Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 21: The Lies of Illyricus Are Refuted
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).
Now Illyricus, in the book which he wrote against the Primacy of the Pope: “But,” he says, “among other arguments this ought to be most firm for us, which most truly and most clearly has at this time been proved by very many, that the Pope teaches and defends impious doctrine, and is the very Antichrist; the reasons of which I will here repeat. John, 1 John 2, defines that Antichrist is he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. This the Pope plainly does, not in words, but in deed. For Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek, is a person divinely sent, to be the perpetual priest and King of the people of God. The office of a priest is to teach, to pray, and to sacrifice; but of a King, to rule and defend.” Thus he.
Let us now hear how he proves that the Pope has snatched these offices from Christ, and what testimonies, what reasons he brings. But, if I am not mistaken, we shall hear only empty words; for thus he proceeds: “The Pope therefore takes away the priesthood from Christ; for he wills not only the beloved Son to be heard, but rather himself and his Pseudo-apostles bringing another Gospel. Likewise, because he substitutes for us many other Mediators in heaven in place of Christ, who intercede for us before the Father, Christ being neglected as a severe judge. Likewise, because he substitutes innumerable sacrificers in place of Christ, who appease God for the human race, to whom he says the priesthood was transferred from Christ through Peter. Finally, because he wills us to be saved through the merits of his spiritual men and of the saints.”
Behold with how clear testimonies of the Scriptures Illyricus convinces us! What if we demonstrate that all these are mere lies? For where, I ask, have you read that the Pope wills himself rather than Christ to be heard? We deny it; prove it. For we on the contrary see the highest honor paid by the Pope to the Scriptures, and those held for heretics who teach anything against Scripture. Next, is it not a most clear lie, that the Pope has substituted Mediators in place of Christ, and wills them to intercede for us to the Father, Christ being neglected? Do not our Litanies begin thus: Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison (Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy)? Are not absolutely all the prayers of our Church, which we read in the Mass and the Ecclesiastical office, directed to God, and terminated through Christ our Lord? Do we not acknowledge the mediation and intercession of Christ, since whatever we ask of God, or desire to be asked for us by the Saints, we ask all through the merit of Christ? For we do not hold the Saints of God in the place of Christ, but ask this of them, that they join their prayers with our prayers, that in this way we may more easily obtain from God, through Christ, whatever we will.
In like manner it is a lie that the Pope has substituted sacrificers in place of Christ, and that we say the priesthood of Christ was transferred through Peter to sacrificers; for you prove none of these, nor will you ever prove them, nor can it be doubted that if you had anything, you would bring it forward. But this is what we say: that Christ, who is a priest for ever, and always lives to make intercession for us, once indeed offered Himself to God as a victim of propitiation by the death of the cross, but now through the hands of the priests offers Himself again and again in mystery.
And just as, though many at this time baptize, yet it is true that we read John 1, This is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost — for the office of baptizing was not transferred from Christ to the priests, but He it is who through the ministry of the priests always baptizes — so also, although many priests today offer Christ in the tremendous mysteries, yet He is the primary priest, and truly the supreme Pontiff, who through the ministry of all the priests offers Himself: “These,” says Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew, “are not the works of human power. He who then at that supper confected them, He now too works them, He perfects them; we hold the rank of ministers.”
But I would gladly learn from thee, Illyricus, since absolutely all the ancient Writers, both Greek and Latin, make mention of the sacrifice of the Eucharist and of Christian priests (which no one denies but he who does not read), why at last thou attributest this to the Roman Pontiff alone, that he transferred the priesthood of Christ to sacrificers? But let us proceed to the rest.
What you add in the last place: “He wills us to be saved through the merits of his spiritual men and of the saints,” is also a signal lie; otherwise bring forward the place where the Pope has said this. For we believe that we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as also the Fathers were saved, as Saint Peter says, Acts 15. Nor do we acknowledge any other Savior but Jesus, and Him crucified, who gave Himself a redemption for all, 1 Timothy 2.
Moreover, that the merits and prayers of the Saints profit us also in their own way, no one can deny but he who does not know, or does not believe, that among the members of the body of the Church there is communication and connection. Of which matter, since we have treated elsewhere, it will suffice in this place to have added only two testimonies. So Saint Augustine, question 149 on Exodus: “That we might be admonished in this way, when our own merits should weigh us down, so that we are not loved by God, that we can be recommended to Him by the merits of those whom God loves.” And again, Book 21 of the City of God, chapter 27, he several times repeats that some obtain indulgence by the merits of the Saints, and that this was signified by the Lord when He says: Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings. “And as,” says Saint Leo, sermon 1 on the Nativity of the Apostles, “we too have experienced, and our elders proved, we believe and trust that among all the labors of this life, for obtaining the mercy of God, we are always to be helped by the prayers of our special patrons, that as much as we are pressed down by our own sins, so much may we be raised up by the Apostolic merits.” Thus he.
And although we are not wont to speak as Illyricus says, namely that we are saved through the merits of spiritual men, yet if anyone should so speak, and would mean only this, that by the merits of the Saints we are in some way helped to obtain salvation through Christ, he could no more be reproved than the Apostle Paul, who, 1 Corinthians 9, says: I became all things to all men, that I might make all safe. And the Apostle Jude, who similarly speaks when he says: Reprove these, being judged; but others save, pulling them out of the fire. And these things concerning the priesthood of Christ.
Illyricus proceeds: “Moreover he takes away the kingdom from Christ, because on earth he himself wishes to be Head of the Church, and in heaven he constitutes for us other helpers and saviors, to whom he bids us flee in our miseries. The Pope therefore denies that Jesus is the Christ.”
Here first I ask this: where has the Pope, or any of the Catholics, called the saints saviors? Next I add this: if to assert oneself Head of the Church under Christ, as His Vicar and Minister, which the Pope does, is to deny that Jesus is the Christ, why by the same reason is not whoever affirms himself to be Viceroy or Governor of some province straightway held to deny that his Lord is King?
Finally, if to flee to the Saints as helpers in miseries is to deny that Jesus is the Christ, how, I ask, did Paul not deny that Jesus is the Christ, when he says, Romans 15: I beseech you, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Spirit, that you help me in your prayers for me to God, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers who are in Judea? How did the great Basil not deny that Jesus is the Christ, when in his Oration on the 40 Martyrs he thus spoke: “Whoever is pressed by any straits, let him flee to these; whoever again rejoices, let him pray to these — the one that he may be freed from evils, the other that he may endure in prosperous things”? I omit the other Fathers; for I fear that if we sift them, we shall find none who did not deny that Jesus is the Christ — if the doctrine of Illyricus be true.
