ANTICHRIST
561
ANTICHRIST
the rest of the author's mythological fancies. What
then is the true ecclesiasticiil concept of Antichrist? —
Suarez maintains that it is of faith tliat Antichrist
is an individual person, a signal enemy of Christ.
This excludes the contention of those who explain
Antichrist either as the whole collection of those who
oppose Jesus Christ, or a.s the Papacy. The Wal-
densian and Albigensian heretics, as well as Wyclif
and Hus, called the Pope by the name of Antichrist;
but the expression was only a metaphor in their case.
It was only after the time of the Heformation that the
name was applied to the Pope in its proper sense. It
then passed ])ra('tically into the creed of the Luther-
ans, and has been seriously defended by them as late
as 1861 in the " Zeitsolirift fur lutlierische The-
ologie". The change from the true Church into the
reign of .\iitichrist is said to liave taken place be-
tween 19 February and 10 November, \. u. 007, when
Pope Boniface HI obtaineil from the Greek emperor
the title "Head of -VU the Churches" for the Roman
Church. An appeal was made to Apoc, xiii, 18, in
confirmation of this date, and it was calculated from
Apoc, xi, 3, that the end of the world might be ex-
pected A. D. 18(50. Cardinal Bellarinin refuted this
error both from an exegelical and liistorical point of
view in " De Rom. Pont.", HI. The indiviilual per-
son of Antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the an-
cient writers believed; nor will he be the person of the
devil incarnated in the human nature of Antichrist.
He will he a human person, perhaps of Jewish ex-
traction, if the explanation of Gen., xlix, 17, together
with that of Dan's omission in the catalogue of the
tribes, as found in the .\pocalypse, be correct. It
must be kept in mind that extra-Scriptural tradition
furnishes us no rovealcil supplement to the Biblical
data concerning .\ntichrist. While these latter are
sufficient to make the believer recognize the "man of
sin" at the time of his coming, the lack of any addi-
tional rehable revelation should put us on our guard
against the day-dreams of the Irvingites, the Mor-
mons, and other recent proclaimers of new revela-
tions.
It may not be out of place to draw the reader's attention to two dissertations by the late Cardi- nal Newman on the subject of Antichrist. The one is entitled "The Patristic Idea of Antichrist"; it considers successively his time, religion, city, and persecution. It formed the eiglity-third number of the "Tracts for the Times", and has been repub- lished in the volume entitled " Discussions and Argu- ments on Various Subjects" (London, New York, and Bombay, 1899). The other dis.sertation is contained among the Cardinal's " Essays Critical and Histori- cal" (Vol. II; London, New York, and Bombay, 1897), and bears the title "The Protestant Idea of Antichrist."
In order to understand the significance of the Cardinal's essays on the question of the -Antichrist, it must be kept in mind that a variety of opinions sprang up in course of time concerning the nature of this opponent of Christianity. (1) Koppe, Nitzsch, Storr, and Pelt contended that the Antichrist is an evil principle, not embodied either in a pers<m or a polity; this opinion is in op|>osition to both St. Paul and St. John. Both Apostles describe the adversary as being distinctly concrete in form. (2) .\ second view admits that tlie Antichrist is a person, but it maintains that he is a person of the past; Nero, Diocletian, Julian, Caligula, Titus, Simon Magus, Simon the son of Giora, the High Priest Ananias, Vitellius, the Jews, the Pharisees, and the Jewish zealots have been variously identified wnth the .Anti- christ. But there is httle traditional authority for this opinion; besides, it does not appear to satisfy fully the prophetic predictions, and, in the case of some of its adherents, it is ba.seil on the suppo.sition that the inspired writers could not transcend the
limits of their experiences. (3) A third opinion ad-
mitted that the Antichrist must indeed ap|x;ar in a
concrete form, but it identified this concrete form
with the system of the Papacy. Luther, Calvin,
Zwingh, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel,
Michaelis, and almost all the Protestant writers of the
Continent are cited as upholding this view; the .same
may be said of the English theologians Crantiicr,
Latimer, Ridley, Hoof)er, Hutchinson, T>^ldal<•,
Sandys, Pliilpot, Jewell, Rogers, Fulke, Bradford.
