Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 14: On the Doctrine 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).
On the doctrine of Antichrist there is the greatest controversy between us and the heretics. It is established, indeed, from the Scriptures, even by the testimony of the adversaries, that there will be four heads of the doctrine of Antichrist. For, first, he will deny that Jesus is the Christ; and accordingly he will assail all the institutions of our Savior, as Baptism, Confirmation, etc., and will teach that Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the other ceremonies of the Old Law have not yet ceased. 1 John 2: Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Then, when he has persuaded that our Savior is not the true Christ, he will assert that he himself is the true Christ promised in the Law and the Prophets. John 5: If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive — namely for the Messiah.
Thirdly, he will affirm that he is God, and will wish to be worshipped for God. 2 Thessalonians 2: So that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Last, he will say that he is not only God, but the only God, and will assail all other gods — that is, both the true God, and also the false gods, and all idols. 2 Thessalonians 2: Who lifteth himself up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. And Daniel 11: And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers, nor shall he regard any of the gods, for he shall rise up against all things.
That all these are in some way true, and pertain to Antichrist, the adversaries agree with us. But the question is of the understanding of these four heads. For the Catholics understand simply, as the words of Scripture sound, that Antichrist will deny the true Christ, will make himself Christ, will preach himself God, and will execrate all other gods and idols. From which are taken four arguments that the Pontiff is not Antichrist. For it is established that the Pontiff does not deny that Jesus is the Christ, nor introduce circumcision or the Sabbath in place of Baptism and the Lord's day; and likewise it is established that the Pontiff does not make himself Christ, or God; and it is most established that he does not make himself the only God, since he openly worships Christ and the Trinity, and, according to the adversaries, even worships idols, that is, images and dead Saints.
But the adversaries interpret all these things far otherwise; for they say, first, that Antichrist will not deny in word and openly that Jesus is the Christ, and Baptism, and the other Sacraments, but will deny it in deed, because under the appearance of Christianity and the Church he will corrupt the doctrine of the Sacraments, of Justification, etc. Calvin, Book 4, chapter 7, § 23: “We gather that the tyranny of Antichrist is such as abolishes neither the name of Christ nor of the Church, but rather abuses the pretext of Christ, and lurks under the title of the Church as under a mask.” The Magdeburgians, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 433: “So indeed that it is established that (the kingdom of Antichrist) professes Christ in doctrine, but nevertheless denies His merit and office.” And below: “John shows that Antichrist will deny that Christ came in the flesh, that is, that Christ in His flesh redeemed and saved us wholly, but that on account of our good works we too confer something to salvation.” Then they say that Antichrist will make himself Christ, or God, not in word but in deed, because he will occupy the place of Christ and God in the Church, making himself the head of all the Faithful, which belongs to Christ alone. So the Magdeburgians in the place noted: “He will show himself for God, as one who is the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the Church, and can fix and unfix the articles of Faith.”
Finally they say that Antichrist will not reject idols; nay rather, will openly adore them — which they prove from Daniel, who, chapter 11, after he had said that Antichrist will rise against all gods, subjoins: But the god Maozim he shall worship in his place; and a god whom his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold and silver and precious stone, etc. By Maozim the heretics understand the ornament of temples, the Mass, images, relics, and the like. So Illyricus in his book against the Primacy, and all the rest.
But that which the Apostle says, 2 Thessalonians 2, that Antichrist will lift himself up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, they expound of the Roman Pontiff, who makes himself the Vicar of Christ, and yet usurps a greater authority than Christ had. This Illyricus proves in the Catalogue of witnesses (for how the rest prove it I have not hitherto seen), page 3: because forsooth Christ, Matthew 24, declared that to come in the name of Christ is nothing else than to show oneself to be God, nay to lift oneself above God and His worship. From which it follows that the Pope, who sells himself for the Vicar of Christ, is himself the truest Antichrist. Likewise Christ subjected Himself to Scripture, saying that He did and suffered what He did and suffered, that the Scripture might be fulfilled; but the Pope has said that he can dispense against the Apostle and the Evangelist, make right things wrong, and the contrary. This is the sum of the chief part of the doctrine of the adversaries concerning Antichrist, which all rests on the Scriptures alone, wrongly explained by new glosses; as a sign of which, they cite not even one interpreter or Doctor for themselves.
Let us begin, then, from the first, that Antichrist will openly and avowedly deny that Jesus is the Christ, and accordingly will trample on all His Sacraments as the inventions of a certain seducer. It is proved, first, from what was said in chapters 5 and 6. For if Antichrist will be by nation and religion a Jew, and will be received by the Jews for the Messiah, as we showed, certainly he will not preach our Christ, but will openly assail Him; for otherwise through Antichrist the Jews would receive our Christ, which is most absurd. Moreover, since there cannot be two Christs, how can Antichrist obtrude himself upon the Jews for Christ, unless he first teach that our Christ, because He preceded, was not the true Christ?
