansenio in mentem venerit, ut ex¬ ponens hunc locum scriberet : etiamsi opinio sit omnium Veterum, Eliam venturum ; ta¬ men non convinci ex hoc loco : dici enim posse, Ecclesiasticum id scripsisse secundum receptam suo tempore opinionem , qua cre¬ ditum fuit ex verbis Malachiae, Eliam vere in sua persona venturum ante Messiam, cum id non esset implendum in propria ejus perso¬ na, sed in eo qui venturus erat in spiritu, et virtute Eliae. Si enim ita est, ut Jansenius dicit ; sequitur, Ecclesiasticum errasse, et falsa scripsisse. Sed, ni fallor, Jansenius mu¬ tavit opinionem : nam scribens in cap. XVII Matth. docet, locum Malachiae non posse in- telligi ad litteram, nisi de vero Elia , quod idem cogitur dicere de loco Ecclesiastici, qui sine dubio Malachiam exponit. Jam quod verba Domini Matth. XVII. in- telligantur de vero Elia, non de Joanne, pla¬ num est, quia Joannes jam venerat, et absol¬ verat cursum suum, et tamen Dominus ait : Elias venturus est. Quod vero non intelligan- tur de omnibus Doctoribus, sed de uno vero Elia, probari potest. Primo , quia Apostoli, (1) Malach. IV, 5; Eaeeh. XLVIII, 9 et 10; Matth. XVII, 11 ; Apoc. XI, 3. — (2) Matth. XI, 14. * qui moverunt quaestionem de Elia , fuerunt Petrus, Jacobus, et Joannes, et occasionem acceperunt ex transfiguratione Domini, ubi Moysen et Eliam viderunt. Itaque cum inter¬ rogant : Quid ergo Scribes dicunt , quia Eliam oportet venire primum , loquuntur de illo Elia, quem viderant in monte cum Christo. Igitur Christus respondens, Elias quidem venturus est, et restituet omnia , loquitur etiam de illo Elia particulari, qui apparuerat in transfigu¬ ratione. Secundo, idem patet ex illis verbis Et restituet omnia. Id enim non fecit Joannes Baptista , nec ullus alius. Nam restituere omnia, est omnes Judseos , et haereticos, et forte multos Catholicos ab Antichristo decep¬ tos revocare ad veram Fidem. Sed instat Bibliander, quia Dominus Matt. XI de Joanne Baptista dicit : Ipse est Elias qui 'venturus est , quasi dicat. Ipse est Elias a Malachia promissus. Respondeo : Dominum velle dicere, Joannem fuisse Eliam promis¬ sum, non ad litteram , sed allegorice ; ideo enim praemisit, et si vultis recipere ; quasi di¬ cat, Elias quidem in sua persona promissus, venturus est in ultimo adventu : tamen si vultis etiam aliquem Eliam in primo adven¬ tu, Joannem recipite. Ideo etiam subjunxit : Qui habet aures audiendi audiat ; indicans mys¬ terium fuisse quod dixerat, Joannem fuisse Eliam. Quod denique verba Joannis Apoc. XI. intelligantur de singularibus personis Henoch et Elia, non de omnibus Doctoribus, patet ex eo quod ibidem Joannes dicit, eos interfi¬ ciendos ab Antichristo, et corpora eorum per tres dies mansura insepulta in platea Hieru¬ salem, 'et post tres dies eos resurrecturos, et in coelum ascensuros, quse nulli hactenus con¬ tigerunt. Respondere tamen conatur David Chy- trceus in Gom. ad hunc locum, ac primo ait : Joannem significare voluisse multos Luthe- ranos ministros a Papistis interficiendos ; quibus tamen Deus vitam restituit , cum eos ad coelum evehit in aeternum victuros . Se¬ cundo addit paulo infra, interfectis illis Mi¬ nistris, vitam corporis restituendam in die ultima resurrectionis. Deni que tertio, ibidem addit, posse etiam significari per hanc vitse restitutionem, quod videamus multos a Deo excitari alios Ministros in locum interfecto¬ rum cum eodem zelo et virtute. At nimis