Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 10: On the Name of Antichrist
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).
There follows the fourth disputation, which will be on the proper name and character of Antichrist. All confess that those words of John, Apocalypse 13, pertain altogether to Antichrist: And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.
Now of this number there are several opinions. The first is of those who say that by this number is designated not a name, but the time of the coming or death of Antichrist. So Bullinger, who in the preface to his homilies on the Apocalypse will have designated the time of the coming of Antichrist. Likewise the Magdeburgians, who, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, will have designated the time of the death of Antichrist. Likewise certain who, Clichtove witnessing in Book 4 of Damascene, chapter 28, will have designated the death of Mohammed, whom they say is Antichrist; with whom agrees Lyra on this place, who does not indeed think Mohammed to be Antichrist, yet thinks that by this number is signified that the death of Mohammed was to be in the year 666 from the coming of Christ.
This opinion is most absurd. First, because John says that he speaks of the number of the name of the beast. Secondly, because the beast, whose this number is, will command all merchants to use it as a sign in contracts, as is plain from Apocalypse 13; therefore the number is not of the death of the beast, but pertains to it living. Thirdly, because it is also false that Mohammed died in the year of Christ 666. For some say he died in the year of the Lord 637, as Matthew Palmerius; some in the year 630, as Cedrenus in the Compendium of history; some in the year 638, as John Vasaeus in the Chronicle of Spain.
The second opinion is that of David Chytraeus on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, who teaches that the name of Antichrist is [Lateinos], or in Hebrew Roman; and accordingly that the Pope, who is a Latin Prince, since he rules in Latium and is the Roman Pontiff, is Antichrist. The same teaches Theodore Bibliander, table 10; and therefore the eleventh table of his Chronology, which begins from the year 600, he entitles “the Latin Popes.” Their reasons are two: one, because Irenaeus, Book 5, teaches that it is likely that this will be the name of Antichrist; the other, because in fact the letters of this name make that number, as the Greek numeral values show [the Greek Λατεινος summing to 666].
This opinion is altogether rash. For, first, Irenaeus says indeed that the name [Lateinos] can probably be accommodated to Antichrist; but he adds that it is much more probable that the name of Antichrist will be not [Lateinos] but [Teitan] — which also expresses that number, and is a much more illustrious name, since it signifies the Sun.
Moreover, the conjecture of Irenaeus, which then had some force, now has none. For he says that it is probable that Antichrist will be called Latin, not because he will rule in Latium, but because it was the Latins who then reigned most widely and held the whole World. For since Antichrist must be a most powerful King, without doubt he will occupy the most powerful kingdoms which he will then find; but the most powerful kingdom is that of the Latins, says Irenaeus, for they now most truly reign. But this conjecture at this time avails nothing; for the Latins no longer reign in the whole World, but it is the Turks who most truly reign, and among us the Spaniards and French, not the Latins.
Moreover the name Latin, as it signifies Roman, is not written with the Greek diphthong [ei], but with a simple Iota; and then it does not render that number. In what way also can the invention about the Hebrew name Roman be refuted; for Roman cannot be terminated in the Hebrew feminine ending, since it is a masculine name; for that is the termination of feminines among the Hebrews. But that letter removed, 400 are lacking to the number of Antichrist. Likewise the name [Lateinos], if it will be the name of Antichrist, will be proper to him, as Arethas teaches, and most usual; for it must be shown as a sign by all who buy or sell; but the name Latin is common; nor was any Pope ever called by the proper name Latin, nor is this name usual; for the Popes never call themselves Latins, but only Bishops or Popes.
Moreover Roman was the proper name of one Pontiff only, who yet could not be Antichrist, since he lived only four months; but otherwise the name is common. Finally, if only this name [Lateinos], or Roman, made the number 666, the adversaries would say something; but innumerable names are found which render this same number. Hippolytus the martyr, in his Oration on the consummation of the World, noted another name which renders that number, namely [Arnoumai], that is, “I deny.” Arethas noted seven: [Lampetis], that is, illustrious; [Teitan], that is, sun; [Nikētēs], that is, victor; [kakos hodēgos], that is, evil Leader; [alēthēs blaberos], that is, truly harmful; [palai baskanos], that is, of old envious; [amnos adikos], that is, harmful lamb. Primasius adds another, [anteros], that is, contrary. Rupert, and before him Haymo, devised two others, namely [genserikos], which is a Gothic name, and the Latin DICLVX, which makes 666 if in the Latin manner we take D for 500, I for 1, C for 100, L for 50, V for 5, X for 10.