It is proved, secondly, from that of 1 John 2: Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? and this is Antichrist. For all heretics are called Antichrists, who in some way deny that Jesus is the Christ; therefore the true Antichrist himself will simply and in all ways deny that Jesus is the Christ. And it is confirmed, because through the heretics the Devil is said to work the mystery of iniquity, because they secretly deny Christ; but the coming of Antichrist is called a revelation, because he will openly deny Christ.
Moreover, from the Fathers. Hilary, Book 6 on the Trinity, says that the Devil through the Arians tried to persuade men that Christ is not the natural Son of God, but adoptive; but through Antichrist he will try to persuade that He is not even adoptive, that he may utterly extinguish the name of the true Christ. Hippolytus the martyr, in his Oration on the consummation of the World, says that the character of Antichrist will be that men are forced to say, “I deny Baptism, I deny the sign of the cross,” and the like. Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 8, asks whether, when Antichrist rages, it is credible that any are to be baptized; and at last he answers: “Assuredly there will be so strong, both parents for baptizing their little ones, and those who then will first believe, that they will overcome that strong one even unbound.” Where blessed Augustine presupposes that Antichrist will not permit them to be baptized, and yet that some pious parents will suffer anything rather than that their children be not baptized.
Jerome on chapter 11 of Daniel: “Antichrist will rise from a small nation, that is, from the people of the Jews, and will be so humble and despised that royal honor will not be given him, and by ambushes and fraud he will obtain the principality. And this he will do because he will feign himself a leader of the covenant, that is, of the law and Testament of God.” Where Jerome teaches that Antichrist will acquire a Kingdom among the Jews because he will show himself a zealot of the Jewish law. Sedulius on 2 Thessalonians 2 says that Antichrist will restore all the Jewish ceremonies, that he may dissolve the Gospel of Christ. Gregory, Book 11, letter 3: “Because Antichrist compels the people to Judaize, that he may recall the rite of the outward law, and subject to himself the perfidy of the Jews, he wills the Sabbath to be kept.”
Finally, in the time of Antichrist, because of the vehemence of the persecution, the public offices and divine sacrifices will cease, as we showed in chapter 3. From which it is evident that Antichrist will not corrupt the doctrine of Christ under the name of Christianity, as the heretics will have it, but will most openly assail the name and the Sacraments of Christ, and introduce the Jewish ceremonies. Which, since the Pope does not do, it is evident that he is not Antichrist.
Now that Antichrist will openly and by name say that he is Christ, not His minister or Vicar, is plain, first, from those words of the Lord, John 5: If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. Where the Lord seems on purpose to have added in his own name, foreseeing that the Lutherans and Calvinists would say that Antichrist would not come in his own name, but in the name of our Christ, as if His Vicar.
Moreover the Fathers everywhere teach this. Irenaeus, Book 5: “He will try to show himself Christ.” Ambrose on chapter 21 of Luke: “From the Scriptures he will argue that he is Christ.” Theodoret on 2 Thessalonians 2: “He will name himself Christ.” Cyril, catechesis 15: “He will bring in a certain man falsely called Christ, and by this appellation of Christ deceiving the Jews, who expect Him to come.” Briefly, all the Fathers, as we showed above, say that Antichrist is to be received by the Jews for the Messiah; therefore he will openly and by name make himself the Messiah, that is, Christ. And accordingly the Roman Pontiff, who does not do this, as is known, is not Antichrist; for by this very thing, that he calls himself the Vicar of Christ, he asserts that he is not Christ, but His minister.
That Antichrist will openly name himself God, and will wish to be worshipped for God — not only by usurping some authority of God, but the very name of God — is proved, first, from the express words of the Apostle, 2 Thessalonians 2: So that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Where Paul not only says that Antichrist will sit in the temple, for we too sit in temples, and yet are not Antichrists, but also explains the manner in which he will sit, namely that he will sit as God, to whom alone properly a temple is erected. But in the Greek text this is had more clearly. For it is not said [hōs Theos], as God, but [hoti esti Theos], that is, showing that he is God. And so all the Ancients understood this place.
Irenaeus, Book 5: “Being an Apostate and a robber, he wishes to be adored as God.” Chrysostom on this place: “He will command that he be worshipped for God, and be set up in the temple.” And homily 40 on John, explaining this same place: “He will profess himself the God of all.” And below: “He will boast that he is the greatest of the gods.” Ambrose on 2 Thessalonians 2: “He will assert himself to be God Himself, not the Son of God.” Similarly all expound. From which we understand that the Roman Pontiff, who acknowledges himself not God, but the servant of God, is not Antichrist.
