Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 13: On the Seat 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 sixth point, the adversaries boldly affirm that the chief seat of Antichrist is Rome, or the Apostolic Chair founded at Rome. For they say that Antichrist will invade the See of Peter, and raise it to a certain highest summit, that thence he may preside over the whole Church and rule tyrannically. And that Rome is the royal city of Antichrist they prove from Apocalypse 17, where John, speaking of the seat of Antichrist, says that it is the great city which sits upon seven hills, and which has a kingdom over the Kings of the earth.
And that at Rome, not in the Palace of Nero, but in the very Church of Christ, Antichrist will have his seat, they prove from Paul, who, 2 Thessalonians 2, says that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God. For when he says absolutely in the temple of God, he understands the true temple of the true God; but such is none but the Church. For the temples of the Gentiles are true temples, but of demons, not of God; and the temple of the Jews was indeed God's, but had already ceased to be a temple when the Jewish sacrifice and priesthood had ceased. For these three are so joined that one cannot be without the other. Moreover that temple of the Jews was a little after to be made desolate, and never for ever to be rebuilt, Daniel saying, chapter 9: And unto the consummation and end the desolation shall continue. Therefore the Apostle cannot speak of it.
And the argument is confirmed from the Fathers. Jerome, question 11 to Algasia: “He will sit in the temple of God, either at Jerusalem, as some think, or in the Church, as we more truly judge.” And Oecumenius: “He does not say the temple of Jerusalem, but the Churches of Christ.”
Theodore Bibliander adds the testimony of Gregory, who, Book 4, letter 38 to John of Constantinople: “The King of pride is near, and — what is impious even to say — an army of priests is prepared for him.” From which words a double argument is taken. One is this: John of Constantinople is said to run before Antichrist, because he wishes to be called universal Bishop; therefore Antichrist will be he who in fact will make himself universal Bishop, and will sit in the Church as the Head of all. The other is: the armies of Antichrist will be priests; therefore Antichrist will be the prince of priests. From which the heretics think they evidently show that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist, since he rules at Rome, sits in the temple of God, is called universal Bishop, and is the Prince of priests.
But nonetheless the true opinion is that the seat of Antichrist will be Jerusalem, not Rome, and the temple of Solomon, and the throne of David, not the temple of Saint Peter, or the Apostolic See. Which we can prove in two ways: first, by an argument ad hominem; then, from the Scriptures and the Fathers.
First, then, I set up this argument. Antichrist will sit in the Church of Christ, and will be held Prince and Head of that Church, and will bear magistracy and offices in it, as Philip Melanchthon teaches in the Apology, article 6 of the Augsburg Confession, Calvin Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 2 § 12, and chapter 7 § 23, Illyricus Century 1, and the other sectaries of this time. But the Roman Pope is Antichrist, as these same teach in the same places; therefore the Roman Pope sits in the true Church of Christ, and is Prince and Head of that Church. But the Church of Christ can be only one, as Christ is one, as Calvin too teaches, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1 § 2; therefore the Lutherans and Calvinists, and all who are alien from the Church which is under the Pope, are outside the true Church of Christ.
Calvin saw this argument, and answered: that under the Pope not so much the Church as the ruins of the Church of Christ are seen; for so he speaks, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 2 § 11: “As certain peculiar prerogatives of the Church remained of old among the Jews, so neither today do we take from the Papists the traces of the Church which the Lord willed to survive among them out of the dissipation.” And below: “By His providence God brought it about that other remnants also should exist, lest the Church should utterly perish. And just as buildings are often so demolished that the foundations and ruins remain, so He did not suffer His Church to be either subverted from the foundation by Antichrist, or levelled to the ground, but willed that even from that devastation a half-ruined building should remain.” And below, § 12: “Hence therefore it is plain that we by no means deny that even under his tyranny Churches remain.”
But this solution supplies us with two arguments. First: if only the ruins of the Church of Christ survive, then the Church of Christ has fallen; and accordingly the truth has lied, which said, Matthew 16: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The other: the Church has fallen, and its ruins and foundation — nay, the half-ruined building itself — the Papists hold; therefore the Lutherans and Calvinists have no Church. For the whole Church of Christ they have not, for it has fallen, and the ruins still survive; nor have they the half-ruined one, for that is among the Papists under Antichrist. What then have they? Perhaps a new building; but by this very thing, that it is new, it is not Christ's. And who, unless plainly blind, does not see that it is safer to remain in the true Church of Christ, though half-ruined, than in none?
I come now to the Scriptures, by which it is proved that the seat of Antichrist will be Jerusalem, not Rome. The first is in Apocalypse chapter 11, where John says that Henoch and Elijah will fight with Antichrist in Jerusalem, and there be killed by that same Antichrist: And their bodies, he says, shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified. On which place Arethas: “He will cast their bodies unburied in the streets of Jerusalem. For in it he will reign as King of the Jews.” Similarly expound all the other Interpreters; and indeed that this is said of Jerusalem can in no way be denied; for what is the city where Christ was crucified, but Jerusalem?