Illyricus proceeds. Daniel chapter 11 “marks Antichrist with several notes: first,” he says, “he will do what he wills; and the Pope indeed does what he pleases.”
But Saint Daniel, when he says of Antichrist he will do what he wills, means that Antichrist will acknowledge absolutely no superior, not even God; for so it follows: And he shall be lifted up against every God. And so Antichrist, God's law and command being set aside, will live according to his own will — which certainly the Pope does not do, since he does not deny that he is bound by the law of God, and acknowledges Christ as judge and superior.
“He himself confesses this,” says Illyricus, “distinction 40: if the Pope should draw innumerable souls with him into hell, yet no one ought to say to him, What doest thou? And the gloss,” he says, “is: the Pope's will is his reason.”
The canon which begins “If the Pope” is not (as Illyricus falsely says) of some Roman Pontiff, but of Saint Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, Apostle of the Germans, and martyr; who indeed does not deny that the supreme Pontiff, if he live ill, is to be corrected and admonished out of fraternal charity, but denies that he can be arraigned by authority and judged, since he himself is the judge of all men. And this same Boniface, in those words which precede that canon (as is to be seen in the new edition of the decree), affirms in express words that on the safety of the Roman Pontiff hangs, after God, the salvation of the whole Church.
I ask, then, of Illyricus: is the opinion of Saint Boniface, Apostle of the Germans, true or not? For if it is not true, why is it objected to us? If it is true, why is it not received? I will say the same more plainly: if that opinion is not true, then it is not true that to the Pontiff drawing very many souls with him to hell it cannot be said, What doest thou? If it is true, then the Roman Pontiff truly is the Head of all the Churches, and, being about to judge all, is to be judged by none. Wherefore let Illyricus cease to allege canons, which can profit him nothing. As for the gloss, let Illyricus know that it was either removed by the Pontiff himself as false in the new edition of the decree, or never was in the decree; I certainly could not find it.
Illyricus proceeds. Secondly (Daniel) “says that he will lift himself above God; this the Pope did, as appears from the preceding. Likewise because he wills himself to be heard more than God, and blaspheming vociferates that Scripture is the fountain of all heresies and schisms, ambiguous and obscure, etc.”
But he ought to have faithfully reported the words of Daniel; for he does not say, He will lift himself above God, but He will be lifted up against every God. And below: Nor shall he regard any of the gods, for he shall rise up against all things. Which note most clearly demonstrates that the Pope has nothing in common with Antichrist; for Antichrist will regard none of the gods, but the Pope worships the one true God — the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And he does not only this, but even (if we believe you) openly adores as many gods as there are Saints in the heavens, images on earth, relics under the earth.
Now that which you add: “The Pope vociferates that Scripture is the fountain of heresies and schisms” — I certainly never read in the writings of any Pope, but I hear it is a saying of your Luther, that Scripture is the book of heretics. Luther, in the preface to the history which happened at Strasbourg in the year '36. Which saying indeed, if it be rightly taken, I do not see why it should be deservedly reproved. For Saint Hilary too, in his book on Synods at the end, shows that most heresies were born of the divine Letters ill understood. And Tertullian, in his book on prescription, more boldly: “Nor do I run into danger to say that the Scriptures themselves too were so disposed by the will of God that they might supply matter to heretics, since I read: There must be heresies — which could not be without the Scriptures.”
Moreover, that the Scriptures are ambiguous and most obscure in very many places, not only the Pope most truly teaches, but also all the ancient Fathers; and even Luther himself, whether he would or no, was forced to confess it, when in his preface to the Psalms he wrote in this manner: “I would not have this presumed of me by anyone, which none of the holiest and most learned has yet been able to perform — that is, to understand and teach the Psalter in all things in its legitimate sense. It is enough that some have understood even these in part. Many things the Spirit reserved to Himself, that He might always have us for disciples; many things He only showed, to allure; many He delivered, to affect.” And below: “I know it is of most impudent rashness for one to dare to profess that one book of Scripture has been understood by him in all its parts.” The same Luther too, in his book on Councils and the Church, page 52 — does he not openly confess that he sought with great sweat the true and genuine sense of Scripture? Finally, so many versions of Scripture, so many interpretations, so many most diverse sects among the adversaries — what else do they cry, than that Scripture is ambiguous and obscure?
Thirdly, (Daniel) “says that it will prosper for him (Antichrist), until the wrath of God be accomplished; the Pope has oppressed, as he willed, by his tyranny and impiety, both very many states and also innumerable Churches.”
And by what reason, on what authority, do you prove this? Can you say what states, what Churches the Roman Pontiff has oppressed? What if we on the contrary demonstrate that a note plainly contrary to this third note of Antichrist suits the Pope? For from the time in which, according to you, the Pope began to be Antichrist, his empire not only did not grow, but always decreased more and more. In the time of Leo the Great — that is, a hundred and fifty years before Antichrist, by your opinion, was born — the Roman Pope presided over more nations than the bounds of the Roman Empire extended. For thus writes the same Leo, sermon 1 on the Nativity of the Apostles: “Through the sacred See of blessed Peter, made the Head of the world, (Rome) thou presidest more widely by divine religion than by earthly dominion. For although, increased by many victories, thou hast extended the right of thy empire over land and sea, yet less is it that warlike labor subdued to thee than what Christian peace has subjected.” And Prosper, in his book on the Ungrateful: “Rome, the See of Peter, which, made the head of the world by pastoral honor, whatever it does not possess by arms, it holds by religion.”
But afterward, Antichrist (as you will have it) reigning, the Roman See gradually lost almost all Africa, the greatest part of Asia, all Greece. But in our times, in which you vociferate that Antichrist chiefly rages, all things have so prospered for him that he has lost a great part of Germany, all Sweden, Gothland, Norway, Denmark, a good part of England, France, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia, and Pannonia. And so if to prosper is a note of Antichrist, not the Pope, who has been stripped of so many provinces, but Luther, who by the preaching of carnal liberty seduced so many peoples, and so prospered that from a private Monk he became the Prophet of all Germany, and as it were a certain Pope, can deservedly be called Antichrist. But go on.
Fourthly, (Daniel) “says that he will not regard the God of his fathers. That this is truly said of the Pope, we clearly proved above in the place of John.” And we, in the same place, more clearly disproved it. Go on, then, to other things.
Fifthly, “he says he will not regard the love of women; which the Pope did, both by commanding celibacy to his own, and by his sodomitical lusts.”
Here I omit to speak of your rashness, by which you dare to pronounce anything whatever, caring little meanwhile whether what you say can be proved or not. This I will not omit: that the words of Daniel, even though in the Greek texts they sound as you say, yet from the Hebrew fountain were rendered by Saint Jerome into a plainly contrary sense; for thus he renders it: And he shall be in the desires of women. And although the Hebrew words only signify in the desire of women, and have no adjunct by which it can be understood whether Antichrist will or will not be in the desires of women, yet there are two conjectures which make the version of Saint Jerome more probable.
