Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 12: On the Generation 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).
As to the fifth point, on the generation of Antichrist, there are some things openly erroneous asserted by certain persons, some probable, and some proven and certain. First, then, of Antichrist there were of old several errors. The first, that Antichrist is to be born of a virgin by the work of the Devil, in the way that Christ was born of a virgin by the work of the Holy Spirit.
This error is related by the author of the little work on Antichrist, which is had under the name of Augustine at the end of volume 9, which little work is probably Rabanus's; certainly it cannot be Augustine's. The error is manifest; for to produce a man without the seed of a man is the work of God alone, who can supply all efficient causes, because He alone is of infinite power, and virtually contains all the perfection of creatures. But the Devil, who is a creature, can indeed do wonderful works, by most swiftly applying actives to passives; but he cannot supply the active powers of causes. Wherefore Saint Augustine, in letter 3 to Volusian, says that to be born of a virgin was such a miracle in Christ that a greater could not be expected from God.
It would not, however, be an error, if one said that Antichrist is to be born of the Devil and a woman, in the manner in which certain persons are said to be born of incubus demons. For although the Devil cannot of himself, without the seed of a man, produce a man, yet he can well, in a body assumed in the form of a woman, exercise the carnal act with a man, and receive the seed, and then himself, in the form of a man, exercise a like act with a woman, and cast the seed received from the man into the womb of the woman, and in this way beget a man. This Augustine testifies, Book 15 of the City of God, chapter 23, and adds that it is proved by so great experience that to wish still to deny it seems impudence.
The second error was that of blessed Hippolytus the Martyr, who in his Oration on the consummation of the World teaches that Antichrist is the Devil himself, who from a false virgin will assume a false flesh. For as the Word of God, which is truth itself, from a true virgin assumed true flesh, so Hippolytus thought it probable that the Devil, who is the father of lies, would feign that he had assumed human flesh from a virgin. This opinion is refuted, both because 2 Thessalonians 2 Antichrist is called a man, and also because the other Fathers by common consent write that Antichrist will be a true man.
The third error is that Antichrist will be indeed a true man, but at the same time also the Devil, by the incarnation of the Devil, in the manner in which Christ by the incarnation is God and man. This error is related and refuted by Jerome on chapter 7 of Daniel, Bede on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, and Damascene, Book 4, chapter 27. This opinion Origen believed possible, since in volume 5 on John he asserted that some Angels were truly incarnate; whom Jerome refutes in the preface to Malachi, and on chapter 1 of Aggeus. And without doubt it is erroneous; for no created person, and accordingly finite, can sustain two perfect natures, as the Word of God can, which is infinite. Nor is there now any controversy about this among the Theologians; for although some teach that it altogether implies a contradiction, and others teach that it does not imply one, yet in this all agree, that it cannot be done by the powers of a mere creature, such as the Devil is.
The fourth error is that Nero will rise again, and himself be Antichrist; or at least that he still lives and is secretly preserved in the vigor of youthful age, and will appear in his own time. This error Sulpicius insinuates, Book 2 of the sacred history; yet in Book 2 of the Dialogues on the virtues of Saint Martin he writes openly that Nero himself will not be Antichrist, but will come with Antichrist, and will at last be destroyed by Antichrist. But because all these things are said without any reason, blessed Augustine deservedly calls this opinion a wondrous presumption, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19.
Besides these errors there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers on the generation of Antichrist. The first is that Antichrist is to be born of a harlot woman, not of legitimate matrimony. This Damascene teaches, Book 4, chapter 27, and certain others; but since it cannot be shown from the Scriptures, it is indeed probable, yet not certain.