Wherefore Chytraeus, who will have this city to be Rome, passes over those words, where their Lord also was crucified, as if they did not pertain to the matter, or as if he had not read them. Nor is it an objection that Jerome, in letter 17 to Marcella, tries to show that Jerusalem cannot be called Sodom, since it is everywhere in the Scriptures called the holy city. For in that letter he persuades Marcella to leave Rome and come into Palestine, and therefore he heaps up all he can in praise of Jerusalem and reproof of Rome, and tries by all means to excuse Jerusalem. Nor does he do this in his own name, but in the name of Paula and Eustochium, to whom he thought pardon was to be given if they replied something a little otherwise than the thing is. For that that earthly Jerusalem can be called Sodom, because of the lust and crimes of the Jews, is plain from Isaiah, who, chapter 1, having prefaced the title, The vision of Isaiah which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, soon subjoins: Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of my God, ye people of Gomorrha.
Nor is that argument valid: Jerusalem is called holy; therefore it cannot be called Sodom. For as in the same letter the same Jerome says that Rome is called by John Babylon, and the purpled harlot, because of the Heathen Emperors, and yet the same is holy because of the Church of Christ, and the sepulchres of Peter and Paul, so also Jerusalem is a holy city because of the Prophets and Apostles who preached there, because of the cross of Christ, and the sepulchre, and the like; and yet it is also Sodom and Egypt, because of the crimes and blindness of the unbelieving Jews.
The second place is Apocalypse 17, where John says that the ten Kings who will divide the Roman Empire among themselves, and in whose reign Antichrist will come, will hate the purpled harlot, that is, Rome, and will make her desolate, and even burn her with fire. How then will she be the seat of Antichrist, if at that very time she is to be overthrown and burned?
Add that, as we demonstrated above, Antichrist will be a Jew, and the Messiah and King of the Jews; therefore without doubt he will constitute his seat in Jerusalem, and will undertake to restore the temple of Solomon. For the Jews dream of nothing else than Jerusalem and the temple; nor do they seem ever about to receive for the Messiah any who does not sit in Jerusalem and in some way restore the temple. Wherefore Lactantius, Book 7, chapter 15, says that in the time of Antichrist the supreme Kingdom will be in Asia, and the West will serve, the East have dominion; and chapter 17 he determines the part of Asia in which this kingdom will be, and says it is Syria, that is Judea, which is a part of Syria, and which by the Latins is always called Syria. Likewise Jerome and Theodoret on chapter 11 of Daniel gather from Daniel himself that Antichrist will fix his tents in the region of Jerusalem, and at last be killed on the Mount of Olives. And Irenaeus, Book 5, clearly said that Antichrist will reign in the earthly Jerusalem.
The third place is in those words of Paul: So that he sitteth in the temple of God, 2 Thessalonians 2. For although various expositions are given by the Fathers — and some understand by the temple of God the minds of the Faithful, in which Antichrist is said to sit when he has seduced them, as Anselm expounds; and some by the temple understand Antichrist himself with his whole people, for Antichrist will wish himself and his to seem the true spiritual temple of God, that is, the true Church, as Augustine expounds, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19, where he draws this exposition from Paul's manner of speaking, who does not say in Greek en tō naō, in the temple, but eis ton naon, into the temple, as if Antichrist would say he will sit into the temple of God, that is, as if he himself with his followers were the temple of God — although this annotation of Augustine is not necessary; for although in Latin it is not rightly said to sit into the temple for in the temple, yet in Greek it is not ill said, eis tēn ekklēsian, or eis ton naon; nay, so it is commonly said. And some also understand the Churches of Christians, which Antichrist will command to serve him, as Chrysostom interprets — yet the more common, more probable, and more literal exposition is of those who teach that by the temple of God is understood the temple of Solomon, in which, in whatever way repaired, Antichrist will sit.
For, first, in the Scripture of the New Testament by the temple of God are never understood the Churches of Christians, but perpetually the temple of Jerusalem; and, what is more, the ancient Fathers, Latin and Greek, for several centuries never called the Churches of Christians temples, which are called in Greek naoi, as in this place of Paul, but called them euktēria, that is, oratories, as Churches, or houses of prayer, or basilicas, or martyria. Certainly neither Justin, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor Cyprian uses the name of temple when they treat of the Churches of Christians; and Jerome in his letter to Riparius says that Julian the Apostate commanded that the basilicas of the Saints should either be destroyed or turned into temples.
The reason why the Apostles do not call the Churches of Christians temples is twofold. One, because they had then no temples, but only in private houses destined certain places for prayer, preaching, and the sacred celebrations of the Masses. The other reason is that the memory of the Jewish temple still flourished; lest the Apostles should seem to introduce something similar, and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue, they abstained from the word temple. As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scriptures never call the Christian priests priests, but only Bishops and presbyters; but after Jerusalem was overthrown, and the temple burned, and the memory of the old temple and priesthood abolished, the holy Doctors everywhere began to use the name of temple and priesthood.
Since therefore the Apostle, writing that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, said something which he wished to be understood by those to whom he wrote, and they then understood by the name of temple nothing but the temple of Jerusalem, it seems certain that the Apostle spoke of that. Which is also confirmed from the common exposition of the Fathers. Irenaeus, Book 5: “When Antichrist shall have sat in the temple at Jerusalem, then the Lord will come, etc.” Hippolytus the martyr, in his Oration on the consummation of the World: “He will construct a temple at Jerusalem.” And the same teaches Saint Martin, in Sulpicius, Book 2 of the Dialogues. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 15: “What temple does the Apostle mean? The temple which is left of the Jews. For God forbid that it be done in this in which we are.” And Hilary, canon 25 on Matthew: “Antichrist, received by the Jews, will take his stand in the place of sanctification.” Where he openly speaks of the temple of the Jews; for he calls the place of sanctification that which Christ, Matthew 24, calls the holy place, when he says: When you shall see the abomination standing in the holy place.
