Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 18: The Ravings of the Heretics Are Refuted (Luther)
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).
Although what we have hitherto discoursed of Antichrist might suffice — since we have evidently shown that none of those things suits the supreme Pontiff which the divine Scriptures attribute to Antichrist — yet, lest anything be wanting, and that the impudence of the adversaries may be made manifest, I will briefly propose and refute what Luther, the Smalcald pamphlet, Calvin, Illyricus, Tilmann, and Chytraeus bring forward to prove that the Pope is Antichrist.
And first, Luther, although he everywhere calls the supreme Pontiff Antichrist, and especially in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, in his book against the execrable Bull of Antichrist, in the Assertion of the articles — in one place only could I find his argument, by which he tries to prove it. For in the Assertion, article 27, he speaks thus: “Daniel foretold, chapter 8, that Antichrist would be a king impudent of face — that is, as the Hebrew has it, powerful in appearances, pomps, and ceremonies of external works, the spirit of Faith being meanwhile extinguished — as we have seen fulfilled in so many religions, orders, colleges, rites, garments, gestures, buildings, statutes, rules, observances, that you can scarcely recite the number of their names.” And these same faces of Antichrist, as he speaks, he enumerates and most fully explains in his book against Ambrose Catharinus, on the vision of Daniel.
But this argument of Luther sins in three things. First, in the very foundation; for the Hebrew words sound, word for word, “strong of face,” and by the Hebrew idiom signify a man of a hardened brow, who knows not how to blush. For, first, so the Seventy rendered it: “shameless of face”; so Jerome rendered it; so Theodoret reads it; so, from the rules of the Rabbis, Francis Vatablus explains it: “Strong of face,” he says, “is he who does not blush, and whom nothing shames.”
Finally, the same is gathered from the like words of Ezekiel 3: The house of Israel is of a hardened forehead and a stubborn heart; behold, I have made thy face stronger than their faces, and thy forehead harder than their foreheads. Where in the Hebrew it is: The house of Israel are strong of forehead, and I have made thy face stronger than their faces. Which have no other sense than this (as Jerome rightly explains): they indeed are impudent, but do thou not yield to their impudence; though they boldly and without shame do evil, do thou boldly and without shame reprove. Since these things are so, let Luther see whether he himself be impudent of face, if he wish to prefer his own interpretation to the Rabbis, to Theodoret, to Jerome, to the Seventy Interpreters, and to Ezekiel himself.
Secondly, Luther's argument sins, because from this opinion, whatever at last it signifies, it is not rightly gathered that the Pope is Antichrist. For even if it were established that Antichrist would be powerful in pomps and external ceremonies, yet it could not straightway be gathered that whoever is powerful in pomps and external ceremonies is Antichrist. For, as the Dialecticians teach, from particular affirmatives nothing is gathered; otherwise Moses too was Antichrist, who instituted so many ceremonies in Exodus and Leviticus that their number can scarcely be entered upon. And since in the same place it is said of Antiochus, and in his figure of Antichrist, that he would be understanding of riddles, if Luther's reasoning were valid, it would follow that all those who could solve riddles are Antichrists — which certainly is false and ridiculous.
Thirdly, it sins in this, that it attributes to the Roman Pontiff the institution of all the Orders and Ecclesiastical ceremonies, though it is established that very many of them were instituted not by the Roman Pontiff, but by other holy Fathers. For the Greek Church always had, and still has, monasteries, rites, observances, ceremonies, which it had received from the holy Basil, Pachomius, and the other Greek Fathers, not from the Roman Pontiff. See the book of Cassian on the Institutes of the renouncers, and the Constitutions of Saint Basil. In the West too the Orders of Saint Benedict, Saint Romuald, Saint Bruno, Saint Dominic, and Saint Francis were indeed approved by the Pope, but were devised and instituted by those holy men, the Holy Spirit teaching; so that if such Orders pertain to the face of Antichrist, those holy Fathers are rather to be called Antichrists than the Pope.