Finally, that Antichrist will suffer no God, neither true, nor false, nor idols, is proved, first, from those words of Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2: Who lifteth himself up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Where it is to be noted that, for that which is called, the Greek has [sebasma], which the Magdeburgians will have to signify worship, that is, the act of worshipping, not that which is worshipped — that thence they may prove that the Apostle does not mean that Antichrist will not adore idols, but that he will corrupt the worship of the true God, mutilating the Sacraments, or adding to them various ceremonies. But certainly [sebasma] most properly signifies not the act, but the object, that is, that which is worshipped, as an altar, a shrine, an idol, etc. For worship is called [sebas], or [theosebeia], not [sebasma]. Whence the same Paul, Acts 17: [parerchomenos gar kai anatheōrōn ta sebasmata hymōn heuron kai bōmon] — Passing by, and considering your idols, I found also an altar, etc. Where most plainly Paul by [sebasmata] understands the very things that are worshipped, as shrines, altars, idols. And Wisdom 15 we read thus: [kreittōn gar esti tōn sebasmatōn autou, hōn autos men ezēsen, ekeina de oudepote] — Better is the man than the idols which he made; for he lived once, but they never. Which place I know not whether anyone will dare so to pervert as to deny that by the word [sebasmata] are signified the very idols, or images, which are fabricated by the hands of men, and which seem to have life, though they do not live.
And so all the Greeks, and Erasmus himself too, to whom all the heretics attribute much, both in his Version and in his Annotations, teaches that [sebasma] ought to be rendered “deity.” Then the words of Daniel, chapter 11, are most clear: Nor shall he regard any of the gods, but he shall rise up against all things. On which place Jerome, writing, says that these cannot be understood of Antiochus, as Porphyry wished, since it is established that Antiochus adored the gods of the Greeks; but are understood of Antichrist, who will worship no god.
Let there be added, last, the consent of the Ancients. Irenaeus, Book 5: “He will indeed set aside idols, to persuade that he himself is God, but he will lift up himself as the one idol.” Hippolytus, sermon on the consummation: “Antichrist will not admit idolatry.” Cyril, catechesis 15: “Antichrist will hate idols.” Chrysostom on this place: “He lifts himself up above all that is called God, or deity. For he will not lead to Idolatry.” The same teach on this place Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, who also beautifully notes that the Devil marvelously plays, and will play, with the sons of perdition. For in ancient times he persuaded that many false gods and various idols were to be adored, and in that way gained very many; but in the time of Antichrist, because he will see idols and the multitude of false gods driven out of almost the whole World by the doctrine of Christ, he himself too will accuse idols and their multitude, and in that way deceive still more. From which it appears that the Pontiff, who, according to the Catholics, acknowledges God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and, according to the heretics, adores many idols, can in no way be called Antichrist.
But, they say, Daniel chapter 11 affirms that the god Maozim will be worshipped by Antichrist with gold and silver and precious stones.
It is answered, first: by the god Maozim, which is interpreted “of strengths,” that is, most strong, can be understood Antichrist himself. Since that he shall worship, in the Hebrew, is not yishtachaveh, he will adore, but yechabbed, he will glorify, in the way that Psalm 90 says of God: I will deliver him, and I will glorify him — in Hebrew achabbedehu; and certainly God does not glorify men by subjecting Himself to them, but by exalting them. So then Antichrist will glorify himself, when he will make himself adored by all. Whence also the Seventy rendered [doxasei]; and in this way Theodoret expounds: “He calls himself a strong and mighty God — for this Maozim signifies. For he put ‘in his place’ for ‘himself.’ For he will erect temples for himself, and will adorn them with gold, silver, and precious stones.” Thus Theodoret.
Secondly it can be said — which pleases me more — that Antichrist will be a Magician, and after the manner of other Magicians will secretly adore the Devil himself, by whose aid he will do wonders, and that this is called the god Maozim. Moreover I would think that Maozim is not the name of a god, but of a certain most fortified and secret place, in which will be the chief treasures of Antichrist, and in which, as we said, he will adore the Devil. For it follows in Daniel: And he shall do this to fortify Maozim with a strange god, whom he hath acknowledged. And truly the Hebrew word signifies both strength and a citadel. In this way Lyra expounds. But that it must necessarily be said either that Antichrist is himself the god Maozim, or, if it is some other, that it is to be adored by Antichrist only in a most secret place, and hidden from all, the very words of Daniel compel us, which otherwise would fight with themselves; for if he will regard none of the gods, how will he openly worship idols?
Now those two arguments of Illyricus are most feeble. For in the first argument Illyricus sins thrice. First, that he asserts that the words of Paul are explained by Christ, when Paul rather ought to explain the words of Christ. Next, that he says that to come in the name of Christ, Matthew 24, signifies the same as to be the Vicar of Christ. For Christ's own explanation is repugnant to this explanation of Illyricus. For, immediately, He adds, explaining: saying, I am Christ. And so to come in the name of Christ is, in that place, to usurp to oneself the name of Christ — which of old Simon Magus did, Irenaeus witnessing, Book 1, chapter 20, and in our times David George. And at last Antichrist will do this very thing; but the Pope, by this very thing that he names himself the Vicar of Christ, does not make himself Christ.
Thirdly Illyricus sins, in that he makes Christ an inept interpreter of Paul. For he does not rightly expound that of Paul, He lifts himself above every God, by that, Many will come in my name, they will make themselves my Vicars. For the Vicar of God is not above every God, but below every God, as the Vicar of a King is below every King. For it cannot be thought or feigned how one who professes himself the Vicar of some King should at the same time boast that he is above all Kings. From which appears the blindness and impudence of the adversaries, who sometimes blurt out things which shrink even from common sense itself.