The second opinion is that Antichrist is to be born of the tribe of Dan. This Irenaeus asserts (near the end), Ambrose in his book on the blessings of the Patriarchs, chapter 7, Augustine question 22 on Joshua, Prosper on the promises and predictions of God, part 4, Theodoret question 109 on Genesis, Gregory Book 31 of the Morals chapter 10, Bede, Rupert, Arethas, Richard, and Anselm on Apocalypse chapter 7. They prove it from that of Genesis 49: Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, etc. Likewise from that of Jeremiah 8: From Dan we have heard the snorting of his horses, etc. Finally from this, that in Apocalypse 7, where twelve thousand of every tribe of the sons of Israel are sealed by the Angel, the tribe of Dan is omitted — which seems to have been done in hatred of Antichrist.
This opinion is very probable because of the authority of so great Fathers; yet not altogether certain: both because most of those Fathers do not say that they know this, but insinuate that it is probable; and because none of those Scriptures proves it convincingly. For, first, Genesis 49, Jacob seems to speak literally of Samson, when he says: Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse's heels, that his rider may fall backward. For Samson was of the tribe of Dan, and was truly to the Philistines as a snake in the way; for everywhere he met them, and vexed them. So Jerome expounds in the Hebrew Questions. And Jacob seems indeed to pray well for his son when he says these things, and accordingly to foretell not evil, but good. But if this be accommodated allegorically to Antichrist, no argument can be drawn but a probable one, such as is drawn from mystical senses. Jeremiah, chapter 8, without doubt does not speak of Antichrist, nor of the tribe of Dan, but of Nebuchadnezzar, who was to come to overthrow Jerusalem, through that region which was called Dan, as there Jerome rightly expounds. But why in Apocalypse 7 Dan is omitted, is not sufficiently established, especially since Ephraim too is omitted, whose tribe is one of the greatest.
Besides these two probable points, there are two others most certain: one, that Antichrist will come chiefly for the sake of the Jews, and will be received by them as the Messiah; the other, that he will be born of the Jewish nation, and will be circumcised, and will observe the Sabbath, at least for a time. The first is had, both from the Gospel of John 5, where the Lord says to the Jews: I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive — which place we demonstrated above, in chapter 2, must be taken of Antichrist; and from the Apostle, 2 Thessalonians 2: Because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying, etc. This place Calvin and other heretics, in their commentaries on these words, expound of us, who, because we do not receive their Gospel, are suffered to be seduced by the Roman Antichrist. But, first, they bring forward no witnesses; whereas we have on our side all the Interpreters, who expound it of the Jews. See Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius.
Besides these, thus says Jerome, question 11 to Algasia: “Antichrist will do all these things, not by his own power, but by the permission of God, for the sake of the Jews; that, because they would not receive the love of the truth — that is, the Spirit of God through Christ, that, the Savior being received, they might be saved — God shall send them not a worker, but the very operation, that is, the fountain of error, that they may believe a lie, etc.” And even without the commentaries of so many Fathers, the thing itself cries out that the Apostle speaks of the Jews; for he himself says that Antichrist is to be sent to those who would not receive Christ; but who are they who more ought to have received Christ, and would not, than the Jews? Where also it is to be noted that the Apostle did not say, because they will not receive the truth, but because they received it not. He speaks therefore of those who, Christ and the Apostles preaching, would not believe. But it is established that in the time of the Apostles the Gentiles most eagerly received the Gospel, but the Jews would not receive it.
To these things, besides Jerome and the others already cited, the same teach all the other Fathers — as Irenaeus, Book 5; Hippolytus the martyr in his Oration on the consummation of the World; Theodoret in the Epitome of the divine decrees, chapter on Antichrist; Sulpicius, from Saint Martin, Book 2 of the Dialogues; Cyril, catechesis 15; Hilary, canon 25 on Matthew; Ambrose, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria on chapter 5 of John; Gregory, Book 31 of the Morals, chapter 10; Damascene, Book 4, chapter 27. And reason too persuades it.
For Antichrist without doubt will chiefly join himself to those who are prepared to receive him; but the Jews are such, who expect a Messiah, a temporal King, such as Antichrist will be; for the Gentiles expect no one, and the Christians indeed expect Antichrist, but with fear and terror, not with joy and desire. As therefore Christ first came to the Jews, to whom He was promised, and by whom He was expected, and then joined to Himself also the Gentiles, so also Antichrist will come first to the Jews, by whom he is expected, and then gradually will subject to himself all Nations.