Ambrose on chapter 21 of Luke says that Antichrist, according to the history, will sit in that temple into which the Romans had cast the head of a Swine, in the time of the Emperor Titus; but according to the mystical sense, will sit in the inner temple of the Jews, that is, in their perfidious minds. Sedulius on this place of the Apostle explains that, in the temple of God: “He will try to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, etc.” Damascene, Book 4, chapter 27: “In the temple, not ours, but the old Jewish one.” Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who say that Antichrist will sit in the Churches of Christians, say also that he will sit in the temple of Solomon. For thus says Chrysostom on this place: “He will command that he himself be worshipped for God, and be set up in the temple, not the Jerusalem one only, but also in the Churches.” The same say Theophylact and Theodoret; Augustine too, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19, and Jerome, question 11 to Algasia, do not deny that Antichrist will sit in the temple of Solomon.
Oecumenius alone denies that Antichrist will sit in the temple of the Jews; but he is the most recent of all, and in no way to be preferred to all the Fathers. Perhaps too his text is corrupted, and only one particle is lacking; for it is not credible that he wished now to depart from Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, whom he otherwise always follows.
Now let us answer the arguments of the adversaries explained above. To the first I answer in three ways. First, it can be said with Augustine on Psalm 26, Arethas, Haymo, Bede, and Rupert on chapter 17 of the Apocalypse, that by the harlot who sits upon the seven mountains, and has a Kingdom over the kings of the earth, is understood not Rome, but the universal city of the Devil, which in Scripture is often called Babylon, and is opposed to the city of God, that is, the Church, which is called Jerusalem; and that by the seven mountains is understood the whole body of the proud, and especially of the kings of the earth.
Secondly, it can be said, and in my judgment better: that by the harlot is understood Rome, as Tertullian expounds, in his book against the Jews and Book 3 against Marcion, and Jerome, letter 17 to Marcella, and question 11 to Algasia — but Heathen Rome, reigning, worshipping idols, and persecuting the Christians; not Christian Rome; for so the same Authors expound.
And truly wonderful is the impudence of the heretics, who, to prove that the Roman Church is the purpled harlot, use the testimony of Tertullian and Jerome. For since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome, which, I ask, do those Fathers call the purpled harlot? If Heathen Rome, why then do the heretics abuse their testimonies? If Christian Rome, then already then the Roman Church had degenerated, and already then Antichrist reigned — which not even they themselves grant. Moreover, if Christian Rome was then Babylon, why does Tertullian, on prescription, say: “Happy Church, to which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood”? And why does Jerome, Book 2 against Jovinian at the end, addressing Rome, say: “To thee will I speak, who hast blotted out the blasphemy written on thy forehead by the confession of Christ”? Finally, the same is plain from John himself, who says that he speaks of that Rome which held the Empire over the Kings of the earth, and which was drunk with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus. Which certainly have no place except in that Rome which, Nero and Domitian reigning, slaughtered the Martyrs.
Thirdly I say: even if that woman were Christian Rome, as the heretics will have it, still their argument would have no force at all. For, as we showed above, Antichrist will hate Rome, in whatever way it be taken, and will fight with her, and make her desolate, and burn her; from which it manifestly follows that Rome will not be the seat of Antichrist.
To the second, we have already said that Paul in that place treats of the temple of Solomon. Moreover, to the reason which we made, I answer: the Jewish sacrifice and priesthood ceasing, that temple also ceased to be a Jewish temple, but did not straightway cease to be a temple of God; for the same temple could be a temple of Christians, and in fact was, as long as it remained; for the Apostles preached and prayed in it after the ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit, as is plain from those words, Luke last chapter: They were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Likewise Acts 3: Peter and John went up into the temple, at the ninth hour of prayer. And Acts 5, the Angel says to the Apostles: Speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
To that from Daniel I answer: either Daniel wished to say that the temple would not be rebuilt except at the end of the World, which is true, for Antichrist will first be present at the end of the World; or that the desolation would remain for ever, because although it were rebuilt, yet it would never be a temple not profaned, after the overthrow made by Titus — for when it is raised by Antichrist, then chiefly will there remain in it the abomination of desolation, that is, Antichrist himself, or his image; or finally that a temple would never be perfectly rebuilt, but nevertheless the rebuilding would be begun, and in that temple, in whatever way begun, Antichrist would sit.
To the places of the Fathers we have already answered, that they either assert, or at least do not deny, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of Solomon. But that many of them add that Antichrist will also sit in the Churches of Christians, is true, and not contrary to us; for the Fathers do not wish to say that Antichrist will sit in the Church as a Bishop, as the heretics dream, but will sit as God; for Antichrist will command that all the temples of the whole World be converted to his worship, and will make himself adored in them: “He will command,” (says Chrysostom in this place) “that he himself be worshipped and venerated for God, and be set up in the temple, not the Jerusalem one only, but also in the Churches.” In the same way speak the rest.