But to that argument of Illyricus, by which he tried to prove that the Pope usurps a greater authority than Christ has, I answer: that the proposition and the assumption of that argument are two lies, and moreover the consequence avails nothing. For, first, it is false that Christ subjected Himself to the Scriptures, since it is established that He is the author of the Scriptures, and accordingly above the Scriptures. And when we read that Christ did what He did, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, that that signifies not the cause, but the event, as Chrysostom and Augustine teach on chapter 12 of John; for Christ did not die because Isaiah wrote this, but Isaiah wrote this because it was to be.
Next, it is also false that the Pontiff ever said, in word or deed, that he can dispense against an Evangelist or an Apostle. For although he can dispense in the positive precepts of the Apostles, yet this is not against the Apostle, but according to the Apostle, who without doubt knew that the Apostolic power, with which he himself, endowed, had for a time established something in the Church, would be in his successors, by which they could moderate or change those same things, as it should be expedient for the Church. But in the Evangelical, that is, divine precepts, no Catholic ever said that the Pontiff could in any way dispense.
Next, the consequence also is bad. For in the major proposition Illyricus speaks of the subjection of Christ under the Scriptures, not as regards precepts, but as regards prophecies; for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ dissolved the Sabbath and abrogated the ceremonial law; but in the minor he speaks of precepts, and so the argument has four terms, and nothing can be concluded from it. Let these things concerning the doctrine of Antichrist suffice in this place.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput xiv.
De doctrina Antichristi.
De doctrina Antichristi maxima est inter
nos et haereticos controversia. Constat qui¬
dem ex Scripturis, etiam adversariorum tes¬
timonio, quatuor esse futura capita doctrinae
Antichristi. Primum enim negabit Jesum
esse Christum ; et proinde oppugnabit om¬
nia Salvatoris nostri instituta, utBaptismum,
Confirmationem etc. et docebit nondum ces¬
sasse Circumcisionem, Sabbatum, et alias
Legis veteris caeremonias. I. Joan. II : Quis
est mendax, nisi qui negat Jesum esse Chris¬
tum ? et hic est Antichristus , qui negat Patrem,
et Filium etc. (I). Deinde ubi persuaserit nos¬
trum Salvatorem non esse verum Christum,
tunc asseret se esse verum Christum in Lege
et Prophetis promissum. Joann. Y : Si alius
venerit , in nomine suo , illum accipietis (2) , ni¬
mirum pro Messia.
Tertio affirmabit se Deum esse, et pro Deo
coli volet. II. Thess. II : Ita ut in templo Dei
sedeat , ostendens se tanquam sit Deus (3). Pos¬
tremo se non solum Deum, sed etiam solum
se Deum esse dicet , et oppugnabit omnes
alios Deos, id est, tam Deum verum , quam
etiam Deos falsos, et omnia idola. II. Thes-
sal. II : Qui extollit se super omne quod dicitur
Deus , aut quod colitur (4). Et Daniel YI : Et
Deum Patrum suorum non reputabit , nec quem-
(1) I. Joan. II, 22. — (2) Joan. V, 43. — (3) II. Thessal. II, 4. — (4) Ibid.
quam Deorum curabit , quia adversum universa
consurget (i).
Haec omnia aliquo modo esse vere, et
ad Antichristum pertinere , consentiunt no-
biscum adversarii. Sed qaaestio est de intel-
ligentia horum quatuor capitum. Catholici
enim simpliciter intelligunt, ut verba Scrip¬
turae sonant, Antichristum negaturum ve¬
rum Christum, seipsum Christum facturum,
se Deum praedicaturum, et omnes Deos alios,
et idola execraturum. Ex quibus sumuntur
quatuor argumenta, quod Pontifex non sit
Antichristus. Constat enim , Pontificem non
negare Jesum esse Christum, nec introduce¬
re circumcisionem, aut Sabbatum loco Bap¬
tismi, et diei Dominicae : et similiter constat
Pontificem non se facere Christum , nec
Deum : et maxime constat , eum non se so¬
lum facere Deum, cum aperte ipse colat
Christum, et Trinitatem, et secundum adver¬
sarios, etiam idola colat , id est, imagines et
Sanctos mortuos. •
At adversarii longe aliter haec omnia in¬
terpretantur : dicunt enim in primis , Anti¬
christum non negaturum verbo et palam Je¬
sum esse Christum, et Baptismum, et alia
Sacramenta : sed negaturum opere , quia
sub specie Christianismi et Ecclesiae, corrum¬
pet doctrinam de Sacramentis , de Justifica¬
tione etc. Calvinus 1. IV, c. 7, §. 23. : « Col¬
ligimus, inquit, tyrannidem Antichristi ta¬
lem esse, quae nec Christi , nec Ecclesiae no¬
men aboleat : sed potius Christi praetextu
abutatur, et sub Ecclesiae titulo velut larva
delitescat. » Magdeburgenses Cent. I, lib. II,
c. 4, coi. 433. : « Ita quidem, inquiunt, ut
constet (regnum Antichristi) doctrina Chris¬
tum profitente, sed tamen ejus meritum , et
officium abnegante. » Et infra : « Joannes,
inquiunt, ostendit Antichristum negaturum,
Christum in carne venisse, hoc est, Chris¬
tum in sua carne integre nos redemisse et
salvasse : sed propter nostra bona opera
etiam aliquid ad salutem nos conferre. » De¬
inde dicunt, Antichristum non seipsum verbo
facturum Christum, vel Deum, sed opere,
quia occupabit locum Christi et Dei in Ec¬
clesia, faciens se caput omnium Fidelium,
quod est solius Christi. Ita Magdeburgenses
loc. not. : « Ostendet, inquiunt, se pro Deo,
ut qui sit Christi Vicarius , et Caput Eccle¬
siae, et possit figere, atque refigere articulos
Fidei. »
Denique dicunt , Antichristum non rejec¬
turum idola ; imo vero ea palam adoratu¬
rum, quod probant ex Daniele, qui cap. XI.
