dfdfd

 CHAPTER III: It is Shown That Antichrist has not yet Come. ANY false suspicions and errors exist in regard to the Third proposition, on the time of the coming of Antichrist both among Catholics and heretics. Yet with this distinction, Catholics know that Antichrist is not coming until the end of the world (which is true), but some err in that they think the end of the world is nearer than it really may be. On the other hand, the heretics err in the fact that they think Antichrist is coming long before the end of the world and that he really already has come. Therefore, we shall speak on each error. In the first place, all the fathers who noticed the malice of their times suspected that the times of Antichrist approached. Thus the Thessalonians thought in the time of the Apostles that the day of the Lord approached, which the Apostle corrected in 2 Thessalonians II. Likewise, St. Cyprian says: “Since Antichrist threatens, let the soldiers be prepared for battle, etc.” 34 He also says in another epistle: “You ought to know, as well as believe and hold for a certain fact, that the day of persecution of the head has begun, and the end of the world and time of Antichrist approaches.” 35 Jerome says: “He who held fast arises in our midst and we do not understand that Antichrist approaches?” 36 St. Gregory the Great: “All which has been predicted comes to pass, the proud king is near.” 37 Gregory also boldly pronounced the end of the world. 38 But these were suspicions not errors, since these holy Fathers did not dare to define a certain time. Next, others more boldly constituted a certain time. St. Jerome relates in de illustribus viris, that in 200 A.D., a certain Jude thought Antichrist was coming and the world was ending, clearly he was deceived. Again Lactantius says: “Every expectation is no more than two hundred years, etc.” 39 There he teaches that Antichrist was coming and the world was to end two hundred years from his time. He also lived in the times of Constantine, around the 300th year of Christ, therefore, he thought the world would by chance end in the year 500; but experience shows he was also deceived. St. Augustine relates the error of some who said that the world would end around the year 400 from the ascension of the Lord, 40 and also some who established the thousandth year. They were all deceived. It also happened even to the Pagans, who, as Augustine witnesses in the same book, gathered from I know not what divine oracle that the Christian religion would only endure for three hundred and sixty five years. There was a certain Bishop, Florentinus by name, around the year 1105 who asserted that Antichrist had already been born, and hence the end of the world was closing in. The Council of Florence, having three hundred and forty bishops was gathered for this reason by Pope Paschal II. 41 Next, there was also a famous opinion that had many defenders, 42 that the world was going to endure for 6,000 years, since God had created the world in six days, and a thousand years is to God one day. The writers of the Talmud also agree with this opinion and they say that they had a vision of the Prophet Elijah in which it is asserted that the world will endure for six thousand years. This opinion cannot yet be refuted from experience because according to the true chronology more or less 5600 years have elapsed since the beginning of the world. Ambrose rejects this opinion, asserting in his time that six thousand years had already elapsed, though obviously he is misled. 43 The moderation of St. Augustine is the best, since he thought the opinion probable, and followed it as probable. 44 From here, it does not follow that we know the last day. Moreover, we say it is probable, that the world will not endure beyond six thousand years, but we do not say that it is certain. On that account, St. Augustine bitterly rebuked those who asserted that the world is going to end at a certain time, when the Lord said: “It is not for us to know the time and the hour which the Father has placed in his power.” 45 Laying all these aside, let us come to the heretics. All the heretics of this time teach that the Roman Pontiff is the Antichrist, and now openly lives in the world, but they do not agree among themselves on the time in which he appeared. They have six opinions. The First are the Samosatens, who bide their time in Hungary and Transylvania. They teach in a certain book which they titled: Premonitions of Christ and the Apostles on the abolition of Christ through Antichrist, that a little after the times of the Apostles Antichrist appeared; that is without a doubt when it began to be preached that Christ is the eternal son of God. They think, on the other hand, that Christ is a pure man, and that there is only one person in God, and this faith was preached by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, a little after the death of the Apostles, Antichrist came to Rome and after abolishing Christ the pure man, introduced another eternal Christ, and made God triune, and Christ twofold. This opinion is easily refuted, apart from the arguments which we asserted above against all the heretics, and in two ways. Firstly, because when Antichrist will have come, he will make himself God, not someone else, as the Apostle says. 46 Moreover, they themselves claim that the Roman Pontiff does not make himself God, but preached Christ and made him God from a true man. Secondly, because they say, soon after Christ and the Apostles slept, the true faith of Christ was thoroughly extinguished and the whole world began to worship Christ as God. But Christ preached that the gates of hell were not going to prevail against the Church, and the Angel Gabriel preached that the kingdom of Christ would be forever. 47 David preached that all kings would serve Christ. 