Bookshelf/ Vol.I / Vol. IV. Part VI. Contents. Chapter I. 1. 2. 3. II. 1. 2. 3. III. 1. 2. 3. IV. 1. 2. V. 1. 2. Appendix I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. II. 1a. 1b. 2a. 2b. 2c. 3. 4. III 1. 2a. 2b.


In all questions as to the intent of Scripture prophecies, the truth must of course be inferred from examination primarily of those prophecies themselves; and then in comparison, of the historical events to which reference may have been made, as an actual fulfillment of the prophecies. Hence, in my preceding controversial critiques on the views of the various prophetic schools that differ fundamentally from me in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, I have confined my arguments within those limits; and avoided as much as possible all reference to the early Fathers. The opinions, however, which they held on these subjects cannot but be most interesting to us: and I have therefore from time to time in the earlier parts of my work made passing allusion to them; [1] and also formally set them forth in the two first Sections of my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation. [2] But it strikes me that it may be well, ere concluding my work, to add yet a few further remarks about them, in sequel to the two last critiques. In discussing the Futurist schemes it may have been remarked that the Futurists make appeal to the early Fathers not infrequently, as if of one mind with them in the view of Scripture prophecy; more especially on the prophecies concerning Antichrist. So Drs. Maitland and Todd: so the Oxford Tractator: so last, but not least, Mr. C. Maitland: who, indeed, claims credence for his scheme as “apostolic,” because of its being “primitive;” and affirms its primitiveness, as being that of all the early Fathers. Now in my recently concluded History of Apocalyptic Interpretation I have shown in a general way, that the early Fathers, and the modern Futurist School expositors, are by no means so much in accord as the latter would represent to us. But on the Fathers’ view of Antichrist’s religious character I have scarcely entered. [3] I purpose therefore now to supply that omission: and, after premising just summarily, and by the way of reminiscence, whatever other main points in the patristic views have been already set forth by me in contrast with futuristic views, then, and in regard of the great subject of Antichrist’s religion, to state the early Fathers’ very different notions from those of the school in question, fully and at large. [4]

I. As to the general points of difference in prophetic views between the one and the other, already stated by me, let me note six more especially.

1. That the early Fathers expected Antichrist’s manifestation to follow speedily after the breaking up of Rome’s empire: - such a breaking up as Jerome thought he saw beginning through the agency of invading Goths: and had no notion whatsoever of ages intervening between the event and Antichrist’s manifestation, during which the symbolic Beast of Daniel and the Apocalypse was to lie dormant; so as the Oxford Tractator would have us believe. [5]

2. That, in referring this event and consequent change to Daniel’s symbolic statue, as prefiguring it, they distinctly expected that there would be an answering therein to the passing of the iron legs of the 4th or Roman empire into its second and last form of the ten-toed feet, part iron, part clay: and had no notion whatsoever, either of those iron and iron-clay legs and feet of the statue not representing the Roman empire in its two successive forms, so as some Futurists like Drs. Maitland and Todd would have it, and that there was to be supposed a great break in the statue at the knee-joint between the brazen thighs and iron legs, in token of many unrepresented centuries, from after the great expected disruption of the Roman empire: nor again, in accordance with Bellarmine and Mr. Barker’s theory, that the iron legs, distinctively, above the ankle, would then still continue to represent it, just as before the disruption; or, as Mr. C. Maitland, the integral part alone of the iron-clay feet, between the ankle and the toes.

3. That, while expecting Antichrist’s duration in power, after his manifestation, to be 1260 days, literally, they also preserved among them the idea of the year-day principle being one legitimately referable to prophetic periods: (So Cyprian, Theodoret, Tichonius:) [6] so that the principle might be considered applicable, not without patristic sanction, to the great prophetic periods of Antichrist, should the course of historic events afterwards furnish occasion for it.

4. That, in explaining the Apocalyptic prophecy, such an idea as that of the Lord’s day in which St. John was in the Spirit meaning the great future day of judgment, into which he was then rapt by the Spirit, together with the seven Churches of Asia addressed by him, seems never to have entered into their imagination; nor that of the Apocalyptic prophecy overleaping at once, and altogether, the time of the Christian Church preceding them, and time then present: - that, on the contrary, they expressingly explained its earlier figurations as mainly figuring events of the time from St. John to themselves, and of their own times then current; [7] the 1st Seal depicting the progress of the gospel, as it had been progressing from its first promulgation; the 5th Seal the persecutions under which Christians had previously suffered, and were even then suffering; and so on.

