Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 8: The Fifth Demonstration: Antichrist Will Reign Only Three and a Half Years
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 fifth demonstration is taken from the duration of Antichrist. Antichrist will not reign but three years and a half; but the Pope has now reigned spiritually in the Church more than 1500 years, nor can any be assigned, who has been held for Antichrist, who reigned precisely three years and a half; therefore the Pope is not Antichrist; and accordingly Antichrist has not yet come.
Moreover, that the reign of Antichrist will be of three years and a half is gathered from Daniel chapters 7 and 12, and from Apocalypse chapter 12, where we read that the reign of Antichrist will last a time, and times, and half a time. For by a time is understood one year; by times, two years; by half a time, half a year. For so John himself explains it. For Apocalypse 11 and 13 he says that Antichrist will reign 42 months, which rightly make three years and a half. And chapter 11 he says that Henoch and Elijah will preach 1260 days, which make the same time. For the Hebrews used lunar years and months, though they reduced them to solar by adding one lunation every sixth year; and three lunar years and a half make most exactly 42 months, or 1260 days, since a full and perfect lunar year consists of twelve months, each of which has 30 days, as Augustine teaches, Book 15 of the City of God, chapter 14.
Nor is it an objection that in Daniel 12 it is said that Antichrist will reign 1290 days, that is, 30 days more than John said. For John speaks of Henoch and Elijah, who will be killed by Antichrist one month before Antichrist perishes.
To these things the adversaries answer in three ways. First, Chytraeus, on chapters 11 and 13 of the Apocalypse, says that these times cannot be taken for three years and a half, because experience is against it, and Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, says that Antichrist will last until the coming of Christ.
Secondly, he says that a certain time is put for an uncertain, and accordingly that by 42 months, or 1260 days, more than a thousand years ought to be understood. The same says Bullinger, sermon 46 on the Apocalypse, whose reason seems to be that which Luther insinuates in the Supputation of times: because forsooth it is established from Apocalypse 20 that the Devil is to be loosed in the thousandth year; therefore the coming of Antichrist with the temporal sword was in the thousandth year from Christ; now therefore he has reigned more than five hundred years; therefore those 42 months must be taken for an uncertain time.
Thirdly, the Magdeburgians answer, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 438, that Daniel and John take a day for a year, and accordingly that by 1260 days ought to be understood 1260 years. The reason can be, that also in Daniel 9 the seventy weeks are by all understood of weeks of years, not of days. And Ezekiel 4 it is said: A day for a year I have appointed to thee. And Luke 13: I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following — that is, live three years. Which reason Chytraeus puts, on chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, where he says that such years and months are called Angelic, not human.
But against this is the common opinion of the Ancients, who assert, because of the places cited, that Antichrist will reign only three years and a half. Hippolytus the martyr, in his Oration on the consummation of the World: “Three years and a half will Antichrist reign upon the earth; after, his kingdom and glory will be taken away.” Irenaeus, Book 5 at the end: “He will reign three years and six months, and then the Lord will come from heaven.” And Jerome on chapter 7 of Daniel: “A time signifies a year; times, according to the property of the Hebrew speech, which has also a dual number, prefigure two years; and half a time, six months, during which the saints are to be given up to the power of Antichrist.” Cyril in catechesis 16: “Antichrist will reign three years and a half only, which we say not from the Apocryphal books, but from the Prophet Daniel.” And Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 23: “That the most cruel kingdom of Antichrist against the Church, though it is to be endured for a short space of time, whoever reads these things even half-asleep is not permitted to doubt. For that a time, and times, and half a time is one year, and two, and a half — and thereby three years and a half — is made clear even by the number of days set down afterward, and is sometimes in the Scriptures declared by the number of months.” Like things have Theodoret on chapter 7 of Daniel, Primasius, Bede, Anselm, Haymo, Arethas, Richard, Rupert on the Apocalypse.
Secondly, the same is proved from this, that the Scriptures say that the time of the loosed Devil and of Antichrist will be most short. Apocalypse 12: Woe to the earth and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. And Apocalypse 20: He bound him for a thousand years; and after these things he must be loosed a little time. How, I ask, will this be true, if Antichrist will reign 1260 years? For thus he will be longer loosed than bound.