One, that it is established that Antiochus, of whom Daniel speaks literally, and who bore the figure of Antichrist, was much addicted to the loves of women: “The Antiochene,” says Jerome in his Commentary on this place, “is said to have been most luxurious, and to have come to such a disgrace of royal majesty by debaucheries and corruptions, that he joined himself publicly even to mimes and harlots, and satisfied his lust in the presence of the people.” Since this is so, how is it credible that of such a King Daniel would have said, he shall not be in the desires of women? The other conjecture is that, since Antichrist is to be the Messiah of the Jews, and the Jews, besides other goods, expect a multitude of wives from their Messiah, it is in no way probable that Antichrist will either command or praise celibacy.
I add lastly that if to enjoin celibacy on priests is a note of Antichrist, not only the Pope, but all the ancient Fathers, and even the Apostles themselves, will be certain Antichrists. For (to pass over other things which will be brought in their place) hear what the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage say, canon 2: “It pleases all that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, or those who handle the Sacraments, being guardians of chastity, abstain even from their wives, that what the Apostles taught, and antiquity itself observed, we too may keep.” But go on.
Sixthly, (Daniel) “says that he will worship the god Maozim, and that with gold and silver; which he did, while he places all piety in this, that many and great temples splendidly built shine with all kinds of precious ornaments, and resound with singing.”
Of the god Maozim many things were said above, where we showed that the god Maozim is either Antichrist himself, or the Devil himself, whom Antichrist will secretly worship. But it seems to me that our Illyricus makes Jesus Christ the god Maozim, which certainly is an intolerable blasphemy. For that all the temples which are splendidly built, and adorned with gold and silver by the Roman Pontiffs, are consecrated and dedicated to Christ God, there is no one who is ignorant; therefore, if he who is worshipped in such temples is the god Maozim, who does not see that Christ Himself is the god Maozim? Nor indeed did the building and adornment of temples begin from the year 666, in which year the adversaries will have Antichrist to have appeared, but nearly three hundred years before this time.
Hear Eusebius, in the version of Rufinus, Book 9 of the Ecclesiastical history, chapter 10: “Whence there was in all, as if infused by a divine gift, a joy, especially in those seeing those places which a little before had been destroyed by the impious engines of tyrants, rise again brighter and loftier by the divine building, and lofty temples elevated in place of humble little assemblies.” Hear Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 14: “These who now are Kings, out of piety, clothing this holy Church of the Resurrection, in which we now are, with silver and gold, built it, and made it splendid with silver monuments.”
See moreover, if you please, of the magnificence of the Christian temples, and the splendor of the sacred vessels of the Church, Eusebius Books 3 and 4 on the life of Constantine, Gregory of Nyssa in his Oration on Saint Theodore the Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen Oration 1 against Julian, Chrysostom homily 66 to the People of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria in his book on the right Faith to the Queens, Damasus in the life of Saint Sylvester, Ambrose Book 2 on Duties chapter 21, Jerome in his Commentary on chapter 8 of Zechariah, Augustine on Psalm 113, Paulinus on the third Nativity of Saint Felix, Prudentius in his hymn on Saint Laurence, and Procopius in his book on the buildings of Justinian. These certainly all flourished before the times of Antichrist, and yet testify that there were in each one's age such buildings and ornaments of the Christian temples that those which we now see can in no way be compared with them.
Seventhly, (Daniel) “says that Antichrist will enrich his associates; this the Pope did.”
Forsooth, he greatly enriched John Eck, John Cochlaeus, John of Rochester, Latomus, Driedo, Tapper, Peter a Soto, and so many other most learned men, who, though they labored day and night to repress your furies, never received even an obol from the Roman Pontiff — although they themselves sought no reward from man, laboring chiefly for the glory of God. But if the Roman Pontiff assigns wealthy priesthoods to Cardinals and Bishops, he himself is not so much to be thought to enrich them, as the piety of the Faithful, which gave such revenues to the Churches.
Illyricus proceeds: “Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2, sets five notes of Antichrist besides the aforesaid. The first, that he will sit in the temple of God. This the Pope does, feigning himself the Vicar of Christ, and reigning in the consciences of men. For if he professed himself the enemy of Christ, as Mohammed, he would be outside the Church.”
But Paul, Illyricus, does not only say that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God (for every Bishop sits in the temple of God), but explains the manner in which he will sit in the temple of God, saying: Showing himself [hoti esti Theos] as that he is God. But the Pope, on your own testimony, makes himself the Vicar of God, and by this not God. For the Vicar of God cannot be God, unless you feign lesser gods and greater gods. Next I ask of you: if the Pope is not outside the Church, as you here say, and accordingly is within the Church, where, I ask, are you with your followers? Are you not outside the Church? For the Church is one, and in it the Pope sits; you, then, who are not in it, are in none. But let us hear the rest.
The second, “that he says the mystery is now at work; this I think looks to the fact that the Roman Bishop a little after began to lift his head above others.”
Forsooth, this is what I noted above briefly, following Nicholas Sander, who before had seen and written the same thing: that for you Saint Peter is Antichrist, but Simon Magus, or Nero, is Christ. For Paul does not say, the mystery of iniquity will a little after work, but already worketh; wherefore if this mystery pertains to the Roman Pontiff, it must pertain to Saint Peter; and if Saint Peter (which the mind shudders to think, and the hand trembles to write) was Antichrist, who does not see that Simon and Nero, the enemies of Saint Peter, were Christ and God? But keep for yourself such Gods and Christs; for we do not envy you. He proceeds.
The third, “that he says Antichrist will come with lying signs; which the Pope, experience witnessing, did.” The fourth, “that God will send the efficacy of illusion; which in the Papacy manifestly happens. For we have all believed the Pope far more firmly than God.”
Of the miracles of Antichrist we discoursed above, chapter 15; and it is a most impudent lie which Illyricus says of experience; for the Pontiffs did no miracles, neither true nor false, neither in this age nor in the former, in which yet they say Antichrist chiefly reigns. But what he adds of the efficacy of illusion, no one but sees how easily it is retorted upon the adversaries. For what greater efficacy of illusion can be feigned, than that there are found at this time those who would rather give credence to two or three apostates than to the whole Church, all the Councils, and all the Fathers, who, besides admirable doctrine and eminent sanctity of life, shone also with very many and very great signs and miracles?
Now that which Illyricus brings from Ambrose, to explain the fifth note, was refuted above in the second demonstration, by which we proved that Antichrist has not yet come.