5. That a Christian sense was generally assigned by the primitive Fathers of the 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th centuries, not only to the other Judaic symbols of the Apocalypse, but to its sealed Israel: [8] - and,

6thly, as to Antichrist’s political origin, and seat of empire, that though in some way Jewish and at Jerusalem, it would yet be some way Roman, and at Rome, also. [9]

II. Next, as to the patristic views of ANTICHRIST’S RELIGIOUS CHARACTER: -and on this, 1st, as regards the religious apostasy that was to introduce him; 2ndly, as regards his religion afterwards. [10]

1st, then, the preparatory apostasy. - I say preparatory apostasy; for the Fathers considered the apostasy prophesied of by Paul, not without good reason, to be the prodromov or preparative of Antichrist, as well as that which Antichrist on his manifestation would, as it were, sum up in himself, as its professor, inculcator, and head. [11] And as to its nature, while preparing for him, instead of anticipating with Dr. Maitland that it would be “a falling away from all profession of Christianity, into open blasphemous and persecuting infidelity,” [12] what find we? I find Irenęus, after heading his general sketch of heretics, (heretics that were to be regarded as precursors of Antichrist,) with note of their wearing the garb of Antichrist’s Apocalyptic associate, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, prominently setting forth their making a Christian profession, [13] and their often inculcating their tenets under falsified words of Scripture; or, where Scripture failed, asserting a peculiar unwritten tradition committed to them as their authority. [14] I find Clement of Alexandria, about the end of the 2nd century, objecting to Tatian and other heretics of the time, who on principles of asceticism, and as a Christian virtue, inculcated a rule of continency and celibacy, that in thus “forbidding to marry,” contrary to the liberty allowed in Holy Scripture, (so entirely does his view of that prophetic clause agree with the common Protestant interpretation of it,) they answered to the apostles of the last days described by St. Paul, and showed themselves to be of the spirit of Antichrist. [15] I find Cyprian speaking of separatists that profest the Christian name, and appeared ministers of righteousness, as on Antichrist’s side, though under the name of Christ. [16] I find Cyril insisting on the less palpable heresy of uiopatria, or Sabellianism, [17] as well as on the more palpable one of Arianism, [18] and on errors secretly admitted in the Christian Church at the time, as well as those that were open and avowed, - moreover, on the then too general departure from the love of truth to the love of oratory and doctrines plausible and pleasing, and from the practice of good works to the mere semblance of goodness, - as altogether of the nature of the great predicted apostasy. “This is the apostasy,” he wrote; “and the enemy (Antichrist) is to be expected.” [19] - I find both Jerome and Augustine speaking of false teachers, and bad lives, as of Antichrist’s spirit, while professing to be servants of Christ: [20] and Chrysostom (or a near contemporary who wrote under his name [21] ) speaking of false teachers such as he then discerned in the Church, (teachers with hidden deceit in their doctrine,) as forerunners of Antichrist: adding moreover these remarkable warning words; “When thou seest the Holy Scriptures regarded as an abomination by men and outwardly profess to be Christians, and them that teach God’s word hated, - when the people rush to hear fable-mongers, and genealogies, and teaching of dęmons, then bethink thee of the saying, ‘In the last days there shall be an apostasy from the faith.’” [22] - In addition to all which I may remind the reader also even of Pope Gregory’s intimation, two centuries later, that in the ambitious pride and rapacity of the established Christian Clergy of his day there were discernible signs of that apostasy which was to be the immediate forerunner of Antichrist. [23]