Now that Antichrist will be a Jew, and circumcised, is certain, and is deduced, first, from what has been said. For the Jews would never receive a man not a Jew, or uncircumcised, for their Messiah. Nay, because the Jews expect a Messiah of the family of David and the tribe of Judah, without doubt Antichrist, although he be truly of the tribe of Dan, will feign himself to be of the family of David. Next, all the Ancients most clearly teach that Antichrist will be a Jew — as those twelve cited a little before, who say that he will be of the tribe of Dan; and besides, Ambrose, who on 2 Thessalonians 2 asserts that he will be circumcised; and Jerome, who on chapter 11 of Daniel says that he will be born of the Jewish people; and Saint Martin, in Sulpicius, Book 2 of the Dialogues, who says that Antichrist will command that all be circumcised according to the law; and Cyril, who, catechesis 15, asserts that he will be very studious of the temple of Jerusalem, that he may show himself to be of the progeny of David; and finally Gregory, who [Book 31 of the Morals, chapter 10, asserts that he will be] also a worshipper of the Sabbath and of the other Jewish ceremonies.
From these things we have a most evident demonstration that the Pope is not Antichrist. For from the year 606, in which the adversaries say Antichrist came, it is established that no Pontiff was a Jew, neither by nation, nor by religion, nor in any way. It is established also that the Pontiff has never yet been received by the Jews for the Messiah, but on the contrary is held for their chief enemy and persecutor. Whence in their daily prayers they beseech God that He give the living Pontiff a good mind toward the Jews, and that in his days He send the Messiah, who forsooth may free them from the power of the Pontiff; and a Bishop, such as chiefly is the supreme Pontiff, they themselves call [zanav], which in Syriac signifies a tail, and is opposed to the head. For because we call a Bishop the Head of the people, they on the contrary call him a tail, by way of contumely; so far are they from being prepared to receive the supreme Pontiff for the Messiah.
Finally Rabbi Levi Gerson, on chapters 7 and 10 of Daniel, expounds all that is said of Antichrist of the Roman Pontiff, whom he also calls a second Pharaoh, and opposes to the Messiah to come. See the Prayer Mahazor, folio 26.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. De generatione Antichristi. Quantum ad quintum, de generatione An- tichristi, sunt quaedam aperte erronea a qui¬ busdam asserta , quaedam probabilia , et quaedam explorata ac certa. Primum ergo, de Antichristo plures errores fuerunt olim. Primus, quod Antichristus sit nasciturus de virgine opera Diaboli; quomodo Christus de virgine natus est opera Spiritus sancti. Refert hunc errorem auctor Opusc. de Antichristo, quod habetur sub nomine Au¬ gustini in fine tomilX, quod opusculum pro¬ babile est esse Rabani : certe Augustini esse non potest. Error est manifestus, nam pro¬ ducere hominem sine semine viri, est opus solius Dei, qui potest supplere omnes effi¬ cientes causas, quia ipse est solus infinitae virtutis, et continet virtualiter omnem per¬ fectionem creaturarum. Diabolus autem qui creatura est, potest quidem mira opera fa¬ cere, applicando celerrime activa passivis : at supplere virtutes activas causarum non potest. Quare S. Augustinus in epist. 