Of the more recent, William Lindanus, Book 3 of the Dubitantius, notes that Martin Luther renders the number 666 if the Latin letters are taken for numbers after the manner of the Greek and Hebrew. Gilbert Genebrardus, in the last book of the Chronicle, noted also that the name of Luther in Hebrew makes that number. I add, for the sake of Luther and Chytraeus, two others, namely that “David Chytraeus” [in Hebrew] and [Iēsouitos] render the same number — which name suits Luther as the name Latin suits the Pope.
The third opinion is of many Catholics, who suspect that Antichrist will be called [anteros], both because this name properly suits him, and also because it renders exactly that number. So Primasius, Anselm, and Richard. This opinion is rightly refuted by Rupert, because the name which John here insinuates will not be a name imposed on Antichrist by his adversaries, but a name which he himself will usurp, and in which he will glory so much that he will command it to be inscribed on the foreheads of men. But it is not credible that he will assume to himself some odious or vile name, such as is [anteros], and also almost all the others mentioned above.
The fourth opinion is Rupert's own, who thinks that by this number is signified not the name of Antichrist, but a threefold prevarication of the Devil to be completed in Antichrist. For the number six, because it does not reach to seven, in which is rest and beatitude, is the number of a creature falling by prevarication from rest; but the Devil incurred a threefold prevarication, or rather tripled one. For first he prevaricated when he sinned in himself; then again when he made the first man sin, and then to the simple six he added sixty; finally he will prevaricate a third time, when through Antichrist he will seduce the whole World, and then to sixty he will add six hundred.
The fifth opinion is Bede's, who goes by the contrary way, and teaches that the number six is perfect, because in six days God made heaven and earth; but sixty more perfect, and six hundred most perfect; from which he gathers that Antichrist is designated by the number 666, because he will usurp to himself the most perfect tribute which is due to God alone. As a figure of which we read, 3 Kings chapter 10, that the weight of gold which was brought to Solomon every year was six hundred sixty-six thousand talents.
These two opinions do not seem to square sufficiently with what John says, that that number is the number of a name, not of dignity or of prevarication; but neither did these Fathers wish those opinions of theirs to be held in any other place than that of suspicions and conjectures.
The truest opinion, then, is of those who confess their ignorance, and say that the name of Antichrist is as yet unknown — which opinion is that of Irenaeus, Book 5, of Arethas on this place of the Apocalypse, and of others. And it pleases me to write down the words of Irenaeus, since Chytraeus exhorted his readers to read him: “I exhort the studious,” he says, “on this place of the Apocalypse to read through the last pages of Irenaeus, 333 and 334, who modestly and piously disputes of this number of the beast, and among other things indicates that Antichrist will be Latin or Roman, by the name [Lateinos], etc.” Irenaeus, then, thus says: “It is therefore more sure, and without danger, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy, than to guess and divine any names whatever, when many names can be found having the foretold number. And nonetheless the same question will remain. For if there are many names found having this number, it will be asked which of them he who is to come will bear. But we say these things not for want of names having the number of his name, but out of fear toward God and zeal for the truth. For [Euanthas] is a name having the number of which we ask. But we affirm nothing of it. But also [Lateinos] has the number of six hundred sixty-six, and it is very likely, since the most true kingdom has this appellation, for the Latins are those who now reign; but in this we will not glory. But also [Teitan], the first syllable written with the two Greek vowels [e] and [i], of all the names which are found among us, is more worthy of belief.” And below: “Since therefore this name Titan has so much of persuasion, has so much likelihood that from many things we gather that perhaps he who is to come is called Titan — yet we will not run into danger in it, nor asserting will we pronounce that he will have this name; knowing that, if it were needful that his name be manifestly proclaimed in the present time, it would surely have been uttered by him who also had seen the Apocalypse.” Thus he.