To the arguments taken from the words of blessed Gregory, I answer: from his words the contrary is deduced to what the heretics gather. For they thus argue: The Bishop of Constantinople ran before Antichrist, because he made himself universal Bishop; therefore Antichrist will be some universal Bishop, who will usurp all things to himself. But the contrary is gathered; for a precursor ought not to be the same with him whom he precedes, but far less, though in something like him, as appears in John the Baptist and Christ. If therefore the precursor of Antichrist is he who makes himself universal Bishop, the true Antichrist himself will not make himself this, but something greater — namely he will lift himself up above all that is called God. Or if the true Antichrist will only make himself universal Bishop, then that John of Constantinople, who did this, was not the precursor of Antichrist, but truly Antichrist himself — which yet neither Gregory says, nor the adversaries. The sense, then, of Gregory's words is that, because Antichrist will be most proud, and the head of all the proud, so that he suffers no partners, therefore whoever in an undue manner usurps something to himself, and wishes to exceed and be eminent above others, runs before him; and such were the Bishops of Constantinople, who, being at first only Archbishops, usurped to themselves first the Patriarchate, then the title of universal.
In like manner, when Gregory says, “An army of priests is prepared for him,” he does not mean that priests as priests pertain to the army of Antichrist — for so he would have set himself too in that army — but that priests as proud prepare an army for Antichrist; for he speaks of that same John, and of priests like him, who were unjustly elevated above the rest. But hence it does not follow that Antichrist will be the prince of priests, but that he will be the prince of the proud.
From this sixth chapter we have a signal argument that the Pope is not Antichrist, since his Seat is not in Jerusalem, nor in the temple of Solomon; nay, it is credible that from the year 600 no Roman Pontiff was ever at Jerusalem.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. De sede Antichristi. Quantum ad sextum, adversarii audacter affirmant, sedem praecipuam Antichristi esse Romam, sive Cathedram Apostolicam Ro¬ mae fundatam. Dicunt enim Antichristum invasurum sedem Petri, et eam evectu¬ rum ad summum quoddam fastigium, ut inde toti Ecclesiae praesideat, et tyrannice dominetur. Et quidem quod Roma sit urbs regia Antichristi, probant ex Apoc. XVII, ubi Joannes loquens de sede Antichristi di¬ cit, esse urbem magnam, quae sedet super septem colles, et quae habet regnum super Reges terrae. Quod autem Romae, non in Palatio Nero¬ nis, sed in ipsa Christi Ecclesia, sedem suam sit habiturus Antichristus, probant ex Paulo, qui II. Thess. II, dicit Antichristum sessu¬ rum in templo Dei (1). Cum enim absolute dicit in templo Dei, intelligit verum templum veri Dei : tale autem non est, nisi Ecclesia. Nam templa Gentilium sunt vera templa, sed daemonum, non Dei: templum autem Judaeorum erat quidem Dei, sed jam desie¬ rat esse templum, cum desiisset sacrificium et sacerdotium Judaicum. Haec enim tria ita sunt conjuncta, ut unum sine alio esse non possit. Praeterea templum illud Judaeorum paulo post erat desolandum, et nunquam in aeternum reaedificandum dicente Daniele cap. IX : Et usque ad consummationem et finem perseverabit desolatio (2); ergo non potest Apostolus de eo loqui. Et confirmatur argumentum ex Patribus. Hieronymus quaest. 11. ad Algasiam : «In templo Dei, inquit, sedebit, vel Hierosoly¬ mis, ut quidam putant, vel in Ecclesia, ut verius arbitramur. » Et OEcumenius : « Non dicit, inquit, templum Hierosolymae, sed Ecclesias Christi. » Addit Theodorus Bibliander testimonium Gregorii, qui. lib. IV, epist. 38. ad Joan. Constantinop. « Rex, inquit, superbiae pro¬ pe est, et quod dici quoque nefas est, sacer¬ dotum ei praeparatur exercitus. » Ex quibus verbis duplex argumentum sumitur. Unum est tale, Joannes Constantinopolitanus dici¬ tur praecurrere Antichristum, quia vult ap¬ pellari Episcopus universalis : ergo Anti¬ christus ille erit, qui reipsa se faciet Episco¬ pum universalem, et sedebit in Ecclesia tan- quam omnium Caput. Alterum est. Exerci¬ tus Antichristi erunt sacerdotes : igitur Antichristus erit princeps sacerdotum. Ex quibus putant haeretici evidenter ostendere, Romanum Pontificem esse Antichristum : quandoquidem Romae dominatur, in templo Dei sedet, Episcopus dicitur universalis, et Princeps est sacerdotum. At nihilominus vera sententia est, Anti¬ christi sedem fore Hierusalem, non Romam, et templum Salomonis, ac solium Davidis, non templum S. Petri, aut Sedem Apostoli¬ cam. Id quod dupliciter probare possumus : primum, argumento ad hominem : deinde, ex Scripturis et Patribus. Primum igitur hoc argumentum instituo. Antichristus in Ecclesia Christi sedebit, ejus- que Ecclesiae Princeps et Caput habebitur, et in ea magistratum et officia geret, ut docent Philippus Melanchthon in Apolog., art. 6. Confess. August. Calvinus lib. IV. instit. cap. 2 §. 