48 Therefore, how true is it that in the very beginning the nascent Church was destroyed by Antichrist? The Second opinion is of the Lutheran, Illyricus, who teaches in his Third Catalogue that Antichrist came when the Roman Empire fell into ruin. Moreover, it is certain that the Roman Empire began to fall after the tenth year of Honorius, when Rome was first taken, that is in the year of the Lord 412, as Blondus showed; 49 yet, Illyricus seems to understand this concerning the conception, not the birth of Antichrist. Accordingly he teaches the same thing in the Centuries, 50 that Antichrist was conceived in some manner at the beginning of the year 400, thereafter animated and formed in the womb of his mother, around the year 500; and at length was born in the year 606, when the Eastern Emperor Phocas conceded to the Roman Pontiff that he could be called head of the whole Church. He teaches the same thing in another place, that Antichrist was going to rule savagely with the spiritual sword for 1260 years, but with the temporal sword for 666 years, and then the end of the world would come. The first number he gathers from Apocalypse XI, where it is said the time of Antichrist would be 1260 days. Illyricus would have it that a day is taken as a year. The second number he gathers from Apocalypse XIII, where the number of the beast is 666. This opinion can be refuted in two ways. Firstly, it follows, that Antichrist was not only born but also died, and hence the end of the world already came. For the Roman Pontiff took up the temporal sword, that is temporal dominion, at least in the year 699. Then Aripertus gave to the Roman Pontiff the Coctian Alps, where Genoa is now. Later, in the year 714, Luitprandus confirmed that donation, as Ado of Vienna and Blondus affirm, not to mention the Centuriators and Theodore Bibliander, who remarked for the year 714, that this province became the first Papist province. Not long after, that is, in the year 760, Pepin gave the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Roman Pontiffs, along with a great part of Italy as many historians witness—even the Centuriators and Bibliander. Therefore, if Antichrist began to reign in the year 760, and endured for 666 years, then the end of the world happened in the year of Christ 1421, and now there have been more than 150 years after Antichrist died. But if the beginning of his reign is placed earlier, that is in the year 699, then the end will be placed in the year 1360 and now more than 200 years will have transpired from the death of Antichrist. Perhaps they will respond that after the 666th year of his reign Antichrist did not die but only lost his temporal dominion. Thus, they might say that the spiritual kingdom of Antichrist endured for 1260 years, which still would not have ended, and if they were to begin from the year 666, consequently they ought to say that the spiritual kingdom of antichrist ought to endure considerably beyond his temporal kingdom. But that is certainly absurd and against all authors, and besides, it at least follows that the Popes ought to have lost their temporal dominion 200 years ago, which is opposed to the obvious fact. Secondly, the same error can be refuted because it follows from the error of the Centuriators, who thought they discovered exactly when the world will end, which is against the words of the Lord in Acts I and Matthew XXIV. What should follow is clear since, if they know that Antichrist began to reign with the spiritual sword in the year 606, they know that he was going to reign only 1260 years and then the Lord is going to come to judge right after, as they gather from Paul in 2 Thessal. II. Therefore, they know the last judgment is going to be in the year 1466. But if they do not know this, they are compelled also to not know whether Antichrist has come. The Third opinion is of David Chytraeus who teaches with Illyricus in his commentary on chapter 9 of the Apocalypse, namely that Antichrist appeared around the year of the Lord 600, and that this is sufficient to show that St. Gregory was the first Antichrist Pope. Chytraeus, however, does not agree with that which is asserted by Illyricus, in so far as the time and duration of Antichrist, but he prudently advises that it is not to be defined so boldly. He attempts to show with three reasons that Antichrist appeared in the year 600. Firstly, because in that time Gregory established the invocation of the Saints and Masses for the dead. Secondly, because in the year 606, Pope Boniface III asked the title of universal Bishop from the Emperor Phocas. He adds the third reason in his commentary on chapter 13, that this time plainly and especially agrees with the number of the name of Antichrist, which contains 666 as it is contained in the Apocalypse, ch. 13. Furthermore, Chytraeus adds that from this same number of the name Antichrist the time can be gathered wherein Pepin confirmed the reign of Antichrist. For as many years as there are from the year 97 in which John wrote the Apocalypse even to Pepin, is without a doubt 666 years. Likewise the time is reckoned from Pepin to when the Roman Pontiff was declared Antichrist by John Huss to be about 666 years. This opinion can be easily refuted, as it rests upon frauds alone. For in the first place Gregory was not the first who invoked Saints and taught that Masses were to be offered up for the dead. All the Fathers taught this very thing as we showed in another place. For the present Ambrose suffices, who preceded Gregory by 200 years. He says in his book on widows: “The Angels are to be observed, the Martyrs prayed to.” 51 He also says in his epistle to Faustus on the death of his sister: “Therefore, I deem that she is not to be wept for with tears but pursued with prayers, you ought not grieve for her but commend her soul to God with offerings.” 