Let Chytraeus then hear Irenaeus discoursing modestly, piously, and learnedly, and let him not falsely impute to him what he never said. For Irenaeus did not judge that Antichrist would be Latin or Roman; but he says, and several times repeats, that the name of Antichrist cannot be known at this time; and this he approved by a double reason, and that the best. The first, because many names are found which make that number; nor is it permitted to divine, out of so many similar, which is that one which was foretold. Next, because if God wished it to be known at this time, He would surely have disclosed it through John himself. And he added that he speaks thus not for want of names, but out of fear of God and zeal for truth; and therefore he brought forward three names, [Euanthas], [Lateinos], and [Teitan], of which he affirmed the second more likely than the first, and the third than the second, but none as certain.
A third reason too we can add from the same Irenaeus. For a little before, disputing against those who gathered false names of Antichrist from their own intention, he says that they thereby fall into many inconveniences. For they expose themselves to the danger of erring, and of deceiving others, and of bringing it about that both they themselves and very many others are most easily seduced by Antichrist. For when he comes, and has a name other than they persuaded themselves he would have, he will not be held by them for Antichrist, and so will not be avoided. All which inconveniences will without doubt befall the Lutherans, and especially this last. For because they persuaded themselves that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist, when that true Antichrist shall come, he will not easily be recognized by them, and accordingly will not be avoided.
Now it is to be noted in this place that the name of Antichrist will be most well known when he comes; for even before Christ came, the Jews did not certainly know by what name He was to be called, although the Prophets had foretold many things of His name. Nay, even a certain Sibyl, as is in the first book of the Sibylline Verses, had noted the number of the name of the future Christ, and had said it was 888 — as John wrote of Antichrist, that the number of his name is 666 — and yet men before the coming of Christ could not yet say that He was to be called Jesus. But after Christ came, all know that He is called Jesus.
“But,” says the Sibyl, “I will teach what is the whole sum of the number: for the letters of the name will signify to the faithless eight units, as many tens above these, and eight hundreds; but do thou hold the name in mind.” [The Greek letters of “Jesus” — I, E, S, O, U, S — sum to 888.]
Let it be added that it is common to all the prophecies of the Prophets to be ambiguous and obscure until they are fulfilled, as Irenaeus rightly teaches and proves, Book 4, chapter 43.
From these things an insoluble argument can be taken to prove that the Roman Pontiff is not Antichrist, and that Antichrist himself has not yet come. For if Antichrist had come, and were the Roman Pontiff, his name foretold by John would be certainly established; just as, because our Christ has come, there is now no question, not even among the Turks, and Jews, and Pagans, how He is called; but of the name of Antichrist there is still the greatest controversy, as we have made plain by so many opinions recited and refuted; therefore the prophecy of John is not yet fulfilled; and accordingly Antichrist has not yet come, nor is the Roman Pontiff.