Thirdly, because, as Augustine argues, unless that persecution were most short, many would perish who are not to perish. Whence also the Lord says, Matthew 24: Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved. But how will that be most short, which will last above a thousand years?
Fourthly, Christ preached only three years and a half; therefore it is fitting also that Antichrist be not permitted to preach longer.
Fifthly, because the sum of 1260 years, which the adversaries set, can in no way be accommodated to those words of Daniel and John, a time, and times, and half a time. For by a time must be understood without doubt some one number — as one day, one week, one month, one year, one lustrum, one Jubilee, one century, one millennium; but if we take one millennium, then Antichrist will reign three thousand five hundred years, which the adversaries do not admit. If we take one century, the time of Antichrist will be three hundred and fifty years, which also they do not admit; and the same is plain of one Jubilee, etc.
Sixthly, because, since in Daniel 4 we read several times of seven times to pass, in which Nebuchadnezzar would be outside his kingdom, by those times all understand seven years. For if we wished to understand years of years, as the adversaries understand when the matter is of Antichrist, it would be necessary to say that Nebuchadnezzar lived outside his kingdom two thousand five hundred and fifty-five years.
Nor is it difficult to solve their little reasons. For when Chytraeus says that the three years and a half of which Daniel and John speak cannot be taken properly for our usual years, because experience testifies that Antichrist has now for a much longer time raged, he manifestly begs the question, as the Dialecticians say. For he assumes what is in controversy; for this is asked, whether Antichrist has come. And when he adds that Antichrist, according to Paul's opinion, will reign until the second coming of Christ, and thence concludes that he must reign longer than three years and a half, he does not see that he either again begs the question, or says nothing; for that consequence can effect nothing, unless it be assumed that Antichrist has already come — which yet is in controversy.
But to that which both he and Henry Bullinger say, that here a certain number is taken for an uncertain, I answer: that a certain number is put for an uncertain only when some full and perfect number is put, as 10, 100, 1000, but not when various numbers are assigned, where great and small are mixed. Then, therefore, a certain number is to be taken for an uncertain, when the Scripture says, Apocalypse 20, that the Devil was bound for 1000 years, as Augustine expounds, Book 33 of the Morals, chapter 12; but not when it assigns a time, and times, and half a time, or 1260 days, or 42 months. For to what purpose the variety of numbers, if an uncertain time is designated?
To the argument of Illyricus I say: in Scripture there are indeed found, and rightly said, weeks of years, but not days for years, or months of years. For weeks of years we read, Leviticus 25: Thou shalt number to thee seven weeks of years, etc. And that it is rightly said is plain, because a week is denominated from the number seven, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew; for the Hebrews say shavua, a week, from sheva, which is seven, as also in Greek it is called hebdomas, and in Latin septimana from the number seven; as therefore seven days are called a week of days, so seven years a week of years. But a month of years, or a day for a year, we nowhere read, nor would it be rightly said; for a month is not denominated from any number, but from the course of the Moon, which is completed in 30 days. For hence the Hebrews call a month yareach, that is, Moon, or chodesh, that is, renovation, namely of the Moon; and by the Greeks a month is called mēn, because the Moon is called mēnē.
Similarly a day does not signify a number, but the time of light, Genesis 1: God called the light day, and the darkness night. Nor is that of Ezekiel 4 an obstacle: A day for a year I have appointed to thee. For he does not mean that by days, literally, years are signified; otherwise it would be necessary that Ezekiel slept upon his left side 390 years, which is impossible; for God had commanded that he sleep upon his left side 390 days, and added: A day for a year I have appointed to thee; if therefore those days are taken for years, Ezekiel ought to have slept upon his left side 390 years — but he did not live so long. It must be said, then, that days there are truly taken for days, but are said to be given for years, because those 390 days in which Ezekiel slept were a sign of the sleep of God, by which He bore the sins of the Israelites for 390 years.