Illyricus adds lastly some things from the first epistle to Timothy: “1 Timothy 4: in the last times some shall depart from the Faith. The Pope denies that there is any Faith but the historical. They shall attend to spirits of deceit; the Pope proves all things by visions of spirits and souls. They shall forbid marriage, and the use of foods; both of these are most true and most well known of the Pope.”
But, good sir, the Pope learned from Paul that there is one Faith; do you see whence you learned another Faith besides the one: One God, says the Apostle, Ephesians 4, one Faith, one baptism. Nor did Paul ever define this one Faith to be a confidence resting on the promise and word of God, as you define it, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 262. But he says, Romans 10: This is the word of Faith which we preach; for if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And to the Hebrews chapter 11 he says: By Faith we believe that the world was framed by the word of God.
But who is ignorant that it pertains to sacred history both that Christ rose from the dead, and that the world was framed by the word of God? And yet we do not name that one, only, and true Faith, by which we most certainly believe whatever God has vouchsafed to reveal through the Apostles and Prophets, the historical Faith, but the Catholic Faith; for we leave to you the novelties of words.
That which you add, that the Pope proves all things by visions of spirits and souls — I know not what spirit revealed this to you. For we, to confirm those things which pertain to the state of souls, sometimes bring forward something from the apparitions of souls, written by approved and ancient Authors. Such is that which Eusebius writes of the apparition of Saint Potamiaena, Book 6 of the Ecclesiastical history, chapter 5, and that which Saint Augustine relates of the apparition of Saint Felix of Nola, in his book on the care to be had for the dead, chapter 16. But to confirm other dogmas, I know not what Catholic ever brought forward visions of souls. But this is not your first lie.
That which you bring in the last place, of the prohibition of foods and marriage, is refuted clearly enough by Augustine, Book 30 against Faustus, chapter 6, where he thus says: “If you exhorted to virginity as the Apostolic doctrine exhorts — He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that giveth her not doth better — so that you said marriage is good, but virginity better, as the Church does, which is truly the Church of Christ, the Holy Spirit would not so foretell of you, saying, forbidding to marry. For he forbids who says this is evil, not he who prefers to this good another better.” And below: “You see therefore that there is much difference between those exhorting to virginity, by preferring a greater good to a lesser good, and those forbidding to marry, by more vehemently accusing the congress of propagation, which alone is properly nuptial; much difference between those abstaining from foods for a sacred signification, or for the chastisement of the body, and those abstaining from foods which God created, by saying that God did not create them. Accordingly, that doctrine is of the Prophets and Apostles, this of lying Demons.” This Augustine, for himself and for us. Nor is there need to add anything.
Illyricus concludes: “It is established, then, from these signs, that the Pope is that very true Antichrist of whom the Scriptures prophesied.” But perhaps he would more aptly have concluded in this way: it is established, then, from these lies, that Illyricus is one of the precursors of him whom Saint Daniel long before foretold would be impudent of mouth.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI.' Refelluntur mendacia Illyrici. Jam Illyricus in lib. quem scripsit adv, Prim. Papae : « Sed, inquit, inter alia argu¬ menta nobis illud firmissimum esse debet, quod verissime et clarissime hoc tempore a plurimis probatum est , Papam docere , et defendere impiam doctrinam , et esse ipsis¬ simum Antichristum , cujus rei rationes hic repetam. JoannesI, 2. definit, Antichristum esse eum , qui negat Jesum esse Christum. Id plane Papa facit, non verbis, sed re. Nam Meschias Hebraice, Graece Christus, est per¬ sona divinitus missa, ut sit populi Dei perpe¬ tuus sacerdos et Rex. Sacerdotis officium est docere, orare , et sacrificare, sed Regis est regere et defendere. » Haec ille. Audiamus nunc quomodo probet. Papam haec officia Christo eripuisse , et quae testi¬ monia, quas rationes adferat. Sed, ni fallor, sola verba inania audiemus; sic igitur per¬ git: «Adimit ergo Papa Christo sacerdotium: nam non solum dilectum Filium vult audi¬ ri , sed magis se suosque Pseudoapostolos aliud Evangelium adferentes. Item, quia multos alios Mediatores in coelo nobis pro Christo substituit, qui pro nobis coram Pa¬ tre intercedant neglecto Christo severo judi¬ ce. Item, quia infinitos sacrificulos pro Chri¬ sto substituit, qui generi humano Deum pla¬ cent , ad quos dicit , a Christo per Petrum sacerdotium translatum esse. Denique quia per merita suorum spiritualium, sanctorum¬ que nos salvari vult. » En quam claris Scripturarum testimoniis Illyricus nos convincit. Quid si haec omnia mere esse mendacia demonstremus ? Nam ubi, quseso, legistis, Papam velle magis se quam Christum audiri? Negamus; probate. Nos enim contra videmus a Papa summum honorem Scripturis- deferri, et pro haereticis haberi qui adversus Scripturam aliquid do¬ cuerint. Deinde, nonne mendacium est cla¬ rissimum, quod Papa Mediatores pro Chris¬ to substituerit, et illos velit pro nobis ad Pa¬ trem intercedere Christo neglecto? Nonne (1) Isai. XXXIII. 