Add a confirmation from the Confession of Augustin Marlorat, who, in the great explanation collected from various Lutherans and Calvinists on the New Testament, writes thus of this place: “Of this place there are almost as many expositions as Expositors, whereby it appears that it is most obscure and enigmatic.” Thus he. But if this prophecy is still most obscure and enigmatic, then it is not fulfilled; therefore Antichrist has not come; since all prophecies, when they are fulfilled, are made most clear. Why then, Marlorat, dost thou boast in thy preface to the Apocalypse that it is so evident that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist, that if you were silent, the stones would cry out?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. De nomine Antichristi. Sequitur quarta disputatio, quae erit de nomine proprio et charactere Antichristi. Fatentur omnes pertinere omnino ad Anti- christum verba illa Joan. Apoc, XIII : Et faciet omnes pusillos cum magnis , divites et pauperes, liberos et servos habere characte¬ rem in dextera manu , aut in frontibus suis ; et ne quis possit emere aut vendere nisi habeat characterem , aut nomen bestice , aut numerum nominis ejus : hic sapientia est. Qui habet in¬ tellectum, computet numerum bestice. JSumerus enim hominis est , et numerus ejus 666 (I). Sunt autem de hoc numero plures opinio¬ nes. Prima est eorum qui dicunt, hoc nu¬ mero non designari nomen, sed tempus ad¬ ventus vel mortis Antichristi. Ita Bullinge- rus qui praefat. homil. in Apoc. vult, desig¬ nari tempus adventus Antichristi. Item Magdeburgenses, qui Gentur. I, lib. II, cap. 4. volunt, designari tempus mortis Anti¬ christi. Item quidam, qui, teste Glicthoveo in lib. IV Damasc. cap. 28. volunt, designari mortem Mahumeti, quem dicunt esse Anti- christum : quibus consentit Lyranus in hunc locum, qui non putat quidem Mahumetum esse Antichristum ; tamen existimat, hoc numero significari mortem Mahumeti futu¬ ram fuisse anno 666, a Christi adventu. Haec opinio est absurdissima. Primo, quia Joannes dicit, se loqui de numero nominis» bestise. Secundo, quia bestia, cujus est hic numerus, praecipiet omnibus mercatoribus, ut eo pro signo utantur in contractibus, et patet Apoc. XIII ; non ergo numerus est mor¬ tis bestise, sed ad ipsam viventem pertinet. Tertio, quia etiam est falsum, Mahumetum mortuum esse anno Christi 666. Quidam enim dicunt eum mortuum anno Domini 637, ut Matthaeus PalmeriUs ; quidam anno Domini 630, ut Gedrenus in Compend hist, quidam anno Domini 638, ut Joannes Vaseus in Ghron. Hispaniae. Secunda opinio est Davidis Ghytraei in o. XIII Apoc. qui docet nomen Antichristi esse lurehoq vel Hebraice Romanus ; proin¬ de Papam qui Princeps Latinus est, cum in Latio dominetur et Romanus est Pontifex, esse Antichristum. Idem docet Theodorus Bibliander tab. 10 et propterea tabulam un¬ decimam suae Ghronologiae, quae incipit ab anno 600, inscribit, Latinos Papas. Rationes eorum duae sunt ; una, quia Irenaeus lib. V docet, verisimile esse, hoc futurum nomen Antichristi : altera, quia revera litterae hujus nominis efficiunt illum numerum, ut patet. 200. >. 30. T. 300. 6. «. 1. e. 5. a 40. T. 300. i. 10. 10. e. 5. r. 300. 10. t. 10. a. 1. n 400. V. 50. V. 50. 666. 0. 70. 666. ?• 200. 