leves sunt hae responsiones. Pri¬ ma enim defendi non potest , quia beatitudo animae non est restitutio vitae amissae, sed novae vitae acquisitio. Deinde duo illi testes in Apocalypsi coram omnibus resurgent, et corpore sursum versus elevabuntur, quod certe in beatitudine animae non impletur. Secunda solutio nihil etiam valet. Nam Joannes dicit, duos illos testes resurrecturos ante ultimum diem, durante nimirum adhuc statu hujus Mundi : addit enim Joannes , ti¬ morem magnum incutiendum inimicis eorum ex illa resurrectione : et paulo post terrae motum futurum, et septem millia hominum peritura. Tertia denique solutio non est ad rem. Nam Scriptura dicit, illos eosdem qui mortui fuerant excitandos, et in ccelum assu¬ mendos : nos autem non vidimus adhuc ul¬ lum Ministrum Lutheranum resurgere, vel in coelum assumi. Quid, quod Joannes dicit, Henoch et Eliam saccis indutos praedicatu¬ ros, et Lutherani saccos ita oderunt , ut si forte eos habent, -dum Lutherani fiunt, con¬ tinuo eos abjiciant. Probatur secundo, vere in suis personis Eliam et Henoch venturos tempore Anti- christi, ex consensu Patrum. Nam de Elia id asserunt Hilarius, Hieronymus, Origenes, Ghrysostomus , et alii omnes Matthaei inter¬ pretes, in cap. XVII. Item Lactantius 1. VII, c. 17. et Theodoretus in cap. ult. Malach. et Augustinus tract. 4. in Joan. et Primasiusin c. XI Apoc. De Henoch et Elia simul, id asserunt multi qui scribunt in Apocalypsim ; ut Beda, Ri- chardus et Arethas, ex quibus Arethas etiam addit, invariabiliter a tota Ecclesia credi, Henoch et Eliam venturos, ut se Antichristo opponant. Item Damascenus lib. IV, c. 28. Hippolytus martyr, in Orat, de Mund. con- sum. Necnon B. Gregorius lib. XIV, c. 11. vel 12. et lib. IX, c. 4. Moral. et B. Augus¬ tinus lib. IX, c. 6. de Gen. ad lit. Probatur tertio : quia alio quin non potest reddi ratio, cur isti duo sint rapti ante mor¬ tem, et adhuc vivant in carne mortali , ali¬ quando morituri. Nam etsi Judaei, ut Rab. Salomon in c. V. Genes, dicunt , Henoch a Deo occisum ante tempus, quia lenis et mu¬ tabilis erat, et Eliam asserunt, cum in curru igneo sursum ferretur, ab illo igne toto cor¬ pore exustum : et forte idem sentiunt Luthe¬ rani qui eos redituros negant ; tamen Catho¬ lici omnes certa fide tenent utrumque in suis corporibus vivere. Quod enim mortuus non sit Henoch, Apostolus docet Heb. XI. Henoch translatus est, ne videret mortem : et quod tam ipse quam Elias mortui non sint, et ta- men morituri sint ; clare docent prseter supra citatos, Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Hieronymus, Augustinus et Epiphanius. Irenaeus lib. V loquens de Henoch et Elia: « Dicunt, inquit, Presbyteri, qui sunt Apos¬ tolorum discipuli, eos, qui translati sunt, il¬ luc (In Paradisum terrestrem) translatos es¬ se, et ibi manere usque ad consummationem, conspicantes incorruptionem. » Tertullia¬ nus : lib. cont. Jud. cap. 2. de Henoch , sic ait : « Qui necdum mortem gustavit , ut aeternitatis candidatus. » Epiphanius in An¬ eor. de Henoch et Elia sic ait : « Hi duo per¬ manent in corpore et anima propter spem.» Hieronymus in epistol. ad Pammach. cont. Joan. Hierosol. : « Henoch, inquit , transla¬ tus est in carne, Elias carneus raptus est in coelum, necdum mortui, et Paradisi japi co¬ loni etc. » Augustinus lib. de peccato origi¬ nali c. 23. : <c Henoch, inquit , et Eliam non dubitamus, in quibus nati sunt corporibus, vivere. »