To that which Chytraeus objects from Luke chapter 13, I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following, I answer: it is not signified by those words (as the erring adversaries say) that Christ was still to preach three years when He spoke those words, since the Lord pronounced those words in the last year of His life. For, as Jerome writes in his book on Ecclesiastical writers, on John, and the thing itself speaks, Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not write the acts and words of Christ of the first two years, but only of the third year. The Lord therefore by those three days either understood the three days which He was to spend on the journey to Jerusalem, as Albert and Cajetan expound; or certainly by that manner of speaking He wished to signify that He would yet survive and preach a short time, as Jansenius rightly teaches. And so let Illyricus and Chytraeus see where they would find Angelic days and months; for in Scripture they are nowhere found.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII, Explicatur quinta demonstratio . Quinta demonstratio sumitur a duratione Antichristi. Antichristus non regnabit nisi tres annos cum medio : at Papa jam regna¬ vit spiritualiter in Ecclesia plusquam 1500 annis, nec potest assignari ullus , qui sit ha¬ bitus pro Antichristo , qui praecise regnave¬ rit tribus annis cum medio ; non igitur Papa est Antichristus ; proinde nondum venit An¬ tichristus. Porro, Antichristi regnum trium annorum cum dimidio futurum , colligitur ex Daniele cap. YII et XII. Et ex Apoc. cap. XII, ubi legimus, duraturum Antichristi regnum per tempus, et tempora , et dimidium temporis. Nam per tempus, intelligitur unus annus, per tempora, duo anni , per dimidium tem¬ poris, medius annus. Sic enim explicat idem Joannes. Nam Apoc. XI et XIII dicit , Anti¬ christum regnaturum mensibus 42, qui recte faciunt tres annos cum medio. Et cap. XI dicit, Henoch et Eliam praedicaturos diebus 1260, qui idem tempus efficiunt. Nam He¬ braei utebantur annis, et mensibus lunaribus, etsi eos revocarent ad solares, addendo sexto quoque anno unam lunationem : tres autem anni lunares cum medio faciunt rectissime 42 menses, sive 1260 dies , siquidem annus lunaris plenus ac perfectus constat ex duo¬ decim mensibus , quorum quilibet habet 30 dies, ut Augustinus docet lib. XY de Civit. Dei, cap. 14. (1) Apoc. XX, 8. — (2) Dan. XII, 11. Neque obstat quod Danielis XII dicitur Antichristus regnaturus 1290 diebus, hoc est, diebus 30 amplius , quam dixerit Joannes. Nam Joannes loquitur deHenoch et Elia, qui ab Antichristo occidentur uno mense ante¬ quam Antichristus pereat. Ad haec adversarii respondent tripliciter. Primo Chytraeus in cap. XI et XIII Apoc. di¬ cit, non posse accipi hsec tempora pro tri¬ bus annis cum medio , quia experientia re¬ pugnat, et Paulus II. Thessal. II ait, Anti- christum duraturum usque ad Christi adven¬ tum. Secundo dicit, poni tempus certum pro incerto, et proinde pro 42 mensibus, vel 1260 diebus, intelligi debere plus quam mille annos. Idem dicit Bullingerus Serm. 46. in Apoc. cujus ratio videtur esse ea, quam in¬ sinuat Lutherus in Supput. temp. quia nimi¬ rum constat ex Apoc. XX, Diabolum solven¬ dum anno millesimo , igitur Antichristi ad¬ ventus cum gladio temporali, fuit anno mil¬ lesimo a Christo ; jam igitur regnavit plus quam quingentis annis ; Ergo oportet acci¬ pere illos menses 42 pro incerto tempore. Tertio, respondent Magdeburgenses Cent. I. lib. II, cap. 4, coi. 438, Danielem et Joan- nem accipere diem pro anno ; et proinde pro mille et ducentis sexaginta diebus, intelligi debere 1260 annos. Ratio esse potest, quia etiam Dan. IX septuaginta hebdomadae ab omnibus intelliguntur de septimanis anno¬ rum, non dierum. Et Ezech. IV dicitur : Diem pro anno dedi tibi. Et Luc. XIII : Oportet me hodie , et cras , et perendie ambulare (1), id est, tribus annis vivere. Quam rationem po¬ nit Chytraeus in cap. XI Apoc. ubi ejusmodi annos et menses, Angelicos vocari dicit, non humanos. At Contra est communis sententia Vete¬ rum, qui asserunt propter loca citata, so¬ lum tres annos cum medio Antichristum reg¬ naturum. Hippolytus martyr in Orat, de consumm. Mundi: «Tres, inquit, annos cum dimidio regnabit Antichristus super terram, post auferetur regnum illius, et gloria. » Irenaeus lib. V in fine : « Regnabit , inquit, annis tribus, et mensibus sex, et tunc veniet Dominus de coelis. » Et Hieronymus in cap. VII Dan. : « Tempus, inquit, annum signifi¬ cat, tempora, juxta Hebraici sermonis pro¬ prietatem, qui et ipsi dualem numerum ha¬ bent, duos annos praefigurant ; Dimidium autem temporis, sex menses , quibus sancti potestati Antichristi permittendi sunt. » Cy- rillus in Catech. 16. : « Regnabit, inquit, Antichristus tribus annis, et dimidio tantum, quod non ex libris Apocryphis dicimus , sed ex Daniele Propheta. » Et Augustinus lib. XX de Civit. Dei cap. 23. : « Antichristi, in¬ quit, adversus Ecclesiam saevissimum reg¬ num, licet exiguo spatio temporis sustinen¬ dum, qui vel dormitans haec legit dubitare non sinitur. Tempus quippe, et tempora , et dimidium terfiporis, annum unum esse, et duos, et dimidium. Ac per hoc , tres annos et semissem, etiam numero dierum poste¬ rius posito, dilucescit, aliquando in Scriptu¬ ris et mensium numero declaratur. » Similia habent Theodoretus in cap. VII Dan., Pri- masius, Beda, Anselmus , Haymo, Arethus, Richardus, Rupertus in Apocalypsin. Secundo idem probatur ex eo quod Scrip¬ turae dicunt, tempus Diaboli soluti et Anti¬ christi fore brevissimum , Apoc. XII : Vce terree et mari, quia descendit Diabolus ad vos habens iram magnam, sciens quod modicum tempus habet. Et Apoc. XX : Ligavit eum per mille annos, et post heee oportet solvi modico tempore (2). Quomodo, quaeso, hoc erit ve¬ rum, si Antichristus regnabit 1260 annis? Sic enim diutius solutus erit , quam liga¬ tus. Tertio, quia, ut Augustinus argumentatur ma persecutio esset brevissima multi peri¬ rent, qui non sunt perituri. Unde et Domi¬ nus ait Matth. XXIV : Nisi breviati fuissent dies illi, non fieret salva omnis caro (3) : at quomodo erit brevissima, quae supra mille annos durabit? Quarto , Christus praedicavit solum tri¬ bus annis cum medio : ergo decet etiam, ut Antichristus non permittatur diutius prae¬ dicare. Quinto, quia summa annorum mille du¬ centi sexaginta , quam adversarii consti¬ tuunt, nullo modo potest accommodari ad illa verba Danielis, et Joannis : Tempus , et tempora, et dimidium temporis. Nam per tem¬ pus debet intelligi sine dubio aliquis unus numerus, ut unus dies, una hebdomada, unus mensis, unus annus, unum lustrum, unum Jubilaeum, unum saeculum, unum mil¬ lenarium : sed si accipiamus unum millena- (1) Ezech. IV, 6; Luc. XIII, 33. — (2) Apoc. XII, 12; XX, 2. — (3) Matth. XXIV. 22. rium, tunc Antichristus erit regnaturus tri¬ bus millibus annorum , et quingentis ; quod adversarii non admittunt. Si accipiamus unum saeculum, tempus Antichristi erunt anni trecenti quinquaginta ; quod etiam non admittunt : et idem patet de uno jubilaeo etc. Sexto, quia cum Danielis IY aliquoties le¬ gamus septem tempora transitura , quibus erit futurus extra regnum suum Nabucho- donosor; per illa tempora omnes intelligunt septem annos. Si enim vellemus intelligere annos annorum, ut intelligunt adversarii, cum de Antichristo agitur; oporteret dicere, Nabuchodonosor vixisse extra regnum bis mille, et quingentos quinquagintaquinque annos. Neque difficile est ratiunculas eorum sol¬ vere : nam cum ait Chytraeus, non posse ac¬ cipi tres annos cum dimidio , de quibus lo¬ quuntur Daniel et Joannes , proprie pro an¬ nis nostris usitatis, quia experientia testatur, Antichristum jam multo longiori