22; Jacob. IV, 12; Prov. VIII, 15; Psal. II, 10. Litaniae nostrae ita incipiunt : Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison? Nonne omnes omnino Eccle- .siae nostrae preces, quas in Missa et officio Ecclesiastico legimus, ad Deum diriguntur, et per Christum Dominum nostrum terminan¬ tur ? Nonne Christi mediationem et interces¬ sionem agnoscimus, cum quidquid a Deo petimus, sive a Sanctis pro nobis peti cupi¬ mus, id totum per Christi meritum petamus? Nec enim Sanctos Dei, ut Christi loco habe¬ mus, sed id ab eis petimus, ut suas preces cum nostris precibus conjungant, ut hoc modo facilius quidquid volumus a Deo per Christum impetremus. Pari ratione mendacium est, quod Papa sacrificulos pro Christo substituerit, necnon quod sacerdotium Christi per Petrum ad sacrificulos translatum dicamus : nec enim aliquid horum probatis, aut probabitis un¬ quam nec dubium esse potest, quin si aliquid haberetis, in medium adferretis. Id vero est, quod nos dicimus, Christum, qui est sacer¬ dos in seternum, et semper vivit ad interpel¬ landum pro nobis, semel quidem seipsum Deo in hostiam placationis per mortem cru¬ cis obtulisse : nunc vero per manus sacer¬ dotum iterum atque iterum in mysterio se offerre. Et quemadmodum cum multi hoc tem¬ pore baptizent, verum tamen est quod legi¬ mus Joan. I. Hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto (I): Non enim translatum est officium baptizandi a Christo ad sacerdotes, sed ipse est qui per ministerium sacerdotum semper baptizat : sic etiam tametsi multi sacerdotes hodie Christum in tremendis mysteriis offe¬ rant, ipse tamen est primarius sacerdos, et vere summus Pontifex, qui per ministerium omnium sacerdotum semetipsum offert : a Non sunt, inquit Chrysostomns hom. 83. in Matth. humanae virtutis haec opera. Qui tunc in illa coena confecit, ipse nunc quoque operatur, ipse perficit, ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus. » Sed libenter a te discerem, Illyrice, cum omnes omnino veteres Scriptores, tum Graeci tum Latini sacrificii Eucharistiae, et sacerdo¬ tum Christianorum mentionem faciant, quod nemo negat nisi qui non legit: cur tandem soli Pontifici Romano hoc tribuas, quod sa¬ cerdotium Christi in sacrificulos transtulerit? sed pergamus ad caetera . Quod postremo loco addis : « Per merita suorum spiritualium, sanctorumque nos sal¬ vari vult. » Insigne quoque mendacium est : alioqui profer locum, ubi Papa hoc dixerit: « Nos enim per gratiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi credimus salvari , quemadmodum et Patres salvati sunt, » ut S . Petrus ait, Act. XY. Nec alium agnoscimus Salvatorem nisi Jesum et hunc crucifixum, qui dedit semetip¬ sum redemptionem pro omnibus I. ad Tim. II. Porro Sanctorum merita et preces suo etiam modo nobis prodesse, negare non po¬ test, nisi qui nescit, aut non credit , inter membra corporis Ecclesiae communicatio¬ nem et connexionem esse. De qua re, cum nos alibi tractaverimus, duo solum testimo¬ nia hoc loco addidisse sufficiet. Igitur S. Augustinus quaest. 149. in Exod. « Ut eo modo, inquit, admoneremur, cum merita nostra nos gravassent, ne diligamur a Deo, revelari nos apud eum illorum meritis posse, quos Deus diligit. » Ac rursum lib. XXL de Civit. Dei, cap 27. aliquoties repetit, nonnul¬ los Sanctorum meritis indulgentiam adipisci, atque hoc significatum esse a Domino, cum ait : Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniqui¬ tatis , ut cum defeceritis , recipiant vos in ceter - na tabernacida (2). « Sicut autem, (inquit S. Leoserm. I. de Natali Apost.) et nos experti sumus, et nostri probavere majores, credi¬ mus, atque confidimus, inter omnes labores istius vitae ad obtinendam misericordiam Dei, semper nos specialium patronorum ora¬ tionibus adjuvandos, ut quantum propriis peccatis depremimur tantum Apostolicis me¬ ritis erigamur. » Haec ille. Et quamvis non solemus ita loqui, ut Illy¬ ricus dicit, per merita videlicet spiritualium nos salvari ; tamen si quis ita loqueretur, atque id solum significare vellet, meritis Sanctorum ad salutem per Christum obti¬ nendam aliqua ratione nos juvari, non ma¬ gis reprehendi posset, quam Apostolus Pau¬ lus, qui I. Cor. IX. ait : Omnibus omnia fac¬ tus sum , ut omnes facerem salvos. Et Aposto¬ lus Judas, quisimiliterloquiturcumait:7/os quidem arguite judicatos , illos vero salvate de igne rapientes (3). Atque hsec de sacerdotio Christi. Pergit Illyricus : « Regnum porro Christo aufert, quia in terris*vult ipse esse Caput Ecclesiae ; in coelo vero alios opitulatores, et servatores nobis constituit, ad quos in mise- (1) Joan. I, 33. — (2) Luc. XVI, 9. — (3) I. Cor. IX, 22; Jud. 22 et 23. riis nos confugere jubet. Negat ergo Papa Jesum esse Christum. » Hic primum illud qusero : ubinamPapa, aut ullus Catholicorum servatores sanctos appellaverit. Deinde illud addo : si asserere se Caput Ecclesiae esse sub Christo, ut ejus Vicarium et Ministrum, quod Papa facit, est negare Jesum esse Christum; cur eadem ratione quicumque se Proregem, aut Guber¬ natorem provincjae alicujus esse affirmat, non continuo censetur negare Dominum suum esse Regem ? Denique si ad Sanctos, tanquam opitulato¬ res in miseriis confugere, est negare Jesum esse Christum; quomodo, quaeso, Paulus non negavit Jesum esse Christum, cum ait ad Rom. XV : Obsecro vos, fratres, per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum , et per c/iaritatem Sancti Spiritus, ut adjuvetis me in orationibus pro me ad Deum, ut liberer ab infidelibus , qui sunt in Judcea ? Quomodo magnus Basilius non negavit Jesum esse Christum, cum in Orat, de 40 Martyr, ita locutus est : « Qui aliqua premitur angustia, ad hos confugiat : Qui rursum laetatur, hos oret : Ille ut a ma¬ lis liberetur ; Iste ut duret in rebus laetis ? » Omitto caeteros Patres ; vereor enim ne si eos excutiamus, nullum inveniamus qui non negaverit Jesum esse Christum : Si vera sit Illyrici doctrina. Pergit Illyricus. Daniel cap. XI : « Anti- christum pluribus notis insignit : primum, inquit, faciet quod volet, facit sane Papa quod ei libet. » At S. Daniel cum ait deAntichristo, faciet quod volet , significare vult, ab Antichristo nullum omnino superiorem agnoscendum, ac ne Deum quidem: sic enim sequitur : Et elevabitur adversus omnem Deum. Itaque An- tichristus etiam Dei lege, et imperio postha¬ bito, pro arbitrio suo vivet, quod certe Pa¬ pa non facit, quippe qui