12, et cap. 7, §. 23. Illyricus Cent. I, temporis sectarii : est autem Papa Romanus Antichristus, ut ipsi iidem in iisdem locis docent ; igitur Papa Romanus in vera Chris¬ ti Ecclesia sedet, et ejus Ecclesiae Princeps et Caput est : sed Ecclesia Christi una tan¬ tum esse potest, sicut Christus unus est, ut etiam Calvinus docet, lib. IV. Instit cap. 1, §. 2. igitur Lutherani et Calvinistee, et quot¬ quot ab Ecclesia, quae sub Papa est, alieni sunt, extra veram Christi Ecclesiam sunt. Vidit hoc argumentum Calvinus, ac res¬ pondit : sub Papa non tam Ecclesiam, quam ruinas Ecclesiae Christi cerni ; sic enim lo¬ quitur lib. IV. Instit. c. 2, §. 11 . : « Ut ma¬ nebant olim inter Judaeos peculiares quae¬ dam Ecclesiae praerogativae : ita nec hodie Papistis adimimus, quae superesse ex dissi¬ patione vestigia Ecclesiae inter eos Dominus voluit.» Et infra: «Sua providentia Deus effe¬ cit, ut aliae quoque reliquiae exstarent, ne Ecclesia prorsus interiret. Ac quemadmodum ita saepe diruuntur aedificia, ut fundamenta et ruinae maneant, ita non passus est Eccle¬ siam suam ab Antichristo vel a fudamento (1) II. Thessal. II, 4. — (2) Dan. IX, 27. subverti, vel solo aequari, vel ab ipsa quo¬ que vastatione semirutum aedificium esse voluit. » Et infra §. 12. : « Hinc igitur patet, nos minime negare, quin sub ejus quoque tyrannide Ecclesiae maneant. » At haec solutio duo nobis argumenta sup¬ peditat. Primum. Si Ecclesiae Christi solum ruinae supersunt; igitur ruit Christi Ecclesia; proinde mentita est veritas, quae dixit Matth. XYI: Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adver- versus eam (1). Alterum. Ruit Eeclesia, et ruinas ejus ac fundamentum, quin etiam aedificium ipsum semirutum Papistae tenent; igitur Lutherani et Calvinistae nullam Eccle¬ siam habent : nam Christi Ecclesiam inte¬ gram non habent; illa enim jam ruit, et rui¬ nae adhuc supersunt ; sed nec semirutam habent : illa enim apud Papistas sub Anti- christo est. Quid igitur habent ? forte novum aedificium : sed hoc ipso quod novum est, Christi non est. Quis Ivero, nisi 'plane cae¬ cus, non videat, tutius esse in vera . Christi Ecclesia, quamvis semiruta, manere ,. quam in nulla ? Yenio nunc ad Scripturas, quibus proba¬ tur, sedem Antichristi Hierusalem esse futu¬ ram, non Romam. Prima est in cap. XI. Apoc. ubi Joannes dicit, Henoch et Eliam pugnaturos cum Antichristo in Hierusalem, et ibi occidendos ab eodem Antichristo : Et corpora , inquit, eorum jacebunt in plateis civi¬ tatis magnae quae vocatur spiritualiter Sodoma et AEgyptus , ubi et Dominus eorum crucifixus est (2). In quem locum Arethas : « Ccrpora, inquit, ipsorum insepulta projiciet in plateis Hierusalem. In ea enim regnabit tamquam Rex Judaeorum. » Similiter exponunt omnes alii Interpretes, et sane heec de Hierusalem dici, nullo modo negari potest ; quee enim est, civitas ubi Christus crucifixus est, nisi Hierusalem ? Quare Chytraeus, qui vult hanc urbem esse Romam, illa verba Ubi et Dominus eorum crucifixus est , praetermittit, quasi ad rem non pertinerent, vel ipse ea non legisset. Neque obstat quod Hieronymus in epist. 17. ad Marcell. conatur ostendere, Hierusalem non posse vocari Sodomam, cum passim in Scripturas vocetur civitas sancta. Nam in ea epistola suadet Marcellai, ut relicta Roma veniat in Palaestinam, et ideo congerit om¬ nia quae potest in laudem Ilierosolymae, et reprehensionem Romae, et conatur omnibus modis excusare Hierosolymam. Neque id facit nomine suo, sed nomine Paulae etEustochii, quibus veniam dandam esse putabat, si ali¬ quid replicarent paulo aliter, ,quam res se habeat. Nam quod terrena illa Hierusalem dici possit Sodoma propter libidinem, et flagitia Judaeorum, patet ex Isaia qui I. cap. cum praemisisset titulum : Visio Isaice , quam vidit super Judamet Hierusalem, mox subjun¬ git : Audite verbum Domini Principes Sodomo¬ rum, percipite auribus legem Dei mei populus Gomorrhce. (3) Neque valet argumentum illud : Hierusa¬ lem dicitur sancta ; ergo non potest dici So¬ doma. Nam sicut in eadem epistola idem Hieronymus dicit, Romam vocari a Joanne Babylonem, et purpuratam meretricempro- pter Ethnicos Imperatores ; et tamen eam- dem esse sanctam propter Ecclesiam Chri¬ sti, et sepulchra Petri et Pauli : ita etiam Hierusalem est civitas sancta propter Pro¬ phetas et Apostolos, qui ibi praedicaverunt; propter Christi crucem , et sepulchrum, et similia ; et tamen etiam est Sodoma et^Egy- ptus , propter infidelium Judaeorum flagitia et caecitatem. Secundus locus est Apoc. XYII, ubi Joannes dicit, decem Reges qui sibi divident Roma¬ num Imperium, et quibus regnantibus veniet Antichristus , odio habituros purpuratam meretricem, id est, Romam, et eam desola¬ tam facturos, atque etiam igne crematuros. Quomodo ergo erit sedes Antichristi, si illo ipso tempore debet everti, et comburi? Adde , quod , ut supra demonstravimus, Antichristus erit Judaeus, et JudaeorumMes- sias, et Rex; ergo sine dubio sedem suam constituet in Hierusalem, et templum Salo¬ monis restituere aggredietur. Nihil enim aliud somniant Judaei quam Hierusalem et templum : neque videntur unquam accepturi pro Messia ullum, qui non sedeat in Hieru- lem, et templum aliquo modo restituat. Qua¬ re Lactantius lib. YII , cap. 15. dicit, tem¬ pore Antichristi summum Regnum futurum in Asia , et Occidentem serviturum , Orien¬ tem dominaturum ; et cap. 17. determinat partem Asiae, in qua erit hoc regnum, ac di¬ cit esse Syriam, id est Judaeam, quae Syriae pars est , et quae a Latinis semper vocatur Syria. Item Hieronymus et Theodoretus in cap. XI Dan. ex ipso Daniele colligunt, An- tichristum fixurum tentoria sua in regione (1) Matth. XVI, 18. — (2) Apoc. XI, 8. — (3) Isai. I, 10* Hierosolymorum , et tandem in monte Oli¬ veti occidendum. Et Irenseus lib. Y clare dixit , Antichristum regnaturum in terrena Hierusalem. Tertius locus est in verbis illis Pauli : Ita ut in templo Dei sedeat , II. Thessal. II (1). Nam etsi variae dantur expositiones a Patri¬ bus, et quidam intelligunt mentes Fidelium per templum Dei, in quibus Antichristus se¬ dere dicitur, quando eas seduxerit, ut ex¬ ponit Anselmus. Quidam vero per templum intelligunt ipsum Antichristum , cum toto populo suo ; Antichristus enim volet se , et suos videri verum templum spirituale Dei, id est, veram Ecclesiam , ut Augustinus ex¬ ponit lib. XX de Civit. Dei, cap. 19. Ubi de¬ ducit hanc expositionem ex modo loquendi Pauli, qui non dicit Graece lv ™ vaw, in tem¬ plo , sed eis tov vaov, in templum , quasi diceret Antichristus sedebit in templum Dei, id est, quasi ipsi cum suis esset templum Dei. Quamquam non est necessaria ista annota¬ tio Augustini : nam etsi Latine non recte dicitur pedere in templum , pro in templo ; tamen Graece non dicitur male , eis tvjv gxxLj<n«v, vel eis tov vkov ; imo sic commu¬ niter dicitur. Quidam etiam intelligunt Ecclesias Chris¬ tianorum, quas sibi servire jubebit Antichri¬ stus, ut Chrysostomus interpretatur : tamen expositio communior, probabilior, et littera¬ lior est eorum , qui docent , per templum Dei intelligi templum Salomonis, in quo ut¬ cumque reparato sedebit Antichristus. Nam in primis in Scriptura novi Testamenti per templum Dei nunquam intelliguntur Eccle¬ siae Christianorum , sed perpetuo templum Hierosolymitanum, et quod majus est, vete¬ res Patres Latini et Graeci per aliquot saecu¬ la, nunquam Ecclesias Christianorum tem¬ pla vocaverunt , quae dicuntur Graece vaot, ut hoc loco Pauli, sed vocabant evxvripiK , id est, oratoria, ut Ecclesias, vel domos oratio¬ nis, vel basilicas, vel martyria. Certe nec Justinus, nec Irenaeus, nec Ter¬ tullianus, nec Cyprianus templi nomine utun¬ tur, cum de Christianorum Ecclesiis agunt, et Hieronymus in epist. ad ltipar. dicit, Ju¬ lianum Apostatam j ussisse, ut basilicae Sanc¬ torum, aut destruerentur, aut in templa ver¬ terentur. Ratio autem cur Apostoli non vocent tem¬ pla Christianorum Ecclesias, duplex est. Una quia non habebant tunc ulla templa, sed so¬ lum in privatis domibus loca quaedam des¬ tinabant orationi, concioni, et sacris Missa¬ rum celebrationibus. Altera ratio est, quia adhuc vigebat memoria templi Judaici , ne viderentur Apostoli simile aliquid introdu¬ cere, et ut distinguerent Ecclesiam a Syna¬ goga, abstinebant a voce templi. Sicut etiam propter eamdem rationem Apostoli in Scrip¬ turis nunquam vocant sacerdotes Christia¬ nos sacerdotes, sed solum Episcopos et pres¬ byteros : atposteaquam fuit eversa Hieroso¬ lyma, et templum incensum, et abolita me¬ moria veteris templi, et sacerdotii , passim coeperunt sancti Doctores uti nomine templi et sacerdotii. Cum ergo Apostolus scribens , Antichris¬ tum sessurum in templo Dei, diceret aliquid quod vellet intelligi ab iis quibus scribebat, et illi tunc non intelligerent nomine templi nisi templum Hierosolymorum ; certum vi¬ detur, Apostolum de illo esse locutum. Quod etiam confirmatur ex communi Patrum ex¬ positione, Irenseus lib. Y : « Cum Antichris¬ tus, inquit, sederit in templo Hierosolymis, tunc veniet Dominus etc. » Hippolytus mar¬ tyr. in Orat, de Mundi consummat. : «Tem¬ plum, inquit , construet Hierosolymis. » Et idem docet S. Martinus apud Sulpitium, lib. II Dialog. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catech. 15 : « Quale, inquit, templum dicit Aposto¬ lus. In templo quod reliquum est Judaeorum. Absit enim ut in hoc id fiat, in quo sumus.» Et Hilarius can. 25. in Matth. : « Antichris¬ tus a Judeeis susceptus, locum sanctificatio¬ nis subsistet. » Ubi aperte loquitur de tem¬ plo Judseorum : vocat enim locum sanctifi¬ cationis, id quod Christus Matth. XXIY vo¬ cat locum sanctum, cum ait : Cum videritis abominationem stantem in loco sancto (2). Ambrosius in cap. XXI Lucae dicit, Anti¬ christum juxta historiam sessurum in templo illo, in quod injecerant Romani caput Porci, tempore Titi Imperatoris : secundum autem mysticum sensum , sessurum in templo in¬ teriori Judaeorum, id est, in eorum perfidis mentibus. Sedulius in hunc locum Apostoli, explicat illud, in templo Dei : « Templum , inquit, Hierosolymae reficere tentabit etc. » Damas¬ cenus lib. IV, cap. 27 : « In templo, inquit, non nostro, sed veteri Judaico. » Chrysos¬ tomus, Theodoretus, ac Theophylactus, qui (1) II. Thessal. II, 4. — (2) Matth. XXIV, 15. dicunt sessurum Antichristum in Ecclesiis Christianorum , dicunt etiam sessurum in templo Salomonis. Sic enim ait Chrysosto- mus in hunc locum : « Jubebit seipsum pro Deo coli, et in templo collocari, non Hiero¬ solymitano solum , sed etiam in Ecclesiis. t> Idem dicunt Theophylactus, et Theodoretus, Augustinus etiam lib. XX de Civit. Dei, cap. 19. et Hieronymus queest. 11. ad Algasiam, non negant Antichristum in templo Salomo¬ nis sessurum. Solus est QEcumenius, qui negat Antichri¬ stum sessurum in templo Judaeorum : sed ipse omnium recentissimus est, et nullo mo¬ do omnibus Patribus anteponendus. Fortas¬ se etiam depravatus est textus ipsius, et deest una particula tantum : non enim cre¬ dibile est, eum a Chrysostomo, Theodoreto, et Theophylacto, quosalioqui semper sequi¬ tur, nunc recedere voluisse. Nunc ad argumenta adversariorum supra explicata respondeamus. Ad primum res¬ pondeo tripliciter. Primo , dici potest cum Augustino in Psa. XXVI. Aretha, Haymone, Beda et Ruperto, in cap. XYII Apocal. per meretricem, quae sedet super montes septem, et habet Regnum super reges terrae, non in- telligi Romam, sed universam Diaboli civita¬ tem, quae in Scriptura vocatur saepe Baby¬ lon, et opponitur civitati Dei, id est. Eccle¬ siae , quae dicitur Hierusalem. Per septem autem montes intelligi universitatem super¬ borum, et praecipue regum terrae etc. Secundo, dici potest , et meo judicio me¬ lius : per meretricem intelligi Romam, ut exponit Tertullianus lib. cont. Jud. et lib. III cont. Marcion. et Hieronymus epist. 17. ad Marcell. et quaest. 11. ad Algasiam : sed Romam Ethnicam regnantem , idola colen¬ tem, et Christianos persequentem ; non au¬ tem Romam Christianam ; sic enim iidem Auctores exponunt. Et sane mirabilis est impudentia haeretico¬ rum, qui , ut probent Romanam Ecclesiam esse meretricem purpuratam, utuntur Ter¬ tulliani et Hieronymi testimonio. Nam cum eo tempore Roma Ethnica contraria esset Romae Christianae, utram , quaeso , vocant illi Patres meretricem purpuratam? Si Ro¬ mam Ethnicam : cur ergo haeretici eorum testimoniis abutuntur ? Si Romam Christia¬ nam ; ergo jam tunc Romana Ecclesia de¬ generaverat, et jam tunc regnabat Antichri- stus ; quod ne ipsi quidem concedunt. Prae¬ terea si Roma Christiana tunc erat Babylon, cur Tertullianus de prsescript. dicit : « Felix Ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt. » Et cur Hiero¬ nymus lib. II cont. Jovin. extr. Romam al- loquens ait : « Ad te loquar, quae scriptam in fronte blasphemiam Christi confessione delesti? » Denique idem patet ex ipso Joan- ne, qui dicit, se loqui de illa Roma, quae te¬ nebat Imperium super Reges terrae, et quae erat ebria de sanguine Sanctorum , et de sanguine Martyrum Jesu. Quae certe non habent locum nisi in ea Roma, quae regnan¬ tibus Nerone et