tempore esse grassatum; manifeste petit principium, ut Dialectici loquuntur. Assumit enim quod est in controversia : id enim quaeritur, an Antichristus venerit. Cum vero addit, Anti¬ christum ex Pauli sententia regnaturum us¬ que ad secundum Christi adventum ; et inde concludit, oportere eum diutius regnare, quam tribus annis cum medio, non videt se, aut iterum principium petere , aut nihil di¬ cere : nihil enim illa consecutio efficere pot¬ est, nisi assumatur, Antichristum jam ve¬ nisse ; quod tamen in controversia est. Ad id vero, quod tam ipse , quam Henri- cus Bullingerus dicunt, numerum certum pro incerto hoc loco accipi, respondeo : tunc solum certum numerum pro incerto poni, quando ponitur aliquis numerus plenus et perfectus, ut 10, 100, 1000, non autem quan¬ do assignantur varii numeri, ubi sunt magni et parvi admixti. Tunc ergo accipiendus est certus numerus pro incerto , quando Scrip¬ tura dicit Apoc. XX Diabolum per 1000 an¬ nos fuisse ligatum , ut exponit Augustinus XXXIII Moral. cap. 12. non autem quando assignat tempus, tempora, et dimidium tem¬ poris, sive dies 1260, vel menses 42. Quor¬ sum enim numerorum varietas, si tempus in¬ certum designatur? Ad argumentum Illyrici dico : in Scrip¬ tura inveniri quidem et recte dici hebdoma¬ das annorum, non tamen dies pro annis, vel menses annorum. Nam hebdomadas anno¬ rum legimus Levitici XXY : Numerabis tibi septem hebdomadas annorum etc. (1). Et recte dici patet , quia hebdomada denominatur a numero septenario , Graece , Latine et He¬ braice : nam Hebraei dicunt ysDttJ septimanam a quod est septem , ut etiam Graece dici¬ tur e/ 35oga; et Latine septimana a numero septenario ; sicut ergo septem dies dicuntur hebdomada dierum, ita septem anni hebdo¬ mada annorum. At mensem annorum, vel diem pro anno nusquam legimus , nec recte diceretur : nam mensis non denominatqr a numero aliquo, sed a cursu Lunae, qui 30 diebus absolvitur. Hinc enim Hebraei vocant mensem 'mi ; id est Lunam , vel ; id est innovationem ; scilicet, Lunae, et Graecis, men¬ sis p.yjv dicitur, quia Luna dicitur pim. Similiter dies non significat numerum, sed tempus lucis Genes. I : Vocavit Deus lucem diem, et tenebras noctem (2). Neque obstat il¬ lud Ezech. IY : Diem pro anno dedi tibi. Nam non vult dicere, pro diebus ad litteram sig¬ nificari annos, alioqui oporteret, Ezechielem dormivisse super latus suum sinistrum an¬ nos 390, quod est impossibile : jusseratenim Deus, ut dormiret super latus sinistrum die¬ bus 399, et addidit : Diem pro anno dedi tibi ; si ergo dies illi pro annis accipiuntur, de¬ buit Ezechiel dormire super latus sinistrum 390 annis : at non tarndiu vixit. Dicendum est igitur, dies ibi accipi vere pro diebus, sed dici pro annis datos , quia erant signum illi 399 dies, quibus dormivit Ezechiel, dor- anitionis Dei, per quam toleravit peccata Is- raelitarum, annis 390. Ad id quod objicit Chytraeus ex Luc. cap. XIII : Oportet me hodie , et cras , et perendie ambulare (3). Respondeo : non significari il¬ lis verbis (ut adversarii errantes dicunt) Christum tribus annis adhuc praedicaturum fuisse cum ea verba locutus est, siquidem ea verba Dominus pronuntiavit ultimo anno vitae suae. Nam, ut Hieronymus scribit in lib. de script. Eccles. in Joan. et res ipsa loqui¬ tur, Matthaeus , Marcus et Lucas non scrip¬ serunt acta et verba Christi priorum duorum annorum, sed solum tertii anni. Dominus igi¬ tur per tres illos dies, vel intellexit triduum, quod erat consumpturus in itinere Hieroso¬ lymitano, ut Albertus etGajetanus exponunt; (1) Levit. XXY, 8. — (2) Gen. I, 5. — (3) Luc. XIII, 33. vel certe eo loquendi modo significare vo¬ luit, se adhuc modicum tempus supervic- turum, et praedicaturum , ut Jansenius recte docet. Itaque viderint Illyricus et Ghytreeus, ubinam dies menses Angelicos reperirent; in Scriptura enim nusquam reperiuntur.