2. As to Antichrist’s own religion, after his manifestation, - besides the general fact of his adopting and heading the previously existing apostasy to which I before alluded, [24] I find the following ideas thrown out by the Fathers: - that he would not at first unfold the true diabolical iniquity of his character, but for a while keep up a show of temperance and humility; [25] coming as a lamb, though within a wolf; [26] yea, with semblance of an angel of light; [27] being, said Hilary, in profession a Christian; [28] said Hippolytus, in everything affecting a likeness to our Lord Jesus Christ: [29] - and would be professedly an enemy, [30] not friend, (so as the Oxford Tractator would have it, [31] ) to Paganism and avowed Pagan idolatry. And then, some thought that, attaching himself rather to Judaism, he would appear as a zealous vindicator of the Jewish law; would thus conciliate the Jews; and thereupon, showing himself as THE CHRIST, (a title the very assumption of which implied a recognition of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture,) would in that character sit in the reconstructed Jewish temple, and exact the divine worship due to the Christ: [32] - or else (as Jerome, Chrysostom, and others preferred to interpret the prophecies) that his sitting and arrogating divine worship would be in the Christian Church: [33] wherein he would claim the proedreia, or highest rank [34] and wherein he would show his Christ-superseding authority, by asserting his own voice to be the Word and the Truth, [35] and by changing, too, and adding to the number of, the sacraments: [36] - that then at length [37] (on either hypothesis of the temple of his enthronization) he would begin to display his real spirit of cruelty, as well as blasphemy; and commence that terrible persecution of the 1260 days against Christ’s two witnesses and the saints, which prophecy had so fearfully depicted, and which would be marked with the very energy of Satan.

Such, I believe, is a tolerably correct abstract of the general patristic expectations in regard of the religion of Antichrist: - expectations how different from the view of those of the Futurist school who, with Dr. Maitland, would represent it as the openly-avowed and legalized atheism and rejection of Christianity, and the as openly-avowed and legalized licentiousness of the French Revolution. Further, - after one important and evidently necessary correction, - how consistent both with Scripture prophecy as predicting, and with the Roman Papacy as fulfilling.

The point on which I conceive correction necessary has reference to the by some expected connection of Antichrist with Judaism and the Jews; - his origin out of, re-establishment of, it and them. And, considering its importance, it may perhaps be permitted me to deviate a few moments from my immediate controversy with the Futurists, (if indeed it be a deviation,) in order to its explanation. - It is justly observed by the Oxford Tractator, that there seems little in Scripture prophecy to sanction such an idea. [38] In truth the whole tendency of the prophecies concerning Antichrist is to show that he was to be an enemy both springing out of, and reigning within, the pale of the professing Christian Church. For how could he be an apostle, and head of the apostasy, and antitype of the apostle Judas, (not to say how the Latin man also, and horn out of the old Roman Empire,) [39] if by nation and profession a Jew? Or again, as before observed, how with a false prophet for his abettor that had horns like a lamb’s, unless professedly of Jesus Christ’s religion; the Messiah of Jewish expectation being the lion-like Messiah, and the lamb-like Messiah an abomination to them? - It is difficult fully to account for the patristic error on this matter. Did we judge simply from the statements of Irenęus and Hippolytus, it might seem to have originated, in part at least, from a singular misunderstanding of Christ’s prophecy respecting the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place at Jerusalem, (a prophecy which doubtless had reference to the time of the consummated iniquity of the Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, or to the Roman besieging army, with its idolatrous standards gathering into the sacred precincts of the Jewish city, [40] ) as if intended of Antichrist’s later and very different abomination, [41] ) Hence, it might be, their construction of the temple in which St. Paul said that Antichrist would exalt himself, as the Jewish temple: hence perhaps their supposition of his being himself a Jew; and that the exclusion of Dan, as one accursed, from the twelve tribes out of which God’s true servants were sealed in the Apocalypse, marked his tribe.- But the reasons for a different view of these prophecies were too strong and obvious to allow of a general concurrence in the misunderstanding of them. By Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and others of the Fathers, the prophecy respecting the abomination of desolation was explained to have been then already fulfilled by the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem; [42] and the temple in St. Paul’s prophecy construed, as a little while since said, of the Christian Church. [43] Moreover a Christian explanation was given by others to the Apocalyptic symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel. [44] So that on the whole there appears to have been nothing in these prophecies sufficiently Judaic, according even to Patristic views, to account for the first origination of this idea of Antichrist being a Jew.