Add lastly that the words of Daniel suit no man (the true Antichrist, to be revealed in his own time, excepted) more aptly than Luther. For he above all was impudent of face; for, a Presbyter and Monk, he openly took a nun to wife, of which thing no example can be shown in all antiquity. Likewise he wrote lies without number, which have been noted by many and put in writing. John Cochlaeus writes, in the acts of Luther of the year 1523, that 50 lies were noted by someone out of one book of Luther; and that by another the same Luther was convicted of 874 lies. Finally, what impudence was that, when in his book against the Bull of Leo X the same Luther dared to excommunicate his Pontiff with the whole Church which adheres to him? Who ever heard that a Bishop could be excommunicated by a Presbyter?
The Council of Chalcedon once shuddered at the audacity of Dioscorus, who, presiding in the second Council of Ephesus, had presumed to excommunicate Pope Leo; but what comparison can there be between Dioscorus, Patriarch of the second see, presiding in a general Council, and Luther, a simple Monk writing in his chamber? But now, Luther dismissed, let us come to Melanchthon.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Refelluntur deliramenta haereticorum , quibus non tam probant , quam impudenter affir¬ mant, Papam esse Antichristum. Etsi sufficere poterant, quae hactenus dis¬ seruimus de Antichristo ; siquidem eviden¬ ter ostendimus, nihil eorum summo Ponti¬ fici convenire, quae Antichristo Scripturae divinae attribuunt : tamen ne aliquid desi¬ deretur, et impudentia adversariorum ma¬ nifesta fiat, proponam breviter, ac refellam, quae Lutherus, libellus Smalchaldicus, Cal¬ vinus, Illyricus, Tilmannus, et Chytraeus adferunt, ut probent Papam esse Antichris¬ tum. Ac primum Lutherus, etsi passim Pontifi¬ cem summum Antichristum vocet, ac prae¬ sertim in lib. de Captiv. Babyl. in lib. cont. execrab. Bullam Antich. in Assert. artic. in dumtaxat argumentum ejus reperire potui, quo id probare conatur. Nam in Assert. art. 27. ita loquitur: « Daniel praedixit VIII cap. Antichristum fore regem impudentem facie, hoc est, sicut Hebraeus habet, potentem spe- ciebus, pompis, et caeremoniis externorum operum, extincto interim spiritu Fidei, sicut vidimus impletum tot religionibus, ordini¬ bus, collegiis, ritibus, vestibus, gestibus, ae¬ dificiis , statutis , regulis , observantiis, ut numerum nominum eorum vix recites. » At¬ que has easdem Antichristi, ut ipse loqui¬ tur, facies enumerat, et fusissime explicat in libro contra Ambros. Catharin. de vision. Dan. Sed hoc Lutheri argumentum in tribus peccat. Primum in ipso fandamento : nam verba Hebraea DJ'sn ad verbum sonant, Ro¬ bustus facie, et phrasi Hebraica significant hominem perfrictae frontis, qui non novit erubescere. Nam in primis ita verterunt 70 : Tzpoaomy inverecundus facie : ita Hiero¬ nymus vertit : ita Theodoretus legit : ita ex Rabbinorum regulis explicat Franciscus Va- tablus : Fortis facie, inquit, est qui non eru¬ bescit, et quem non pudet. Denique idem colligitur ex verbis simili¬ bus Ezech. III : Domus Israel attrita fronte est, et duro corde, ecce dedi faciem tuam valen » tiorem f aciebus eorum,, et frontem tuam durio¬ rem frontibus eorum (3). Ubi in Hebraeo est : Domus Israel robusti fronte sunt , et dedi fa¬ ciem tuam robustiorem faciebus eorum. Quae non habent alium sensum quam istum : (ut Hieronymus recte explicat) illi quidem im¬ pudentes sunt, sed tu non cedas impuden¬ tiae illorum; etsi illi audacter et sine pudore faciunt mala, tu audacter et sine pudore re¬ prehendas. Quae cum ita sint, videat Luthe¬ rus, ne ipse impudens facie sit, si suam in¬ terpretationem Rabbinis, Theodoreto, Hie¬ ronymo, 70 Interpretibus, et ipsi Ezechieli anteponere velit. Secundo peccat Lutheri argumentum, quia ex hac sententia, quidquid tandem si¬ gnificet, non recte colligitur, Papam esse Antichristum. Nam etiamsi constaret, Anti¬ christum futurum potentem in pompis et caeremoniis externis; non tamen continuo colligi posset, esse Antichristum quicumque est potens in pompis et caeremoniis externis. Nam, ut Dialectici docent, ex particularibus affirmativis nihil colligitur; alioqui etiam Moses fuit Antichristus, qui tot caeremonias in Exodo et Levitico instituit, ut vix earum numerus iniri possit. Et cum ibidem de An¬ tiocho, et in ejus figura de Antichristo dici¬ tur, illum fore intelligentem aenigmatum, si ratiocinatio Lutheri valeret ; sequeretur, eos omnes qui aenigmata solvere possent esse (1) Matth. XVI, 18. — (2) Matth. XXIV, 24. (3) Ezech. III, 7 et 8. Antichristos : quod certe falsum,, et ridicu¬ lum est. Tertio peccat in eo, quod Pontifici Ro¬ mano tribuit institutionem omnium Ordi¬ num, et caeremoniarum Ecclesiasticarum ; cum tamen constet, plurimas earum, non a Pontifice Romano, sed ab aliis sanctis Patri¬ bus institutas. Nam Ecclesia Graeca semper habuit, et adhuc habet monasteria, ritus, observationes, caeremonias, quas a sanctis Basilio, Pachomio, et caeteris Graecis Patri¬ bus, non a Romano Pontifice acceperat. Yide lib. Cassiani de Instit. renunt. et S.Ba- silii Constit. In Occidente quoque S. Bene¬ dicti, S. Rom. S. Brunonis, S. Dominici et S. Francisci Ordines a Papa quidem appro¬ bati, sed ab illis sanctis viris Spiritu sancto docente excogitati et instituti sunt : ut si ejusmodi Ordines ad Anticliristi faciem per¬ tineant, potius sancti illi Patres Antichristi dicendi sunt, quam Papa. Adde ultimo, verba Danielis 'nulli homi¬ num (vero Antichristo suo tempore revelan¬ do excepto) aptius convenire quam Luthero. Ipse enim supra omnes impudens facie fuit: nam Presbyter et Monachus palam uxorem sanctimonialem duxit, cujus rei nullum exemplum in tota antiquitate demonstrari potest. Item mendacia sine ullo numero scri¬ psit, quae a multis annotata, et litteris pro¬ dita sunt. Scribit Joannes Cochlseus in act. Luth. anni 1523, a quodam notata ex uno Lutheri libro mendacia 50. Ab alio quodam eumdem Luth erum convictum mendaciorum 874. Qualis denique impudentia illa fuit, cum in lib. cont. Bullam Leonis X idem Lu- therus excommunicare ausus est Pontificem suum cum universa Ecclesia, quee illi adhae¬ ret? Quis unquam audivit, a Presbytero 'Epi¬ scopum excommunicari potuisse? Exhorruit quondam Chalcedonense Con¬ cilium Dioscori audaciam , qui in Concilio Ephesino II praesidens , Leonem Pontificem excommunicare praesumpserat : at quae com¬ paratio esse potest inter Dioscorum Patriar¬ cham secundae sedis , in Concilio generali praesidentem , et Lutherum simplicem Mo¬ nachum in suo cubiculo scribentem? Sed jam Luthero dimisso, adMelanchthonem ve¬ niamus.