3. ad Yolus. dicit, nasci de virgine, tale miracu¬ lum fuisse in Christo, ut majus a Deo expec- tari non potuerit. Non esset tamen error, si quis diceret, Antichristum nascituri.m ex Diabolo et mu¬ liere, eo modo, quo dicuntur quidam nati ex incubis daemonibus. Nam etsi Diabolus non possit per se sine semine viri hominem producere : tamen bene potest in corpore assumpto in forma mulieris exercere cum viro actum carnalem, et semen recipere, ac deinde ipse idem in forma viri cum muliere similem actum exercere, et semen a viro ac¬ ceptum in uterum mulieris injicere, et eo modo hominem gignere. Testatur hoc Au¬ gustinus lib. XV de Civit. Dei, cap. 23. et addit, tanta experientia id comprobatum esse, ut adhuc velle negare impudentia3 vi¬ deatur. Secundus error fuitB. Martyris Hippolyti, qui in Orat, de consummat. Mundi docet, Antichristum esse ipsum Diabolum, qui de falsa virgine falsam carnem assumet. Ut enim verbum Dei, quod est ipsa veritas, de vera virgine veram carnem assumpsit : ita probabile existimavit Hippolytus, Diabolum qui est pater mendacii, simulaturum se car¬ nem humanam ex virgine assumpsisse. Re¬ fellitur hsec sententia, tum quia II. Thessal. II vocatur Antichristus homo; tum etiam quia Patres cseteri communi consensu scri¬ bunt, Antichristum verum hominem futu¬ rum. Tertius error est, Antichristum futurum quidem verum hominem, sed simul etiam Diabolum, per incarnationem Diaboli, quo¬ modo Christus per incarnationem est Deus et homo. Referunt et refellunt hunc errorem Hieronymus in cap. VII Dan. Beda in cap. XIII Apoc. et Damascenus lib. IV, cap. 27. Hanc sententiam Origenes possibilem esse credidit, quippe qui tom. V in Joan. asse¬ ruit, aliquot Angelos vere esse incarnatos ; quem refellit Hieronymus in praefat. in Ma- lach. et in cap. I Aggaei. Ac sine dubio er¬ ronea est, nec enim potest persona aliqua creata, ac proinde finita, duas naturas per¬ fectas sustentare, ut potest Verbum Dei, quod infinitum est. Neque de hoc jam inter Theologos controversia est : nam etsi alii doceant, id omnino implicare contradictio¬ nem; alii vero doceant, non implicare; ta¬ men in eo ofnnes conveniunt, non posse id fieri viribus solius creaturae, qualis Diabo¬ lus est. Quartus error est Neronem resurrecturum, et ipsum futurum Antichristum, vel certe il¬ lum adhuc vivere et servarij occulte in vigo¬ re juvenilis aetatis, et suo tempore apparitu¬ rum. Insinuat hunc errorem Sulpitius lib. II sac. hist. tamen in II. lib. Dial. de virtut. S. Martini scribit aperte, non ipsum Neronem fore Antichristum, sed cum Antichristo ven¬ turum, et ab Antichristo tandem perimen¬ dum. Sed, quia hiec omnia sine ulla ratione dicuntur, merito hanc sententiam miram praesumptionem vocat B. Augustinus lib. XX de Civit. Dei, cap. 19. Praeter hos errores sunt duae sententiae probabiles SS. Patrum de generatione Anti- christi. Prima est, Antichristum de fornicaria mu¬ liere nasciturum, non ex legitimo matrimo¬ nio. Docent hoc Damascenus lib. IV. cap. 27. et quidam alii, sed cum non possit ex Scripturis ostendi, est quidem probabile, non tamen certum. Secunda sententia est, Antichristum nas¬ citurum de tribu Dan. Asserit hoclrenaeus consum. Ambrosius lib. de benedict. Patri- arch. cap. 7. Augustinus quaest. 22 in Jo~ sue. Prosper de promiss. et praedict. Dei, par. 4. Theodoretus quaest. 