Dei lege se constrin¬ gi non negat, et Christum judicem et supe¬ riorem agnoscit. « Confitetur, inquit Illyricus , id ipse- met dist. 40. si Papa infinitas animas secum in infernum traheret ; tamen nemo debet ei dicere quid facis? et glossa, inquit, Papae est pro ratione voluntas. » Canon, qui incipit « Si Papa, » non est (ut falso Illyricus dicit) alicujus Romani Pon¬ tificis, sed S. Bonifacii Episcopi Mognatini, Apostoli Germanorum, et martyris : qui quidem non negat Pontificem summum, si male vixerit, esse corripiendum atque ad¬ monendum ex fraterna charitate ; sed negat’ posse argui ex auctoritate, ac judicari, cum sit ipse omnium hominum judex. Qui etiam Bonifacius in iis verbis, quae canonem illum antecedunt (ut videre est in nova editione decreti) Romanam Ecclesiam disertis verbis Romani Pontificis incolumitate totius Eccle¬ siae salutem, post Deum, pendere affirmat. Quaero igitur ab Illyrico : vera sifne S. Bonifacii Germanorum Apostoli sententia an non ? Nam si vera non est ; cur nobis obji¬ citur ? Si vera est; cur non recipitur ? Dicam idipsum planius ; si vera non est ea sen¬ tentia ; non igitur verum est, Pontifici pluri¬ mas animas secum ad inferos trahenti non posse dici, quid facis? Si vera est ; igitur ve¬ re Caput est Romanus Pontifex omnium Ecclesiarum, et cunctos judicaturus a nemi¬ ne est judicandus. Quare desinat Illyricus jam canones allegare, qui nihil ei prodesse possunt. Quod ad glossam attinet, sciat Illy¬ ricus, eam vel ab ipso Pontifice, tanquam falsam esse sublatam in nova editione de¬ creti, vel nunquam in decreto fuisse: ego certe eamreperire non potui. Pergit Illyricus. Secundo (Daniel) « dicit, quod se elevabit supra Deum, id fecit (Papa) ut ex praecedentibus apparet. Item quia vult se audiri plusquam Deum blasphemansque vociferatur, Scripturam esse fontem omnium haeresum et schismatum, ambiguam et obs¬ curam etc. » Atqui oportuerat fideliter Danielis verba referre ; non enim ille ait : Elevabit se supra Deum, sed elevabitur adversus omnem Deum. Et infra : Nec quemquam Deorum curabit , quia adversum universa consurget. Quae nota clarissime demonstrat, Papam nihil habere commune cum Antichristo : Nam Antichris- tus nullum Deorum curabit : Papa vero unum verum Deum Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum colit. Neque id solum fa¬ cit, sed etiam (si vobis credimus) tot Deos palam adorat, quot sunt in ccelis Sancti, in terris imagines, sub terram reliquiae. Jam vero quod addis: «Papam vociferari, Scripturam esse fontem haeresum et schis¬ matum. 0 Ego certe in nullius unquam Pa¬ pae scriptis legi, sed Lutheri tui verbum esse audio. Scripturam esse librum haereticorum. (1) Rom XV, 30 et seq. Lutherus praefat. hist. quae contigit in Stras- fort anno 36. Quod quidem verbum si recte accipiatur, non video cur merito reprehen¬ datur. Nam S. quoque Hilarius in lib. de Synod. extremo demonstrat, plerasque hae- reses ex divinis Litteris male intellectis esse natas. Et Tertullianus in lib. depraescript. magis audacter : « Nec periclitor, inquit, dicere ipsa quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei vo¬ luntate dispositas, ut haereticis materias sub¬ ministrarent, cum legam : Oportet haereticis esse, quae sine Scripturis esse non possent. » Porro ambiguas, et obscurissimas in ple- risque locis Scripturas esse, non solum Papa verissime docet, sed omnes etiam veteres Patres ; atque adeo ipse Lutherus, vellet nol¬ let id fateri coactus est, cumpraefat. in Psal. in hunc modum scripsit: « Nolim ab ullo id de me praesumi, quod nullus adhuc praestare potuit sanctissimorum et doctissimorum, id est, Psalterium in omnibus suo legitimo sen¬ su in telligere et docere. Sat est, aliquos et eosdem ex parte intellexisse : multa sibi re¬ servavit Spiritus, quo nos semper discipulos habeat, multa solum ostendit, ut alliciat, multa tradidit, ut afficiat. » Et infra : « Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis eum, qui audeat profiteri, unum Scripturae librum a se in omnibus partibus intellectum. » Idem quoque Lutherus in lib. de Cone, et Eccl. pag. 52. Nonne aperte fatetur, se magno su¬ dore veram, et germanam Scripturae senten¬ tiam quaesivisse ? Denique tot Scripturae versiones, tot interpretationes, tot sectae di¬ versissimae apud adversarios , quid aliud clamant, quam Scripturam esse ambiguam et obscuram? Tertio, (Daniel) « dicit quod ei (Antichris- to) prospere succedet, donec finiatur ira Dei : oppressit Papa ut voluit sua tyrannide et impietate, tum politias plurimas, tum etiam innumeras Ecclesias. » Et hoc qua ratione, quo auctore probatis? Potestisne dicere , quas politias, quas Ec¬ clesias Pontifex Romanus oppresserit? quid si nos contra demonstramus, huic tertiae no¬ tae Antichristi notam plane contrariam Pa¬ pae convenire? Nam ab eo tempore, quo per vos Papa Antichristus esse coepit, non modo non crevit ejus imperium, sed semper ma¬ gis ac magis decrevit. Leonis Magni tempo¬ re, id est, annis centum quinquagenta ante¬ quam Antichristus vestra sententia nascere¬ tur, Papa Romanus pluribus gentibus praesi¬ debat, quam sese Romani Imperii fines ex¬ tenderent. Sic enim scribit idem Leo serm. 1. de Natali Apostolorum : « Per sacram B. Petri Sedem Caput orbis effecta (Roma) la¬ tius praesideres religione divina, quam do¬ minatione terrena . Quamvis enim multis aucta victoriis, jus imperii tui, terra mari¬ que protuleris, minus tamen est, quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subjecit. » Et Prosper in lib. de Ingrat. Sedes Roma Petri, quse pastoralis honoris Facta caput Mundo, quidquid non possidet armis, Relligione tenet. At postea, Antichristo, (ut vos vultis) re¬ gnante, paulatim amisit Romana Sedes Afri¬ cam pene totam, Asiae maximam partem, Graeciam universam. Nostris vero temporibus quibus vos Antichristum maxime furere vo¬ ciferamini, tam prospere illi omnia succes¬ serunt, ut magnam Germaniae partem ami¬ serit, Suetiam, Gothiam, Norwegiam, Da- niam universam, bonam Angliae, Galliae, Helvetiae, Poloniae, Bohemiae, ac Pannoniae partem. Itaque