666. Haec opinio est prorsus temeraria. Nam in primis, Irenaeus dicit quidem nomen la- rstvos probabiliter posse accommodari Anti- christo : sed addit, multo probabilius esse, nomen Antichristi , non fore Wewoj, sed 7£iT5cv ; quod etiam exprimit illum numerum ; et est nomen multo illustrius, cum Solem significet. Praeterea conjectura Irenaei, quae tunc ali¬ qua erat, modo nulla est. Ipse enim dicit, probabile esse Antichristum vocandum La¬ tinum, non quia dominabitur in Latio, sed quia Latini erant, qui tunc regnabant latis¬ sime, et Orbem totum tenebant. Cum enim Antichristus debeat esse Rex potentissimus, sine dubio occupabit potentissima regna, quae tunc inveniet : potentissimum autem regnum est Latinorum, inquit Irenaeus ; ipsi enim nunc verissime regnant. Sane conjec¬ tura ista hoc tempore nihil valet : nam La¬ tini non amplius regnant in toto Orbe terra¬ rum, sed Tureae sunt qui verissime regnant, et apud nos Hispani, et Galli, non Latini. Praeterea nomen Latini, ut significat Ro- (1) Apoc. XIII, 16, 17 et 18. manum, non scribitur per et, sed per sim¬ plex Iota ; et tunc non reddit illum nume¬ rum. Quomodo etiam refelli potest commen¬ tum de nomine rpiQll ? nam Romanus non potest terminari in n, cum sit nomen mas¬ culinum : illa enim foemininorum terminatio est apud Hebraeos. Remota autem littera n, desunt 400 ad numerum Antichristi. Item nomen laxdwg si erit Antichristi nomen, erit proprium ei, ut Arethas docet, et usitatum maxime ; nam debebit ostendi in signum ab omnibus qui emunt, aut vendunt : at nomen >«r?wof, est commune ; nec enim ullus Papa vocatus est unquam nomine proprio Lati¬ nus, nec est hoc nomen usitatum ; nunquam enim Papae se Latinos vocant, sed solum Episcopos aut Papas. Porro Romanus , nomen fuit proprium unius solius Pontificis ; qui tamen non po¬ tuit esse Antichristus, cum non vixerit nisi mensibus quatuor : alioqui autem nomen est commune, Denique, si solum hoc nomen larsivog, vel Romanus efficerent numerum 666, aliquid dicerent adversarii ; at innumerabilia nomi¬ na inveniuntur, quae hunc eumdem nume¬ rum reddunt. Hippolytus martyr, in Orat, de consummat. Mundi, notavit aliud nomen, quod reddit illum numerum, nimirum, &p- vovpat, id est, nego. Arethas annotavit sep¬ tem. }oc[X7rsTYii, id est, illustris. Teirav, id est, sol. 9 vtwri k, id est, victor, xxy.bg b S^ybg, id est, pravus Dux. abiOrie ftxfispbg, id est, vere nocens, naiai j3x<rxxvog, id est, olim invidens, apoj aStxoc, id est, agnus nocens. Primasius addit aliud, «v-regoc, id est, contrarius. Ru- pertus, et ante eum Haymo, excogitaverunt duo alia, nimirum ymnptxbg, quod est nomen Gothicum, et DICLVX Latinum, quod facit 666 , si Latino more accipiamus D. pro quingentis, I. pro uno, G. pro centum, L. pro quinquaginta, Y. pro quinque, X. pro decem. Ex recentioribus Gulielmus Lindanus, lib. III Dubitantii, notat, Martinum Lutherum reddere numerum 666, si litterae Latinae ac¬ cipiantur pro numeris more Graecarum et Hebraicarum, hoc modo : A, 1. B, 2. C, 3. D, 4. E, 5. F, 6. G, 7. H, 8. I, 9. K, 10. L, 20. M, 30. N, 40. 0, 50. P, 60. Q, 70. R, 80. S, 90. T, 100. Y, 200. X, 300. Y, 400. Z, 500. Gilbertus Genebrardus lib. ult. Chron. notavit etiam nomen Lutheri Hebraice nu¬ merum illum efficere inblb. 7. 4. tr. 200. Addo ego in gra¬ 3. 2. a. 1 . tiam Lutheri et Chy- 5. 10. 5. 60. traei duo alia, nimi¬ 7. 4. 0. 70. rum inns Ta7, id S. 20. V. 50. est, DavidChytraeus, L 10. s. 5. et 1 7«?ovs£05 eumdem 'n. 400. t. 10. numerum reddere, 7. 200. 0. 70. quod nomen ita con¬ t. 10. ?. 200. venit Luthero , si¬ i 6. cut Papae nomen La¬ 666. 