109. in Genes. Gregorius lib. XXXI. Moral. cap. 10. Beda, Rupertus, Arethas, Richardus, et Anselmus in Apoc. cap. VII. Probant ex illo Genes. XLIX: Fiat Dan coluber in via , cerastes in se¬ mita etc. Item ex illo Hierem. VIII: Ex Dan audivimus fremitum equorum ejus etc (1). De¬ nique ex eo quod Apoc. VII, ubi signantur ab Angelo duodecim millia ex omni tribu filiorum Israel, omittitur tribu Dan : quod videtur factum in odium Autichristi. Haec sententia est valde probabilis propter tantorum Patrum auctoritatem; non tamen omnino certa ; tunc quia plerique eorum Pa¬ trum non dicunt hoc se scire, sed probabile esse insinuant; tum, quia nulla earum Scrip¬ turarum convincit. Nam in primis Genes. XLIX. videtur Jacob ad litteram loqui de Samsone, cum ait .* Fiat Dan coluber in via , cerastes in semita , et mordeat ungulas equi , vt cadat ascensor ejus retro. Samson enim fuit de tribu Dan, et fuit vere Philisthseis tan- quam coluber in via : nam ubique eis occur¬ rebat, eosque vexabat . Ita exponit Hiero¬ nymus in quaest. Hebr. Et videtur sane Ja¬ cob bene precari filio suo, cum haec dicit, et proinde non malum, sed bonum praedicere. Quod si ad Antichristum allegorice id accommodetur ; non poterit argumentum duci nisi probabile, quale ex mysticis sensi¬ bus ducitur. Hieremias autem cap. VIII. sine dubio non loquitur de Antichristo, neque de tribu Dan, sed de Nabuchodonosor, qui ven¬ turus erat ad Hierusalem evertendam, per eam regionem quae dicebatur Dan, ut ibi Hieronymus recte exponit. Cur autem Apoc. VII. omittatur Dan, non satis constat, prae¬ sertim cum etiam Ephraim sit omissus cujus tribus una est ex maximis. Praeter haec duo probabilia, sunt alia duo certissima: unum, Antichristum praecipue propter Judaeos venturum, et ab eis tan- quam Messiam recipiendum : alterum, ex gente Judaeorum nasciturum, et circumci¬ dendum, et Sabbatum observaturum, saltem ad tempus. Illud primum habetur, tum ex Evangelio Joan. V. ubi Dominus Judaeis di¬ cit : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei , et non recepistis me. Si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipietis. Quem locum de Antichris¬ to accipi debere , supra demonstravimus in 2. cap. tum ex Apostolo II. ad Thessal. II : Eo quod caritatem veritatis non receperunt , ut salvi fiant , ideo mittet illis Deus opera¬ tionem erroris, ut credant mendacio etc. (2). Hunc locum Calvinus , et alii haeretici in commentariis horum verborum, de nobis exponunt, qui, quia non recipimus ipsorum Evangelium, ab Antichristo Romano seduci sinimur. At in primis nullos proferunt tes- (1) Gen. XLIX, 17; Jerem. VIII, 16. — (2) Joan. V, 43; II. Thessal. II, 10. tes : nos vero habemus a nostra parte omnes Interpretes, qui de Judaeis exponunt. Vide Ambrosium, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum, Theophylactum, OEcumenium. Praeter hos sic ait Hieronymus quaest. 11. ad Algasiam : « Faciet, inquit, haec omnia Antichristus, non cum virtute, sed conces¬ sione Dei propter Judaeos, ut quia noluerunt recipere caritatem veritatis, - hoc est, spiri¬ tum Dei per Christum, ut Salvatore suscepto salvi fierent : Mittet illis Deus non operato¬ rem, sed ipsam operationem, id est, fontem erroris, ut credant mendacio etc.» Et etiam sine commentariis tot Patrum res ipsa cla¬ mat , Apostolum loqui de Judaeis : ipse enim dicit mittendum Antichristum ad eos qui Christum recipere noluerunt ; qui sunt autem qui magis debuerunt, et noluerunt Christum recipere quam Judaei? Ubi etiam est