Which being so, and conjecture permissible in the want of a satisfactory explanation on historic testimony, I would venture to suggest one thing, upon conjecture, as a possible, probable, and I think I may say, adequate originating cause of the error. It is well known with how much earnestness and solemnity St. Paul warned the early Church of the Judaic heresies that were even then stealing into it; - the Judaist’s will-worship of asceticism and abstinence from meats and marriage, their observance of days, undue and erroneous views of the benefit of mere outward circumcision, attachment to the Levitical ritual, and worshipping of angels with voluntary humility; - the latter, I presume, under profession of unworthiness to make direct use of the mediatorship of Christ. [45] Now one can hardly suppose but that St. Paul in all this spoke with reference to more than the dangers of the time then present: and denounced therein certain primary elements (Judaic elements) of the great apostasy of prophecy, and leaven of that decivableness of unrighteousness which was first to prepare for, and then to constitute the religion of, Antichrist. If so, and this be the right account of the origin of the patristic notion respecting Antichrist’s Judaism, then there is a residuum of important truth hidden in it. And adopting the notion, so expounded, we shall find it to supply almost all that was wanting of correspondence between the patristic anticipations concerning the apostasy and Antichrist, on the one hand, and on the other the actual religious history and character of the Roman Papacy, as history afterwards evolved it.

For we know, - and indeed have traced in history, [46] - how, after the breaking up of the Little Hebręo-Christian Church at Pella and elsewhere, on occasion of the great Jewish wars of Hadrian, these Judaizing errors past over from the platform of the Hebrew-Christian to that of the Gentile-Christian Church; and there increased continually, though under a changed and professedly more Christian form: [47] - including the veneration of that austerity, asceticism of life, and celibacy that Clement objected to Tatian; the corruption of the simplicity of the Christian ministry and service into resemblance to the Levitical priesthood and Levitical ritual; the unscriptural and exaggerated estimate of the sacramental grace and virtue attending outward baptism, just as before the Jews over-estimated that of outward circumcision; the perversion of Scripture, and substitution of the authority of an unwritten tradition in the priest’s keeping; and the looking into things unseen, and at length worshipping departed saints as mediators, to the supersession of Christ. - We know how, with all this, there was also more and more a departure on the part of the people from the love of gospel truth to the love of exciting pulpit oratory, and then of fables and legends about saints; as also from real holiness of life to a fictitious and mere ceremonial righteousness, somewhat like what Cyril and Chrysostom deprecated; and has a departure moreover, (according to Chrysostom’s forewarning,) on the part of priests and teachers, from the love to neglect and dislike of the written word; together with a spirit of worldliness, lucre-loving, and ambition. [48] - We know once more that then, and thereby, a preparation having been made for him, - viz. by the establishment of this irreligious system of religion, this unchristian kind of Christianity, with all profession of righteousness, and much of the decivableness of unrighteousness, - the Pope of Rome, at first prudent, respectable in morals, and professedly humble, [49] yet crafty and politic, (e.g. the first Gregory,) adopting this whole system of apostasy as its head and patron, and so gathering round him as subjects the great body of the apostles of Christendom, did, conjointly with them, not only establish the Apostasy in the new Romano-Gothic kingdoms, which constituted the body of the Apocalyptic Beast, but as it were authoritatively consecrate it; [50] proclaiming it, with its ceremonies of an almost Judaic ritual, to be the only orthodox Christianity, and Rome, (the Apocalyptic seven-hilled Babylon,) now vacated of its emperors and become the Papal capital, to be the Jerusalem of Christianity: [51] - at the same time that he established himself in its temples and churches, as not merely antitype to the High Priest of the Jews, but Christ’s appointed representative and Vicar for the rule of the Church on earth; and in this character claimed to himself, just what Chrysostom had anticipated of the Man of Sin, [52] yea and received too, the fealty due to that King of kings, and worship due to Christ as God.

[1] See especially my Vol. i. pp. 229-233 389-394.

[2] From p. 135-164 suprą

[3] Briefly alone in Vol. iii. Part iv. iii. 2.

[4] I include in this review the Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, down to Jerome and the Goths.

[5] Please see pp. 290-292 suprą

[6] Please See  pp. 151, 162 suprą.

[7] See ibid. Vol. i.; also pp. 147, 148 suprą.

[8] Please see p. 151 suprą.

[9] Please see .pp. 150, 151, & 252 suprą.

[10] I here gather up the scattered notices on the subject already given in the two first Sections of my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation.

[11] Justin Martyr calls Antichrist o thv apostasiav anqrwtov. Op. p. 336. (Ed. Colon.) - Cyril (Catech. xv. 9) calls the apostasy prodromov Anticristou. - Irenęus (v. 25) speaks of Antichrist as “diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans.”