postquam dixerat Antichristum contra om¬
nes Deos surrecturum, subjungit : Deum au¬
tem Moazim in loco suo venerabitur , et Deum
quem ignoraverunt patres ejus , colet auro et
argento, et lapide pretioso etc. (2). Per Moazim
autem intelligunt haeretici templorum orna¬
tum, Missam, imagines, reliquias, et simi¬
lia. Ita Illyr.inlib. cont. Prim. et caet. omnes.
Quod autem Apostolus dicit II. Thess. II,
Antichristum se elevaturum supra omne quod
dicitur Deus, aut quod colitur; exponunt de
Romano Pontifice, qui se Vicarium Christi
facit : et tamen usurpat majorem auctorita¬
tem, quam Christus habuerit. Id probat Illy¬
ricus in Catal. testium (nam caetera' non vidi
hactenus quomodo probent) pag. 3. Quia ni¬
mirum Christus Matth. XXIV declaravit, ni¬
hil aliud esse, ostendere se esse Deum , im-
mo efferre se supra Deum et ejus cultum,
quam in nomine Christi Venire. Ex qua se¬
quitur, Papam, qui se pro Christi Vicario
venditat, ipsum esse verissimum Antichris¬
tum. Item Christus subjiciebat se Scripturae
dicens se, quae faciebat et patiebatur, facere
et pati, ut Scriptura impleretur : Papa au¬
tem dixit, se posse dispensare contra Apos¬
tolum et Evangelistam , recta facere prava,
et contra. Haec est summa praecipuae partis
doctrinae adversariorum de Antichristo, quae
tota nititur solis Scripturis per novas glossas
perperam explicatis : in cujus rei signum, ne
unum quidem interpretem aut Doetorem pro
se citant.
Incipiamus ergo a primo, quod Antichris¬
tus sit palam et ex professo negaturus Je¬
sum esse Christum ; et proinde omnia ejus
Sacramenta tanquam seductoris cujusdam
inventa conculcaturus. Probatur primo , ex
dictis cap. 5. et 6. Nam si Antichristus na¬
tione et religione Judaeus erit, et a Judaeis
pro Messia recipietur, ut ostendimus ; certe
non praedicabit nostrum Christum , sed eum
palam oppugnabit : nam alioqui per Anti¬
christum Judaei Christum nostrum recipe¬
rent, quod est absurdissimum. Praeterea cum
non possint esse duo Christi ; quomodo po¬
terit Antichristus seipsum Judaeis pro Chris¬
to obtrudere, nisi prius doceat, nostrum
Christum, quia praecessit, non fuisse verum
Christum.
(1) Dan. XI, 37. — (2) Dan. XI, 38.
Probatur secundo ex illo I. Joan. II : Quis
est mendax , nisi qui negat Jesum esse Chris¬
tum? et hic est Antichristus (1). Nam omnes
haeretici dicuntur Antichristi, qui aliquo mo¬
do negant Jesum esse Christum ; ergo ipse
verus Antichristus simpliciter et omnibus
modis negabit Jesum esse Christum. Et con¬
firmatur, quia per haereticos Diabolus ope¬
rari dicitur mysterium iniquitatis, quia oc¬
culte illi Christum negant : at Antichristi
adventus dicitur revelatio , quia ille palam
Christum negabit.
Praeterea ex Patribus. Hilarius lib. VI de
Trin. dicit, Diabolum per Arianos conatum
esse persuadere hominibus, Christum non
esse Dei Filium naturalem, sed adoptivum :
at per Antichristum conaturum persuadere,
ne adoptivum quidem esse, ut funditus ex-
tinguat nomen veri Christi. Hippolytus mar¬
tyr in Orat, de Mundi consum. dicit carac-
terem Antichristi fore, ut homines cogantur
dicere, nego Baptismum , nego signum cru¬
cis, et similia. Augustinus lib. XX de Civi¬
tate Dei, cap. 8. quaerit , an saeviente Anti-
christo credibile sit aliquos baptizan¬
dos ? et tandem respondet. « Profecto , in¬
quit, tam fortes erunt, et parentes pro par¬
vulis suis baptizandis, et hi qui tunc primi¬
tus credituri sunt , ut illum fortem vincant
etiam non ligatum. » Ubi B. Augustinus prae-
supponit, Antichristum non permissurum il¬
los baptizari ; et tamen aliquos pios paren¬
tes quidvis potius passuros, quam ut filii eo¬
rum non baptizentur.