annotandum, Apostolum non dixisse, quia veritatem non recipient, sed quia non receperunt. Loquitur igitur de illis qui, prae¬ dicante Christo et Apostolis, credere nolue¬ runt. Constat autem Apostolorum tempore Gentiles cupidissime Evangelium recepisse : Judaeos autem recipere noluisse. Ad haec, praeter Hieronymum et alios jam citatos, idem docent omnes alii Patres, ut Irenaeus lib. V. Hippolytus martyr in Orat, de consumm. Mundi. Theodoretus in Epit. divinor, decretor. cap. deAntichr. Sulpitius ex B.Martinolib. II. Dialog. CyrillusCatech. 15. Hilarius can. 25. in Matth. Ambrosius Augustinus, et Cyrillus Alexandrinus in cap. V. Joan. Gregorius lib. XXXI Moral. cap, 10. Damascenus lib. IV. cap. 27. Et ratio etiam id suadet. Nam Antichristus sine dubio illis in primis se adjunget, qui parati sunt eum recipere : at Judaei sunt ejusmodi, qui expectant Mes¬ siam Regem temporalem, qualis erit Anti¬ christus; Gentiles enim neminem expectant: Christiani autem expectant quidem Anti¬ christum, sed cum metu et terrore, non cum gaudio et desiderio. Sicut ergo Christus pri¬ mum ad Judaeos venit, quibus erat promis¬ sus, et a quibus expectabatur, et deinde ad¬ junxit sibi etiam Gentes; ita quoque Anti¬ christus ad Judaeos primum accedet, a qui¬ bus expectafcur, et deinde paulatim omnes Gentes sibi subjiciet. Jam vero quod Antichristus sit futurus Ju¬ daeus, et circumcisus, certum est, et dedu- citurprimum ex dictis. Nam Judaei nunquam reciperent hominem non Judaeum, aut in- circumcisum pro suo Messia . Imo etiam quia Judaei expectant Messiam ex familia David, et tribu Juda ; sine dubio Antichris¬ tus licet vere sit de tribu Dan, finget se esse de familia David. Deinde omnes Veteres clarissime docent Antichristum fore Judaeum, ut illi duodecim paulo ante citati, qui dicunt eum futurum ex tribu Dan. Et praeterea Ambrosius, qui in II. Thessal. II. asserit, eum fore circumcisum, et Hieronymus, qui in c. XI Dan. dicit, eum de populo Judaeo¬ rum nasciturum, et S. Martinus apud Sulpi- tium lib. II. Dial. qui ait, Antichristum im¬ peraturum, ut omnes secundum legem cir¬ cumcidantur, et Cyrillus, qui Catech. 15. asserit, eum valde studiosum futurum tem¬ pli Hierosolymitani , ut se de progenie Da¬ vid esse ostendat. Denique et Gregorius, qui rum etiam Sabbati, et aliarum caeremonia¬ rum Judaicarum cultorem. Ex his habemus demonstrationem eviden- tissimam, quod Papa non sit Antichristus. Nam ab anno sexcentesimo sexto, quo adver¬ sarii dicunt Antichristum venisse, constat nullum Pontificem fuisse Judaeum, nec gen¬ te, nec religione , nec ullo modo : Constat etiam, Pontificem nunquam hactenus a Ju¬ daeis fuisse pro Messia susceptum, sed e contrario pro hoste et persecutore praecipuo haberi. Uride ipsi in orationibus quotidianis Deum precantur, ut det Pontifici viventi bonam mentem erga Judaeos, et ut in diebus illius mittat Messiam, qui nimirum eos libe¬ ret de potestate Pontificis, et Episcopum, qualis in primis est summus Pontifex, ipsi vocant poan quod Syriace caudam significat et opponitur capiti. Quia enim nos Episco¬ pum vocamus Caput populi : iili e contrario caudam per contumeliam vocant; tantum abest, ut parati sint Pontificem summum pro Messia recipere. Denique R. Levi Gerson, cap. VII, et X. Dan. omnia qua? dicuntur de Antichristo ex¬ ponit de Pontifice Romano, quem etiam al¬ terum Pharaonem appellat, et Messiae ven¬ turo opponit. Vide Orat. Mahasor, fol. 26.