The Tractator (p. 11) writes on this point in accordance with the Fathers. “The man of sin is born of an apostasy; or at least, comes into power through an apostasy: or is preceded by an apostasy; or would not be except for an apostasy. So says the inspired text,” i.e. 2 Thess. ii. 3, “ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”, and vs. 7, 8, “ For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:”.

[12] “The early Church conceived of the apostasy as an actual departure, not merely from the purity of the Christian faith by professed Christians, but from Christianity itself; - a falling away from all profession of Christianity into open, blasphemous, and persecuting infidelity.” Maitland on Antichrist, p. 2. He had just before said: “The opinions which I here attribute to the early Church were held, I believe, by all Christian writers until the xiiith century.” Ib. p. 1. And so too the Oxford Tractarian, p. 16; also Todd, Burgh, and others. At p. 294 et seq. suprą, I have noted, and tried these views by the test of Scripture.

[13] Lib. i ad init. “Lupos ob externum ovillę pellis integumentum haudquaquam, agnoscentres; . . ut qui eadem loquuntur, sed non eadem sentiunt.” Also i. 13.

[14] “Falsantes verba Domini mendacium abscondunt sub verbis Scripturę.” So i. 1. 6. And iii. 2; “Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem.” So saying, when convicted from the written Scriptures; “cum ex Scripturis arguuntur.”

[15] “Adversłs alterum genus hęreticorum, qui speciosč per continentiam impič se gerunt, tłm in creaturam, tłm in sanctum Opificem qui est solus Deus omnipotens, et dieunt non esse admittendum matrimonium et liberorum procreationem, . . hęc sunt opponenda: - primłm quidem illud Joannis; ‘Et nune Antichristi multi facti sunt, unde scimus quņd novissima hora est: ex nobis oxierunt, sed non erant ex nobis.’ . . .Jam de iis qui matrimonium abhorrent dicit Paulus, ‘In novissimis diebus deficient quidam ą fide, attendentes spiritibus erroris, et doctrinis dęmoniorum, prohibentium numere,’ &c.” Strom. Lib 3 pp. 125, 127, Ed. Paris, 1842.

Compare Irenęus i. 30; also 24: “Per fictam hujusmodi continentiam sedueentes multos.” On which Feuardentius observes that while thus discrediting marriage, under profession of continence, these heretics allowed “promiscuous concubitus.” An observation well illustrated by Czerski’s notice of the encouragement given to the young man, when invited to become a priest of the Church of Rome, and make his vow of continence; (cited at p. 297 suprą;) “Non unam (mulierem) habebis; sed mille pro uną habebis.” - Czerski‘s Justification, p. 77..

The reader will contrast Clement’s exposition of the text “Forbidding to marry” with Maitland’s and Todd’s given pp. 295, 296 suprą. - Tatian’s austerity of life, and rule of asceticism and celibacy, are noted by Mosheim ii. 2. 5, 9. I have referred to him pp. 148, 149.suprą.

[16] De Unit. Eccl. “Sub ipso Christiani nominis titulo fallit incautos Diabolus, et ministros subornat suos velut ministros justitię; Antichristum asserentes sub vocabulo Christi.”.

[17] Suicer on Uiopatwr and Uiopatoria thus observes: “Hęretici quidam in Scripturarum Trinitate Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum non tres personas, sed unam duntaxat trinominem, esse docebant. Illis Filius erat uiopatwr Sic Cyril Alexandr. Lib. ii. in John viii.; Shmeiwteon sti kat edian upostasin allov estin o IIathr para ton Uion kai ouc, wsper edoxe tisi twn apaideutwn airetikwn, uiopatwr eisferetai. In the 7th Canon of Constantinople, he adds, they were called Sabellianoi.

[18] Noted also by Athanasius and Hilary as the apostasy that was to precede Antichrist. pp. 153, 154. suprą. And compare Ambrose in Luc. xxi.

[19] Catech. xv. 9. Cyril’s conclusion follows on the enumeration of these various kinds of apostasy, all in the professing Church: Nuni de estin h apostasia apesthsan gar oi anqrwpoi thv orqhv pistewv. Auth toinun estin h apostasia kai mellei prosdokasqae o ecqrov.