666. tini. Tertia opinio est multorum Catholicorum, qui suspicantur , Antichristum vocandum «vrsgof, tum quia hoc nomen proprie illi conveniat, tum etiam quia reddat exacte il¬ lum numerum. Ita Primasius, Anselmus, et Richardus. Refutatur recte a Ruperto haec opinio, quoniam nomen quod hic Joannes insinuat, non erit nomen Antichristo ab adversariis impositum, sed nomen quod ipse sibi usur¬ pabit, et in quo gloriabitur adeo, ut jubeat inscribi in frontibus hominum. Non est au¬ tem credibile eum sibi assumpturum nomen aliquod odiosum aut vile, quale est avregoj, et etiam omnia fere alia supra memorata. Quarta sententia est ipsius Ruperti, qui existimat, hoc numero non significari nomen Antichristi, sed significari triplicem praeva¬ ricationem Diaboli in Antichristo complen¬ dam. Nam senarius numerus , quia non pertingit ad septenarium, in quo est requies et beatitudo, est numerus creaturae per prae- varicationem excidentis a requie : Diabolus autem triplicem praevaricationem incurrit, seu potius unam triplicavit. Primum enim praevaricatus est cum in se peccavit : dein¬ de rursum cum primum hominem peccare fecit, et tunc ad simplicem senarium addi¬ dit sexagenarium : denique tertio praevari¬ cabitur, cum per Antichristum totum Mun¬ dum seducet, et tunc ad sexagesimum addet sexcentesimum. Quinta sententia Bedae est, qui contraria via incedit ac docet , numerum senarium esse perfectum, quia sex diebus fecit Deus coelum et terram : sexagesimum vero per¬ fectiorem , et sexcentesimum perfectissi¬ mum ; ex quo colligit, Antichristum desig¬ nari per numerum 666, quia usurpabit sibi perfectissimum tributum, quod soli debetur Deo. In cujus rei figuram, legimus lib. III Reg. cap. X, Pondus auri, quod adferebatur Salomoni per singulos annos, fuisse talen¬ torum sexcentorum sexaginta sex millium. Hse duae sententiae, non videntur satis qua¬ drare cum eo, quod Joannes dicit, nume¬ rum illum esse numerum nominis, non dig¬ nitatis, aut praevaricationis : sed nec isti Patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi, quam suspicionum, et conjec¬ turarum. Verissima igitur sententia est eorum, qui ignorantiam suam confitentur, ac dicunt, adhuc/ ignorari nomen Anti christi : quae sententia est Irenaei lib. V, Arethae in hunc locum Apoc. et aliorum. Placet autem ad- scribere verba Irenaei, quoniam ad eum le¬ gendum Chytraeus lectores suos hortatus est : « Hortor, inquit, studiosos, ut de hoc Apocalypsis loco postremas Irenaei paginas 333 et 334. perlegant, qui verecunde et pie de hoc numero bestiae disputat, et inter cae- tera, Latinum seu Romanum fore Antichris- tum indicat, nomine Xarstvo? etc. » Irenaeus igitur sic ait : « Certius ergo et sine pericu¬ lo est, sustinere adimpletionem prophetiae, quam suspicari et divinare nomina quaelibet, quando multa nomina inveniri possunt ha¬ bentia praedictum numerum. Et nihilominus quidem erit haec eadem quaestio. Si enim multae sunt quae inveniuntur nomina, ha¬ bentia numerum hunc quod ex ipsis porta¬ bit, qui veniet quaeritur, quoniam autem non propter inopiam nominum habentium numerum nominis ejus dicimus haec, sed propter timorem erga Deum, et zelum veri¬ tatis. E Oav0af enim nomen, habet numerum, de quo quaeritur. Sed nihil de eo affirma¬ mus. Sed et Ixzehog nomen sexcentorum sexagintasex numerum, et valde verisimile est, quoniam verissimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum, Latini enim sunt, qui nunc reg¬ nant. Sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur. Sed et rstrav, prima syllaba per duas Graecas vo¬ cales s et t, scripta, omnium nominum, quae apud nos inveniuntur, magis fide dignum est. » Et infra : « Cum igitur tantum suasio- sionum habeat hoc nomen Titan, tantam habeat verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colli¬ gamus, ne forte Titan vocetur qui veniet, nos tamen non periclitabimur in eo, nec as¬ severantes pronuntiabimus, hoc eum nomen habiturum, scientes, quoniam si oportet manifeste praesenti tempore praeconari no¬ men ejus, per ipsum utique editum fuisset, qui et Apocalypsim viderat. » Haec ille. Audiat igitur Chytraeus Irenaeum verecun¬ de, pie et erudite disserentem, et non falso illi imponat, quod nunquam dixit. Nec enim