Hieronymus in cap. XI Dan. : « Consur¬
gere, inquit, habet Antichristus de modica
gente, id est, de populo Judaeorum , et tam
humilis erit atque despectus, ut ei non detur
hOnor regius , et per insidias et fraudulen¬
tiam obtineat principatum. Et hoc faciet,
quia simulabit se ducem esse foederis, hoc
est, legis et Testamenti Dei. » Ubi Hierony¬
mus docet, apud Judaeos Regnum acquisitu¬
rum Antichristum , quia se ostendet zelato¬
rem legis Judaicae. Sedulius in II. Thess. II
dicit, Antichristum instauraturum omnes Ju¬
daicas caeremonias , ut Evangelium Christi
solvat. Gregorius lib. XI, epist. 3 : « Quia
Antichristus, inquit, populum Judaizare com¬
pellit, ut exterioris legis ritum revocet , et
sibi Judaeorum perfidiam subdat, coli vult
Sabbatum. »
Denique, tempore Antichristi ob vehemen¬
tiam persecutionis, cessabunt publica officia
et sacrificia divina , ut cap. 3. ostendimus.
Ex quibus evidens est Antichristum non de¬
pravaturum doctrinam Christi sub nomine
Christianismi, ut haeretici volunt : sed aper¬
tissime Christi nomen, et Sacramenta oppu¬
gnaturum, et Judaicas caeromonias introduc¬
turum. Quod cum Papa non faciat , evidens
est, eum non esse Antichristum.
Jam vero quod Antichristus se palam et
nominatim Christum esse dicet, non ejus mi¬
nistrum, aut Vicarium , patet primo ex illis
verbis Domini, Joan. V : Si alius venerit in
nomine suo , illum recipietis (2). Ubi Dominus
videtur de industria addidisse in nomine suo,
praevidens dicturos Lutheranos et Calvinis-
tas, Antichristum non venturum in nomine
suo, sed in nomine nostri Christi, quasi ejus
Vicarium.
Praeterea Patres passim hoc docent. Ire-
naeus lib. V : « Tentabit, inquit, se Christum
ostendere. » Ambrosius in cap. XXI Luc. :
« Ex Scripturis, inquit, disputabit se esse
Christum. » Theodoretus in II. Thess. II :
« Seipsum, inquit, Christum nominabit. »
Cyrillus catech. 15. : «Inducet, inquit, quem¬
dam hominem falso seipsum Christum ap¬
pellatum, ac per hanc Christi appellationem
Judaeos, qui venturum expectant , decipien¬
tem. » Breviter omnes Patres , ut supra os¬
tendimus, dicunt , Antichristum pro Messia
a Judaeis recipiendum, igitur se palam et
nominatim Messiam, id est, Christum faciet.
Proinde Romanus Pontifex , qui hoc non fa¬
cit, ut notum est, non est Antichristus : nam
eo ipso, quod se Vicarium Christi dicit , as¬
seri t se non esse Christum, sed ejus ministrum.
Quod vero Antichristus palam nominabit
se Deum, et pro Deo coli volet , non solum
usurpando aliquam Dei auctoritatem, sed
ipsum nomen Dei ; probatur primo ex ver¬
bis expressis Apostoli , II. Thess. II : Ita ut
in templo Dei sedeat , ostendens se tanquam sit
Deus (3). Ubi Paulus non solum dicit, Anti¬
christum sessurum in templo ; nam etiam nos
sedemus in templis, nec tamen Antichristi
sumus : sed etiam explicat modum quo se¬
debit nimirum, quQd sedebit ut Deus, cui soli
proprie erigitur templum. In Graeco autem
textu clarius hoc habetur. Non enim dici¬
tur «? ©so?, tanquam Deus , sed ort lari ©so?,
id est, ostendens quod sit Deus. Et sic intel¬
lexerunt hunc locum omnes Veteres.
(1) I. Joan. II, 22. — (2) Joan. V, 43. — (3) II. Thessal. II, 4.
Irenaeus lib. V : « Existens , inquit, Apos¬
tata, et latro, .quasi Deus vult adorari. »
Chrysostomus in hunc locum : « Jubebit, in¬
quit, se pro Deo coli, et in templo collocari.»
Et hom. 40. in Joan. explicans hunc eum-
dem locum : a Se , inquit , omnium Deum
profitebitur. » Et infra : « Se maximum Deo¬
rum esse gloriabitur.» Ambrosius in II.Thess.