[20] Jerome in Matt. xxiv. after mention of Simon Magus, and of St. John’s prophecy of Antichrist, proceeds thus; “Ego reor omnes hęresiarchas Autichristus esse; ct sub nomine Christi ea docere quę contraria sunt Christo.” - Augustine writes in Epist. Joh. Tract 3; “Invenimus multos Antichristos esse qui confitentur Christum.” Both he and Jerome must here mean preparatory Antichrists; as they expected the chief Antichrist at the end of the world.

[21] So the Benedictine Editor of Chrysostom judges.

[22] [Editor: The photo-copy of the Greek was almost unreadable, but I did the best which was legible.]

Otan edne thn agian grafhn bdslucqeisun upo twn einai dokouvtwn cristianwn, kai touv lalountuv ton lagun tou qeou meshqentas, tute upomnhsqhti tou keriou eipontov, Et o kosmov umuv misei genwskate ote eme prwtun memishen, &c. kan ek twn dokountwn einai poimenwn edhv tauta prassuntav (viz. hating the Holy Scritpures, and them that teach them, and themselves giving heed to fables, &c.) tote upomnhwqhti, Eu ustataiv hmeraiv aposthsontue tivev thv pistewn, &c. Homily IIeri yeudoprofhtwn.

[23] See my Vol. i. pp. 401, 402.

[24] Please See Note 2461 p. 308 suprą.

[25] So Cyril ib. xv. 12: “At first he will put on a show of mildness, as though he were a learned and discreet person (logiov tiv kai sunetov), and of soberness and benevolence.” Oxford Translation. See too Victorinus, as quoted Note 2482 p. 310

[26] Hippolytus de Antichristo, § 6: quoted p. 140, Note 1104 suprą.

[27] Cyril xv. 4: “Satan is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore put us on our guard, that we may not worship another instead of thee.” This is said introductorily to the notice of Antichrist.

[28] Please see, p. 154 suprą.

[29] Hippolythus, ibid.

[30] Idola quidem seponens.” Irenęus, ibid., on which see the Note of Feuurdentius: also Cyril, &c.

[31] On Antichrist, p. 22. - He illustrates the (so represented) patristic idea of Antichrist restoring Paganism, from the institution of something very like it at the French Revolution; Liberty being thou worshipped as a goddess, and a temple dedicated, and incense offered, “Aux grands hommes.”

Let me observe in passing that in my Vol. iii. 235, Note , the Reader will see how singularly the Pope and his associates in the apostasy, while solemnly sanctioning what was virtually a revival of Paganism in the worship of the images of saints, made profession as solemnly, at the very time, of detestation of Pagan idols.

[32] So Irenęus, Hippolytus, Victorinus, Cyril, and other early Fathers. “Ipse est iniquus judex,” says Irenęus, “ad quem fugit vidua terrena Jerusalem, &c:” an application to Antichrist and the Jews of the parable of the unjust judge, and the widow calling on him for vengeance, that was made by Hippolytus, § 57, also. Again the expositor Victorinus, expecting Nero to be the Antichrist, thus writes: “Hune suscitatum Deus mittet, regem dignum dignis, et Christum qualem meruetunt Judęi: et, quoniam aliud nomen allaturus est, aliam etiam vitam instituturus, ut sic cum tanquam Christum excipiant Judęi. Ait enim Daniel, Desideria mulierum non cognoscet, cłm prius fuerit impurissimus; [This explanation of a controverted passage deserves observation.] -- et Nullum Deum patrum cognoscet.[That is, none of the gods of Pagan Rome.] Non enim seducere populum poterit circumcisionis nisi legis vindicator. Denique et sanctus non ad idola colenda revocaturus est, sed ad circumcisionem colendam, si quos poterit seducere. Ita demum faciet ut Christus ab eis appelletur.” B. P. M. iii. 420.

[33] See my Vol. i. pp. 389, 390, 410, 411; also Vol. iii. pp. 98, 99, Note 2.

[34] So Theodoret. See my Vol. i. p. 394.