52 Next, Phocas did not give the title of universal to the Pope but addressed him as head of the Churches. Even Justinian had already done the same long before, in an epistle to John II and before that the Council of Chalcedon had done so in an epistle to Leo I. Therefore, there is simply no reason to place the coming of Antichrist in the time of the Emperor Phocas. As to what Chytraeus adds on the number 666, it is altogether inept because that number does not agree precisely with the times that he would have it Antichrist appeared, or was confirmed, or declared to be so. For from Christ to the sanction of Phocas there are 607 years, not 666. From the revelation in the Apocalypse to Pepin 658 years, and from Pepin to John Huss there are, as he says, 640. But certainly John the Apostle in the Apocalypse recorded a precise number since he also adds minute details. Moreover, John Huss was not the first to declare that the Pope is Antichrist, Wycliff had already done that. Nay more, John Huss never even said that the Pope is Antichrist. For in art. 19 of the Council of Constance, after being condemned, he says that the Clergy, through their avarice, prepare the way for Antichrist. Next, all Lutherans boast that Luther was the first to unmask Antichrist, which brings us to the next opinion. The fourth opinion is of Luther in his computation of time, where he places two arrivals of Antichrist. One, with the spiritual sword, after the year 600, when Phocas called the Roman Pontiff the head of all Churches. He also says that Gregory was the last Roman Pontiff. The second is when he arrives with the temporal sword after the year 1000. Bibliander teaches the same thing. 53 Therefore, Luther and Bibliander agree in the first arrival with the Centuriators and Chytraeus—with the exception that Luther and Bibliander say that Gregory was a good and holy Pope while the Centuriators and Chytraeus say that Gregory above all did his best to introduce Antichrist and hence, he was the worst Pope, which is a horrendous blasphemy. In the second arrival, Luther and the Centuriators clearly disagree. This opinion, apart from the common arguments which will be made afterward, is easily refuted. Luther places the arrival of Antichrist in the year 600 and 1000 altogether without reason. On the year 600 we have already spoken in refutation of Chytraeus. Concerning the year 1000 it can easily be shown since Luther places the beginning of the temporal reign of Antichrist in that time when Pope Gregory VIII deposed the Emperor Henry IV, for then he ruled temporally as well as waged wars. Well now, all of these things already happened, as Gregory II excommunicated the [Byzantine] Emperor Leo, and deprived him of the rule of Italy in the year 715, as the historians Cedreno and Zonara witness in the life of the same Leo. Furthermore we already showed the Roman Pontiffs had temporal dominion in the year 700, three hundred years before the first millennium. Next, the Centuriators witness that Stephen III waged wars around the year 750, 54 and Adrian I could be said to have done the same thing, as well as other of their successors. In like manner, around the year 850, Leo IV, a holy man as well as famous for miracles, waged war against the Saracens. He reported a singular victory and fortified Rome with towers and ramparts still, he girded the Vatican hill with a wall, which thereafter was called after his name civitas Leonina, as nearly all historians of that time relate, and even the Centuriators themselves. 55 The Fifth opinion is of Henry Bullinger. In the preface to his homilies on the Apocalypse he wrote that Antichrist appeared in the year 753. Such an opinion disagrees with all those whom we cited above, and thence can easily be refuted because it rests upon a very weak foundation. Bullinger teaches in the Apocalypse, ch. XIII, that the number found there of the name of the Beast 666, means by that number the time of the arrival of Antichrist, in other words, so many years after the Apocalypse was written, Antichrist was going to come. And because it is certain from Irenaeus that the Apocalypse was written around the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian, i.e., around the year 97, he gathers Antichrist was going to come in the year 753, by computing 666 years from the year 97. To this point the opinion of certain Catholics can also be related, such as Jodocus Clicthovaeus, who reckoned from the commentaries of St. John Damascene 56 that Muhammad was Antichrist properly so called because he came around the year 666 according to what John had said before. But this reasoning amounts to nothing. In the first place, the Centuriators protest and contend that the number in the book of the Apocalypse does not mean the time of the birth of Antichrist, but of his death. Moreover, John the Evangelist, in chapter XIII of the Apocalypse, rejects the commentary both of Illyricus and Bullinger, since he explains himself that the number is not of the times but the name of Antichrist, i.e. Antichrist is going to have a name, whose letters in Greek form the number 666, as Irenaeus and all other Fathers explain. Besides, no change is read in the Roman Pontiffs for that year 753. Moreover, Muhammad could not come then since he was born in the year 597 and began to call himself a Prophet in the year 623. Next, he died in the year 632, as Palmerius witnesses in his Chronicle. Therefore, he did not make it to the year 666. The sixth opinion is of Wolfgang Musculus, who in his works under the title de Ecclesia, 57 affirms that Antichrist came a little after the times of St. Bernard, i.e. around the year 1200. He attempts to show this because St. Bernard enumerates many vices of men, and especially of Churchmen and very serious persecutions of the Church, adding: “It remains only for the man of sin to be revealed.” 58 But this opinion is refuted without much effort: St. Bernard merely suspected from the evils which he saw that Antichrist was near, just as we said many Fathers suspected it from their times, such as Cyprian, Jerome and Gregory, and Bernard was deceived in that suspicion just as they. Besides, the Popes from the year 900 to 1000 were without comparison worse than the Popes from 1100 to 1200. So if the former were not Antichrist, why would the latter be?