II : «Ipsum Deum, inquit, se asseret, non Fi¬
lium Dei. » Similiter omnes exponunt. Ex
quo intelligimus, Romanum Pontificem, qui
se non Deum, sed Dei famulum agnoscit,
non esse Antiehristum.
Quod denique Antichristus non sit passu¬
rus ullum Deum, nec verum, nec falsum, nec
idola ; probatur primo ex illis verbis Pauli,
II. Thess. II : Qui extollitur super omne quod
dicitur Deus , aut quod colitur (1). Ubi notan¬
dum, pro eo quod dicitur , Graece esse asj3xau«,
quod Magdeburgenses volunt significare cul¬
tum, id est , actum colendi , non id quod coli¬
tur, ut inde probent , Apostolum non velle
dicere, Antiehristum non adoraturum idola,
sed depravaturum cultum veri Dei, muti¬
lando Sacramenta, vel eis addendo varias
caeremonias. At certe asfi xapx, propriissime
significat non actum , sed objectum , id est,
quod colitur, ut aram, delubrum, idolum
etc. Cultus enim dicitur crs/3a?,vel Qsoaifcix, non
asfixapx. Unde idem Paulus Act. XVII : Mzp-
^ogevoj yxp xxi xvxOscop&v zx asjSxauxzx u|*«v svpov
xxi /3wgov, etc. Prceteriens , inquit , et conside¬
rans simulacra vestra , inveni aram etc. (2). Ubi
apertissime Paulus per as{3xapxzx intelligit res
ipsas quae coluntur, ut delubra, aras, idola.
Et Sapient. XV. sic legimus : Kpdzzov yx p
sazi twv aejSxapazuv aurcu wv auro? pev s£yj<tsv Ixsiva
Os ovSsttozs. Melior est homo idolis , quee ipse fe¬
cit. Nam ipse vixit aliquando, illa autem num-
quam (3). Quem locum nescio, an quis ita
pervertere audebit , ut neget voce asj3x.ap.x-
rwv significari ipsa idola, sive simulacra,
quae manibus hominum fabricantur, quae¬
que vitam habere videntur, cum tamen non
vivant.
Itaque omnes Graeci , et ipse etiam Eras-
mus, cui multum tribuunt omnes haeretici,
tam in Vers. quam in Annot. docet asj3xapx
debere verti numen. Deinde verba Danielis,
cap. XI clarissima sunt. Nec quemquam Deo¬
rum curabit , sed contra universa consurget { 4).
In quem locum Hieronymus scribens dicit,
non posse haec intelligi de Antiocho , ut vo¬
lebat Porphyrius ; quoniam constat, Antio¬
chum adorasse Deos Graecorum : sed intel¬
ligi de Antichristo, qui nullum Deum colet.
Accedat ultimo consensus Veterum. Ire-
naeus 1. V : « Idola quidem, inquit, seponet,
ad suadendum quod ipse sit Deus, se autem
extollet unum idolum. » Hippolytus serm.
de consum. : «Antichristus, inquit, idolola¬
triam non admittet. » Cyrillus Gatech. 13. :
« Idola, inquit, odio habebit Antichristus. »
Chrysostomus in hunc locum : « Extollitur,
inquit, super omne quod dicitur Deus , aut
numen. Non enim ad Idololatriam adducet
ille. » Idem docet in hunc locum Theophy-
lactus, GEcumenius, Theodoretus, qui etiam
pulchre notat, Diabolum mirabiliter ludere,
et lusurum cum filiis perditionis . Antiquis
enim temporibus suadebat multos Deos fal¬
sos, et varia idola adoranda, et eo modo plu¬
rimos lucrabatur : tempore autem Antichristi,
quia videbit per doctrinam Christi toto fere
Orbe exacta idola, et falsorum Deorum mul¬
titudinem; ipse etiam accusabit idola, et eo¬
rum multitudinem, et eo modo adhuc plures
decipiet. Ex quo apparet, Pontificem, qui
secundum Catholicos agnoscit Deum Patrem,
et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, et secundum
haereticos, adorat multa idola, nullo modo
dici posse Antiehristum.
At, inquiunt, Daniel cap. XI affirmat, ab
Antichristo colendum Deum Moazim auro,
et argento, et lapidibus pretiosis.
Respondetur primo : per Deum Moazim,
qui interpretatur fortitudinum, id est, for¬
tissimus, posse intelligi ipsum Antichris-
tum. Siquidem illud Venerabitur in Hebraeo
nonestmniw adorabit , sed -QDi glorificabit ,
quomodo Psal. XC dicit Deus: Eripiam eum,
et glorificabo eum : Hebraice vnhDX et certe
Deus non glorificat homines subjiciendo se
illis, sed eos exaltando. Sic igitur Antichris¬
tus seipsum glorificabit, cum se ab omnibus
adorarifaciet. Unde etSeptuaginta verterunt,
So^xasi : et hoc modo exponit Theodoretus :
« Deum, inquit, fortem et potentem, hoc
enim significat Moazim, seipsum appellat.
Illud enim in loco suo pro, seipsum, posuit.