[35] So Origen, on St. John, Vol. ii. p. 53. Epan d’ s upokrinomenov einai Aogov, ou Aogov wn, kai h ouk Alhqeia tugcanousa, alla yeudov, faskh einai eauthn thn Alhqeian, tute kaqoplisamenov o Aogov kata tou yeudouv, avaloi auto tw pneumati tou stomatov auton, kai katargei th epifaneia thv parousiav autou. (Ed. Huet.) Cited a little more fully; Please see p 141 suprą.

[36] So Jerome; “Mutabit, et augere tentabit (Antichristus), sacrameuta ecclesię. [I have mislaid the reference.]

[37] Let me remind my readers that this idea of Antichrist’s concealment for a while of his real character desconded to a later generation. So e.g. Bede, writing on Apoc. xiii., says: “Ante tres semis annos non aperto ore blasphemat, sed in mysterio facinoris; quod, factā discessione, et revelato homine peccati, nudabitur. Tune enim dicet, Ego sum Christus: nune vero, Ecce hic Christus, et ecce illie.”

[38] “At first sight we should not consider that there was much evidence from the sacred text for Antichrist taking part with the Jews, or having to do with their temple.” p. 19. Nor does he offer any such evidence: but only refers to the fact of Julian’s attempting to rebuild the Jewish temple, as a remarkable coincidence with such patristic notions.

[39] Irenęus’ idea seems to have been that, after gaining supremacy in the Roman empire, though a Jew, he would transfer the imperial seat from Rome to Jerusalem; “Transferet regnum in cam (Jerusalem), &c.” v. 25. 5. And so too I suppose Lactantius; “Nomen imperii sedemque mutabit.” B. P. M. III. 669. - But the incompatibility of the two suppositions is apparent. - Victorinus and others, as we have seen in Note 2482 p. 310 suprą, expected Antichrist in the first instance to be of Roman extraction, being Nero raised from the dead; and that his connection with the Jews would follow afterwards.

[40] See Bishop Newton in illustration. I cannot help suspecting, after much consideration, that “the abomination” may have been intended of the Jews’ consummated iniquity, within the city, rather than of the Roman desolating army without: dated perhaps from the time when, abandoned by God’s Spirit, they turned the temple into a place of war, blasphemy, and murder.

[41] Irenęus v. 25, Hoppolytus § 43.

[42] Chrysostom on Dan. ix. refers it to the Roman armies of Adrian, that effected the ultimate destruction of the Jewish city and nation.; Jerome and Augustine more properly to the Roman besieging army of Titus. But please see my Notes pp. 148-151 suprą.

[43] See my Vol. i. pp 389-391; and Vol. iii. p. 98 just before referred to at p. 310, Note 2481. It will be seen that Chrysostom asserts unreservedly the fact of Antichrist sitting in the Christian Church; and that Jerome decidedly prefers that view of the temple prophesied of; “Antichristus sedebit in temple Deo: vel Hierosolymis, ut auidam putant; vel in ecclesią, ut verius arbitramur.” Augustus mentions the two interpretations without deciding between them; and Cyril only decides in favor of the literal interpretation from the feeling, “God forbid that it should be the Christian Church!”

[44] See p.289 supra. And to the other Fathers referred to, the great Augustine.

[45] Col. ii. 16-23, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19: And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21: (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22: Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23: Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. ”. See Macknight ad loc.

[46] See Vol. i. pp. 287, 330, 404, &c.

[47] I mean that whereas the Judaizers of the first age magnified the outward forms of Jewish rites and ceremonies, the successors to their spirit, in the next age, magnified and outward forms of Christian rites and ceremonies.

[48] See my abstract of patristic views. See pp. 308-310 suprą.

[49] “Servus servorum Dei,” was the title of humility adopted by Gregory and transmitted to his successors in the Popedom. - Compare Gregory’s character also with Cyril’s logiov tiv dai sunetov.

[50] See on Gregory I, my Vol. i. pp. 309-411.

[51] See this illustrated in my Vol. ii. pp. 441-443, and Vol. iii. pp. 308, 309. In Bonanni’s Papal medals too I observe several that are illustrative of the same point. So one with the legend, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, thou city of God;” another with that of, “Her foundations are upon the holy hills:” &c.

[52] otan de outh (sc. h apch h Rwmaikh) kataluqg, epiqhsetai th anarcia, kai thn twn anqrwpwn kai thn tou qeou epiceirhsei arpasai archn Chrysost. on 2 Thess ii.