si prospere agere, nota est Antichristi, non Papa, qui tot provinciis exutus est, sed Lutherus, qui praedicatione carnalis libertatis tot populos seduxit, et tam prospere egit, ut ex privato Monacho totius Germaniae Propheta, et quasi Papa quidam evaserit, Antichristus merito dici potest. Sed perge. Quarto (Daniel) « dicit, eum non cura¬ turum Deum suorum patrum. Hoc de Papa vere dici, superius in loco Joannis clare probavimus. » Et nos in eodem loco idipsum clarius reprobavimus. Perge igitur ad alia. Quinto « dicit, non curaturum amorem mulierum : quod Papa fecit, tum praecipien¬ do suis caelibatum, tum per suas sodomiti- cas libidines. » Hic omitto dicere de temeritate vestra, qua quidlibet pronuntiare audetis; parum pensi interim habentes, possint ne probari quae dicitis, an non possint. Illud non omit¬ tam, verba Danielis etiamsi in textibus Grae¬ cis ita sonent, ut vos dicitis ; tamen ex He¬ braico fonte in contrariam plane sententiam a S. Hieronymo esse translata; sic enim ille ver¬ tit : Et erit in concupiscentiis fceminarum. Et quamvis verba Hebraica rnan Sin so¬ lum significent in concupiscentia fceminarum et non habeant ullum adjunctum, quo intel- ligi possit, utrum erit aut non erit Antichris- tus in concupiscentiis foeminarum : duae ta-y men conjecturae sunt, quae versionem S. Hieronymi probabiliorem faciunt. Una, quod constet, Antiochum , de quo ad litteram Daniel loquitur, et qui Antichristi figuram gerebat , valde addictum amoribus foeminarum fuisse : « Antiochenus , » inquit Hieronymus in Gomm. hujus loci, « luxurio¬ sissimus fuisse dicitur, et in tantum dedecus per stupra, et corruptelas venisse Regiae ma¬ jestatis, ut mimis quoque et scortis publice jungeretur, et libidinem suam populo prae¬ sente compleret. » Quod cum ita sit ; quo¬ modo credibile est de tali Rege Danielem dicturum fuisse, in concupiscentiis foemina¬ rum non erit ? Altera conjectura est, quod cum Antichris- tus Judaeorum Messias futurus sit , et Judaei praeter caetera bona uxorum multitudinem a Messia suo expcctent, non est ullo modo pro¬ babile, Antichristum aut imperaturum , aut laudaturum coelibatum. Addo postremo, quod si nota est Anti¬ christi coelibatum indicere sacerdotibus, non solum Papa, sed omnes veteres Patres, et ipsi etiam Apostoli Antichristi quidam erunt. Nam (ut caetera praetermittam quae suo loco adferentur) audi quid dicant Patres Concilii II Carthagin. can. 2. : « Omnibus placet, ut Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel qui Sa¬ cramenta contrectant, pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant, ut quod Apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiqui¬ tas, nos quoque custodiamus. » Sed perge. Sexto, « dicit (Daniel) quod colet Deum Moazim, idque auro et argento , quod fecit, dum totam pietatem in eo collocat, ut multa, magnaque templa splendide extructa omni¬ genis pretiosis ornamentis niteant, cantuque reboent. » De Deo Maozim supra multa dicta sunt, ubi ostendimus, Deum Maozim , aut ipsum Antichristum esse , aut ipsum Diabolum, quem occulte Antichristus colet. Sed videtur mihi noster Illyricus Jesum Christum facere Deum Maozim , quae sane intolerabilis blas- phemia est. Nam templa omnia, quae splen¬ dide exstruuntur, et auro atque argento a Romanis Pontificibus exornantur, Christo Deo sacrari, ac dicari nemo est qui nesciat ; igitur, si qui ejusmodi templis colitur, is est Deus Maozim ; quis non videt, Christum ipsum esse Deum Maozim? Neque vero tem¬ plorum exstructio atque ornatus ab anno 666 coepit, quo anno adversarii Antichris¬ tum apparuisse volunt, sed ante hoc tempus annis ferme trecentis. Audi Eusebium ex versione Ruffmi 1. IX hist. Eccles. cap. 10 : « Ex quo aderat cunc¬ tis velut divino munere infusa laetitia, maxi¬ me videntibus ea loca , qua; paulo ante im¬ piis tyrannorum machinis fuerant destructa, re divina constructione clariora, et celsiora consurgere, templaque excelsa pro humili¬ bus conventiculis elevari. » Audi Gyrillum Hierosol. Catech. 14. : « Isti qui nunc sunt Reges, pietatis ergo, argento induentes et auro sanctam hanc Ecclesiam Resurrec¬ tionis, in qua nunc sumus, extruxerunt, et ar¬ genteis monumentis splendidam effecerunt.» Vide praeterea, si libet, de templorum Christianorum magnificentia, et splendore sacrorum vasorum Ecclesiae , Eusebium lib, III et IY de vita Constant. Gregorium Nysse- num in Orat, de S. Martyre Theodoro, Gre¬ gorium Nazianzenum Orat. 1. in Julian, Chrysostomum hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch. Gyrillum Alexandrinum lib. de recta Fide ad Reginas, Damasum in vita S. Sylvestri, Am¬ brosium lib. II de Offic. cap. 21. Hierony¬ mum in Com. cap. VIII. Zachar. Augusti¬ num in Psal. CXIII. Paulinum Natali tertio S. Felicis, Prudentium in hymno de S. Lau¬ rentio, et Procopium in lib. de sedif. Justin. Hi certe omnes ante tempora Antichristi flo¬ ruerunt, et tamen ea testantur fuisse sua quisque aetate aedificia et ornamenta tem¬ plorum Christianorum, ut ea quae nunc cerni¬ mus, cum illis nullo modo comparari possint. Septimo « dicit (Daniel) fore, ut Antichris¬ tus ditet suos socios, id Papa fecit. » Scilicet, valde ditavit Joannem Eckium, Joannem Cochlaeum, Joannem Roffensem, Latomum, Driedonem, Tapperum, Petrum a Soto , et alios tam multos doctissimos vi¬ ros, qui cum dies et noctes laborarent, ut vestros furores comprimerent, ne obolum quidem unquam a Romano Pontifice acce¬ perunt : quamquam neque ipsi mercedem ab homine expetebant , qui pro Dei gloria potissimum laborabant. Quod si Romanus Pontifex opulenta sacerdotia Cardinalibus et Episcopis attribuit, non tam ipse eos ditare censendus est , quam Fidelium pietas, quae ejusmodi proventus Ecclesiis donavit. Pergit Illyricus : « Paulus II. Thessal. II quinque notas Antichristi praeter praedictas ponit. Prima, quod in templo Dei sedebit. Hoc facit Papa, se Christi Vicarium fingendo, et in conscientiis hominum regnando. Si enim se Christi hostem profiteretur, utMahometes, esset extra Ecclesiam. » Sed Paulus, Illyrice, non solum ait, Anti- christum