Domitiano Martyres trucida¬ bat. Tertio dico : etiamsi illa mulier esset Ro¬ ma Christiana , ut haeretici volunt; adhuc nihil omnino virium eorum argumentum habiturum. Nam, ut supra ostendimus, An- tichristus odio habebit Romam , quomodo¬ cumque accipiatur , et cum ea pugnabit, eamque desolabit, et incendet; ex quo mani¬ feste sequitur , non fore Romam Antichristi sedem. Ad secundum , jam diximus, Paulum eo loco agere de templo Salomonis. Porro ad rationem quam fecimus, respondeo : ces¬ sante sacrificio et sacerdotio Judaico, desiis¬ se etiam templum illud esse templum Ju¬ daicum , at non continuo desiisse esse tem¬ plum Dei ; poterat enim -idem templum- esse templum Christianorum, et revera erat, do¬ nec mansit : Apostoli enim in eo praedica¬ bant, et orabant post Christi ascensionem, et adventum Spiritus sancti , ut patet illis verbis Luc. ult. : Erant semper in templo lau¬ dantes et benedicentes Dominum. Item Actor. III : Petrus et Jo annes ascendebant in templum, ad horam orationis nonam. Et Actor. V, dicit Angelus Apostolis : Loquimini in templo ple¬ bi omnia verba vitee hujus (1). Ad illud ex Daniele respondeo : vel Da- nielem voluisse dicere, non esse reaedifican¬ dum templum, nisi in fine Mundi, quod ve¬ rum est; Antichristus enim in fine Mundi primum aderit; vel desolationem mansuram in aeternum , quja etsi reaedificaretur , nun¬ quam tamen esset futurum templum non profanatum, post eversionem factam a Tito; quando enim erigetur ab Antichristo, tune ma¬ xime manebit in eo abominatio desolationis, id est, ipse Antichristus, vel ejus imago: vel deni- (1) Luc. XXIV, 53; Act. III, 1 ; V, 20. que nunquam reaedificandum perfecte tem¬ plum, sed tamen inchoandam reaedificatio- nem , et in templo illo utcumque inchoato Antichristum sessurum. Ad loca Patrum jam respondimus, eos vel asserere, vel saltem non negare, sessurum Antichristum in templo Salomonis. Quod au¬ tem multi eorum addunt , sessurum etiam Antichristum in Ecclesiis Christianorum, ve¬ rum est, et nobis non contrarium : non enim Patres dicere volunt, Antichristum sessurum in Ecclesia ut Episcopum , ut haeretici som¬ niant, sed sessurum ut Deum ; jubebit enim Antichristus omnia templa totius Mundi con¬ verti in cultum suum, et in eis seipsum ado¬ rari faciet : « Jubebit, (inquit Ghrysostomus hoc loco) seipsum pro Deo coli, et venerari, et in templo collocari, non Hierosolymitano solum, sed etiam in Ecclesiis. » Eodem mo¬ do loquuntur caeteri. Ad argumenta sumpta ex verbis B. Gre- gorii, respondeo : ex verbis ejus contrarium deduci iis, quae haeretici colligunt. Ipsi enim sic argumentantur : Episcopus Gonstantino- politanus praecurrebat Antichristum, quia se faciebat Episcopum universalem ; igitur An¬ tichristus erit aliquis Episcopus universalis, qui sibi omnia usurpabit. At contrarium col¬ ligitur : nam praecursor, non debet esse idem cum eo quem praecurrit , sed longe minor, etsi in aliquo illi similis, ut apparet in Joan- ne Baptista ' et Christo ; si ergo praecursor Antichristi est ille , qui se ;facit Episco¬ pum universalem , ipse Antichristus verus non hoc se faciet , sed aliquid majus ; ni¬ mirum se extollet super omne quod dici¬ tur Deus. Yel si verus Antichristus solum se Episcopum universalem faciet; ergo ille Joannes Constantinopolitanus, qui hoc facie¬ bat , non erat praecursor Antichristi , sed ipse vere Antichristus : quod tamen neque Gregorius dicit , neque adversarii . Sensus ergo verborum Gregorii est, quod quia Anti¬ christus erit superbissimus, et caput omnium superborum, ita ut non patiatur consortes ; ideo quicumque indebito modo sibi aliquid usurpat, et vult excedere, et eminere super alios, eum praecurrit, et tales erant Episcopi Constantinopolitani , qui cum initio Archi- episcopi tantum essent, sibi primo Patriar- chatum, deinde titulum universalis usurpa¬ verunt. Pari ratione, cum ait Gregorius : «Sacer¬ dotum ei praeparatur exercitus , » non vult dicere , sacerdotes ut sacerdotes ad exerci¬ tum Antichristi pertinere; sic enim seipsum etiam in illo exercitu collocasset : sed sacer¬ dotes ut superbos Antichristo exercitum prae¬ parare; loquitur enim de eodem Joanne, et ei similibus sacerdotibus, qui supra caeteros injuste elevabantur. Hinc autem non sequi¬ tur, Antichristum fore principem sacerdo¬ tum, sed fore principem superborum. Ex hoc cap. 6. habemus insigne argumen¬ tum, quod Papa non sit Antichristus, quan¬ doquidem Sedes ejus non est in Hierusalem, nec in templo Salomonis : imo credibile est ab anno 600 , nullum Pontificem Romanum fuisse unquam Hierosolymis.