King James, and .Vndrewes. Bramhall introduced
qualifications into the theory, and after this its
ascendancy began to wane among English writers.
Nor must it be supposed that the Papal-Antichrist
theory was upheUi Dy all Protestants in tlie same
form; the Fal.se Prophet or second .4pocaylptic Beast
is identified with Antichrist and the Papacy by
Chytrffius, .-Vretius, Fo.xe, Napier, Metle, Jurieii,
Newton, Cunninghame, Faber, Woodliouse, and
Habershon; the first Apocalyptic Beast holds this
position in the opinion of Marlorat, King .lames,
Daubuz, and Galloway; both Beasts are thus identi-
fied by Brightman, Parens, Vitringa, Gill, Bachniair,
Fr:i.ser, Croly, Fysh, and lOlliott.
After this general survey of the Protestant views concerning the Antichrist, we shall be able to ap- preciate some of Cartlinal Newman's critical remarJcs on the question. — (1) If any part of the Church be proved to be antichristian, all of the Church is .so, the Protestant branch inclusive. (2) The Papal- Antichrist theory was gradually developed by three historical bodies: the .\lbigenses, the Waldenses. and the Fraticelli, between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries: are these the expo.sitors from whom tl:c Church of Christ is to receive the true interpretati< n of the prophecies? (3) The defenders of the Papal- -Ajitichrist theory have made .several signal blunders in their arguments; they cite St. Bernard as identify- ing the Beast of the AjHiealypse with the Pope, though St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope; they appeal to the Abbot Joachim as be- lieving that .-Vnticlirist will be elevated to the Apos- toHc See, while the Abbot really believes that Anti- christ will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See; finallj^, they appeal to Pope Gregory the Great as as.sertiiig that whoever claims to be Universal Bishop is Anticnrist, whereas the great Doctor really speaks of the Forerunner of Antichrist who was, in tl.e language of his day, nothing but a token of an im- pending great evil. (4) Protestants were driven to the Papal-.Vntichrist theorj' by the necessity of op- posing a popular answer to the [wpular and cogent arguments advanced by the Church of Rome for her Divine authority. (.5) Warburton, Newton, and Hurd, the advocates of the Papal-.-Vntichrist theorj-, cannot be matchetl against the saints of the Church of Rome. (0) If the Pope be Antichrist, those who receive ami follow him cannot be men like St. Charles Borromeo, or I'Y'iielon, or St. Bernard, or St. I'rancis of Sales. (7) If the Church mu.st suffer like Christ, and if Christ was called Beelzebub, the true Cliurch nuist expect a similar reproach; thus, the Papal- Antichrist theory becomes an argument in favor of the Roman Church. (8) The gibe, "If the Pope is not .Vntichrist, he has bad luck to be so like him", is really another argument in favour of the claims of the Pope; since Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Clirist.
luKN.Kts. .l,/i,rju« liar., IV, 2C; Adso (P»ecdo-R.vbanis Maiircs), De orlu, lilii el moribut AnlichritU, P. L., CI. 12,Sit- 98); Malvknda, De Antichrulo libri XI (Rome, 1004); Calmet, Dusertation #ur i'AnUchrist in Comment, sur i>t. Paul: DiiLLlNHKii, Chritlml. u. Kirche (1st ed.), 277. 2S.i. etc.; Bkli.ahmix, De Rom. Pont.. Ill; I.fawirs. OpotcUum de .\ nliehritlo; J. Crimm, />rr KaTix<" den rirritrn Thrtmlim- itcher-Brirlet (Stadtamhof, 18G1); Jimo. Uetchichle det Vroi. Ustaniitmus; liovaaKT, Oer Antichriat, (Gottiogeo, 1896),