Eriget enim sibi ipsi templa, et auro, argento,
et lapidibus pretiosis ipse exornabit. » Haec
Theodoretus.
Secundo dici potest, quod mihimagis pla¬
cet : Antiehristum Magum futurum, et
more aliorum Magorum , occulte Diabolum
(1) II. Thessal. II, 4. - (2) Act. XVII, 23, — (3) Sap. XV, 17. — (4) Dan. XI, 37.
ipsum, cujus ope mirabilia faciet , adoratu¬
rum, et hunc vocari Deum Moazim . Porro
Moazim existimarem non esse nomen Dei,
sed loci cujusdam munitissimi, et secreti, in
quo erunt praecipui thesauri Antichristi , et
in quo, ut diximus, Diabolum ille adorabit.
Sequitur enim apud Daniclem , et faciet, ut
muniat Moazim cum Deo alieno, quem cog¬
novit. Et vere iiyn tam fortitudinem quam
arcem significat. Hoc modo exponit Lyra-
nus. Quod autem necessario dicendum sit,
Antichristum esse ipsum Deum Moazim, vel
si est aliquis alius, nonnisi in occultissimo
loco, et clam omnibus ab Antichristo ado¬
randum ; cogunt nos verba ipsa Danielis,
quae alioqui secum ipsa pugnarent : si enim
nullum Deorum curabit, quomodo palam
idola colet ?
Jam vero duo illa argumeuta Illyrici levis¬
sima sunt. Nam in primo argumento ter
peccat Illyricus. Primum, quod asserat, a
Christo verba Pauli explicari , cum Paulus
potius Christi verba explicare debuerit. De¬
inde, quod dicat Matth. XX1Y venire in no¬
mine Christi, idem significare , atque esse
Christi Vicarium. Repugnat enim huic Illy¬
rici explicationi ipsa Christi explicatio. Nam
ne meo, mox addit explicans : dicentes : Ego
sum Christus (1). Itaque venire in nomine
Christi, eo loco est usurpare sibi Christi no¬
men. Quod olim Simon Magus fecit , teste
Irenseo lib. I, cap. 20. et nostris tempori¬
bus David Georcius. Et tandem idipsum An-
ticliristus faciet : Papa vero hoc ipso quod
se Vicarium Christi nominat, se Christum
non facit.
Tertio peccat Illyricus, quodChristhm in¬
eptum interpretem Pauli facit. Nam non
recte exponit illud Pauli Extollit se super
omnem Deum per istud multi venient in nomi¬
ne meo (2). Vicarios meos se facient. Nam
Vicarius Dei non est super omnem Deum,
sed infra omnem Deum : sicut Vicarius Re¬
gis est infra omnem Regem. Nec enim pot¬
est cogitari aut fingi, quemadmodum qui se
Vicarium Regis alicujus esse profitetur, idem
se supra omnes Reges esse glorietur. Ex quo
apparet caecitas atque impudentia adversa¬
riorum, qui ea interdum effutiunt , quae vel
ab ipso communi sensu abhorrent.
Ad illud autem argumentum Illyrici , quo
probabat, Papam usurpare auctoritatem ma¬
jorem, quam habeat Christus. Respondeo :
propositionem et assumptionem argumenti
illius duO esse mendacia , et praeterea con¬
sequentiam nihil valere. Primo enim falsum
est, Christum se subjecisse Scripturis , cum
constet, ipsum esse auctorem Scripturarum ;
et proinde super Scripturas. Cum autem le¬
gimus, Christum fecisse quae faciebat, ut im¬
plerentur Scripturae ; illud Ut non causam,
sed eventum significat, ut ChrysostomUs, et
Augustinus docent, in cap. XII Joan. non
enim Christus ideo mortuus est , quia Isaias
hoc scripsit : sed ideo Isaias hoc scripsit,
quia erat futurum.
Deinde falsum est etiam , Pontificem un¬
quam dixisse verbo, aut facto, se posse dis¬
pensare contra Evangelistam , aut Aposto¬
lum. Nam etsi potest dispensare in praecep¬
tis positivis Apostolorum ; non tamen hoc
est contra Apostolum, sed juxta Apostolum,
qui sine dubio noverat Apostolicam potesta¬
tem, qua ipse praeditus pro tempore aliquid
in Ecclesia statuerat, futuram esse in succes¬
soribus, qua possent ipsa illi eadem moderari
vel mutare, prout Ecclesiae expediret. In
Evangelicis autem, id est, divinis praeceptis,
nemo unquam Catholicus dixit, posse Ponti¬
ficem ullo modo dispensare.
Deinde consequentia etiam est mala. Nam
in majori propositione loquitur Illyricus de
subjectione Christi sub Scripturis , non
quoad praecepta, sed quoad prophetias ; nec
enim ignorabat Illyricus , Christum solvisse
Sabbatum , et abrogasse legem caeremonia-
lem : in minori autem loquitur de preecep-
tis, atque itaargumentum habet quatuor ter¬
minos, et nihil inde concludi potest. Haec
de doctrina Antichristi sufficiant hoc loco.