sessurum in templo Dei (omnis enim Episcopus sedet in templo Dei) sed explicat modum quo ille in templo Dei sessurus est, dicens : Ostendens seipsum ori iaxt Osog : Papa vero, te teste, Vicarium Dei se facit , ac per hoc non Deum. Nec enim Vicarius Dei, Deus esse potest, nisi fingas Deos minores et Deos majores. Deinde qusero abs te : si Papa non est extra Ecclesiam, ut tu hoc loco dicis, ac proinde est intra Ecclesiam ; ubi , quaeso, tu es cum tuis? nonne extra Ecclesiam? Ecclesia enim una est, et in illa sedet Papa; vos igi¬ tur qui in illa non estis , in nulla estis. Sed audiamus csetera. Secunda, « quod ait, jam mysterium agi id opinor eo spectare , quod Episcopus Ro¬ manus, paulo post coepit caput efferre supra alios. » Nimirum, id est, quod ego supra breviter annotavi , secutus Nicolaum Sanderum, qui antea idipsum viderat , et scripserat ; vobis S. Petrum Antichristum esse : Simonem vero Magum, aut Neronem , Christum. Paulus enim non ait , mysterium iniquitatis paulo post operabitur, sed jam operatur : quare si hoc mysterium ad Romanum Pontificem pertinet, ad S. Petrum pertineat necesse est : et si E. Petrus , quod horret animus cogita¬ re ; et manus trepidat scribere, Antichristus fuit; quis non videat Simonem, et Neronem S. Petri hostes, Christum et Deum fuisse? Sed habeas tibi ejusmodi Deos et Christos, nec enim invidemus. Pergit. * > « Tertia, « quod dicit , Antichristum ven¬ turum cum signis mendacibus : quod Papa, teste experientia, fecit. » Quarta, « quod mittet Deus efficaciam illu¬ sionis : quod in Papatu manifeste accidit. Omnia enim longe firmius credidimus Papse, quam Deo. a De miraculis Antichristi supra disseruimus cap. 15. et rqendacium estimpudentissimum, quod de experientia Illyricus dicit : nam Pontifices nec vera , nec falsa ulla miracula fecerunt, neque hoc sseculo , nec superiore, quibus tamen Antichristum maxime regnare dicunt Quod vero addit de efficacia illusio¬ nis ; nemo non videt, quam facile in adver¬ sarios retorqueatur. Quse enim major effica¬ cia illusionis fingi potest, quam ut invenian¬ tur hoc tempore qui malint duobus aut tri¬ bus apostatis fidem habere , quam Ecclesias universae , omnibus Conciliis , et omnibus Patribus, qui praeter doctrinam admirabi¬ lem, et vitae sanctitatem eximiam, signis etiam et miraculis plurimis, et maximis cla¬ ruerunt? Jam vero quod ex Ambrosio , ut quintam notam explicet, adfert Illyricus, supra est re¬ futatum in secunda demonstratione , qua probavimus, Antichristum nondum venisse. Addit postremo Illyricus quaedam ex ep. ad Timoth. I : «ad Tim. IV. postremis tem¬ poribus discedent quidam a Fide. Papa ne¬ gat esse aliam Fidem prseter historicam. At¬ tendent spiritibus impostoribus. Papa omnia visionibus spirituum , et animarum probat : prohibebunt conjugium , et ciborum usum ; horum utrumque de Papa verissimum et no¬ tissimum est. » Sed, bone vir, Papa unam esse Fidem a Paulo didicit ; tu videris, unde praeter unam Fidem aliam didiceris : Unus Deus , inquit Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, una Fides , unum baptisma (1). Nec istam unam Fidem Paulus unquam definivit , esse fiduciam innitentem promissioni et verbo Dei, ut vos definitis Cent. I, lib. II, cap. 4, coi. 262. Sed ait ad Rom. cap. X : Hoc est verbum Fidei quod prcedicamus , quia si confitearis in ore tuo Do¬ minum Jesum , et in corde tuo credideras , quod Deus illum suscitavit a mortuis , salvus eris. Et ad Hebr. cap. XI dicit : Fide credimus aptata esse scecula verbo Dei (2). Quis autem nescit, ad sacram historiam pertinere, et Christum a mortuis resurrexisse, et saecula verbo Dei esse aptata? Nec tamen nos istam unam , solam , et veram Fidem, qua certissime credimus quidquid Deus per Apostolos et Prophetas revelare dignatus est, Fidem historicam , sed Fidem Catholicam nominamus : vobis enim relinquimus vocum novitates. Quod addis, Papam omnia probare visio¬ nibus spirituum et animarum , nescio quis tibi spiritus revelaverit. Nos enim ad ea con¬ firmanda, quse ad statum animarum perti¬ nent, interdum aliquid ex animarum appa¬ ritionibus, a probatis ac vetustis Auctoribus scriptis, adferimus. Quale est illud quod scri¬ bit Eusebius de apparitione sanctse Pota- mienoe lib. VI hist. Eccles. cap. 5. et illud quod refert E. Augustinus de apparitione S. Felicis Nolani lib. de cura pro mort. c. 16. Ad alia vero confirmanda dogmata nescio (1) Eph. IV, 5. — (2) Rom. X, 8 et 9; Hebr. XI, 3. quis unquam Catholicorum visiones anima- marum attulerit? Sed non est hoc primum vestrum mendacium. Quod ultimo loco adfers de prohibitione ciborum et conjugii , satis perspicue refelli¬ tur ab Augustino lib. XXX cont. Faust. c. 6. ubi sic ait : « Si ad virginitatem sic hortare¬ mini , quemadmodum hortatur Apostolica doctrina : Qui dat nuptum bene facit, et qui non dat nuptum, melius facit : ut bonas esse nuptias diceretis, sed meliorem virginita¬ tem, sicut facit Ecclesia, quae vere Christi est Ecclesia ; non vos Spiritus sanctus ita prae¬ nuntiaret, dicens , prohibentes nubere . Ille enim prohibet, qui hoc malum esse dicit, non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit. » Et infra : « Videtis ergo multum interesse inter hortantes ad virginitatem, bono minori bonum amplius praeponendo : et prohibentes nubere, concubitum propagationis, qui solus proprie nuptialis est , vehementius accusan¬ do : Multum interesse inter abstinentes a ci¬ bis propter sacratam significationem, vel propter corporis castigationem, et abstinen¬ tes a cibis, quos Deus creavit, dicendo, quod eos Deus non creavit. Proinde illa doctrina est Prophetarum, et Apostolorum, haec Dae¬ moniorum mendaciloquorum. » Haec Augus¬ tinus pro se et pro nobis. Nec est opus ali¬ quid addere. Concludit Illyricus : « Constat ergo ex hisce signis, Papam esse illum ipsum verum Antichristum , de quo Scripturae vaticinatae sunt. » Sed aptius fortasse conclusisset hoc modo : constat ergo ex hisce mendaciis, Illyricum esse unum ex praecursoribus illius, quem im¬ pudentem ore futurum esse S. Daniel multo ante praedixit.