judicavit Irenaeus, Antichristum fore Lati¬ num, seu Romanum : sed ait, et aliquoties repetiit, non posse hoc tempore sciri nomen Antichristi ; idque duplici ratione, eaque optima approbavit. Prima, quia multa inve¬ niuntur nomina, quae numerum illum effi¬ ciunt ; nec divinare liceat ex tam multis si¬ milibus, quod sit illud unum quod praedictum est. Deinde, quoniam si Deus vellet hoc tempore sciri, per ipsum Joannem utique id prodidisset. Addidit vero, non inopia nomi¬ num se ita loqui, sed ex timore Dei, et zelo veritatis ; ac propterea tria nomina in me¬ dium attulit, EuavQas, Aaretvoj et Tetrav, ex quibus secundum verisimilius primo , et tertium secundo affirmavit, nullum vero cer¬ tum. Tertiam quoque rationem addere possu¬ mus ex eodem Irenaeo. Nam paulo ante dis¬ putans adversus eos, qui falsa nomina Anti¬ christi ex propria sua intentione colligebant ; ait, eos propterea in multa incommoda labi. Nam exporiunt se periculo errandi, et alios decipiendi, atque id efficiendi, ut tam ipsi, quam alii permulti ab Antichristo facillime seducantur. Nam cum venerit, et aliud no¬ men habuerit, quam ipsi sibi persuaserunt eum habiturum, non habebitur ab eis pro Antichristo, atque ita non evitabitur. Quse omnia incommoda sine dubio Lutheranis evenient, et praecipue hoc postremum. Quia enim sibi persuaserunt, Romanum Pontificem esse Antichristum, cum ille verus Antichris- tus advenerit, non facile cognoscetur ab eis ; proinde nec evitabitur. Est autem hoc loco notandum, Antichristi nomen fore notissimum, cum ille venerit : nam etiam antequam Christus veniret, Ju¬ daei non certo noverant quo nomine appel¬ landus esset, etiamsi multa de ejus nomine Prophetae praedixerant. Quin etiam Sibylla quaedam, ut est in I lib. Carm. Sibyllinor. notaverat numerum nominis Christi futuri, ac dixerat esse 888, ut Joannes de Antichri¬ sto scripsit, numerum nominis ejus esse 666, et tamen nondum poterant homines ante Christi adventum dicere , vocandum esse Jesum. At posteaquam Christus venit, omnis sciunt, eum Jesum appellari. Sed, inquit Sibylla, quae sit numeri t 10 totius summa docebo v? 8 Namque octo monadas, totidem de- o- 200 cadas super ista o 70 Atque hecatontadas octo, infidis sig- u 400 nificabit. c 200 Humanis nomen, tu vero mente te¬ neto. 888 Accedat, commune esse omnibus vatici¬ niis Prophetarum, ut ambigua et obscura sint, donec impleantur; ut Irenseus recte do¬ cet, et probat lib. IV, cap. 43. Ex his argumentum insolubile sumi po¬ test ad probandum, Romanum Pontificem non esse Antichristum, et ipsum Antichris- tum nondum venisse. Nam si Antichristus venisset, atque esset Romanus Pontifex, certo constaret de nomine ejus a Joanne praedicto ; sicut quia Christus noster venit, jam nulla quaestio est, ne apud Tureas qui¬ dem, et Judaeos, et Paganos, quemadmodum appelletur : at de nomine Antichristi adhuc maxima controversia est, ut tot opinionibus recitatis et refutatis planum fecimus; igitur Joannis vaticinium nondum est impletum ; proinde Antichristus nondum venit, nec est Romanus Pontifex. Adde confirmationem ex Confessione Au¬ gustini Marlorati, qui in magna explicatione ex variis Lutheranis et Calvinistis collecta in Testamentum novum, de hoc loco ita scribit : « Loci hujus tot fere sunt expositio¬ nes, quot Expositores, quo apparet, obscu¬ rissimum, et senigmaticum esse. » Haec ille. At si adhuc est obscurissimum et aenigmati- cum vaticinium, non igitur est impletum ; non ergo Antichristus venit : siquidem om¬ nia vaticinia, cum impleta sunt, clarissima efficiuntur. Cur igitur, Marlorate, praefat. in Apoc. jactas, ita perspicuum esse, Romanum Pontificem esse Antichristum, ut si vos ta¬ cueritis, lapides sint clamaturi?