Jump to content


Photo

Expositors Of Prophecy


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#1 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:36 AM

This thread is intended to provide a list of biographical details of various expositors.

The purpose is to create a reference document which people can use in order to learn more about the expositors quoted or cited in many of the posts on this board.

This first post will eventually contain an index of the expositors, as the thread grows.

#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:37 AM

NAME:

Adso of Montier-en-der


ABOUT:

Frankish Roman Catholic monk of the 10th century.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT HE WROTE:

A treatise on AntiChrist, addressed to the king, a sample of which follows:

When you wish to be informed about the Antichrist the first thing you want to know is why he is so called. This is because he will do things that are against Christ. Christ came as a humble man; he will come as a proud one. Christ came to raise the lowly, to justify sinners; he, on the other hand, will cast out the lowly, magnify sinners, exalt the wicked. He will always exalt vices opposed to virtues, will drive out the evangelical law, will revive the worship of demons in the world, will seek his own glory, and will call himself Almighty God.

The Antichrist has many ministers of his malice. Many of them have already existed, like Antiochus, Nero, and Domitian. Even now in our own time we know there are many Antichrists, for anyone, layman, cleric, or monk, who lives contrary to justice and attacks the rule of his way of life and blasphemes what is good is an Antichrist, the minister of Satan.



WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘In passing let me here briefly notice a curious passage that occurs in a Treatise on Antichrist by Adso, a monk of the monastery of Derve in Champagne; dedicated to Gerberga, Queen of Louis d'Outremer, and consequently of about the date of 950 A.D.

Adso proceeds to state that the precise time for his manifestation would be marked by the ‘discessio of its constituent kingdoms from the Roman Empire: (so, like some of the early Fathers, he explained the apostmsia of St. Paul:) which time had not then as yet come: because, says Adso, though the Roman Empire has been in chief part destroyed, yet, so long as the Frank kings last,* to whom belongs the empire, so long the Roman dignity will not altogether perish.

And then he adds; Some of our doctors affirm that there will arise in the last times a king of the Franks, who shall again re-unite under his rule all the Roman empire: and after a prosperous reign shall go to Jerusalem, and lay down his sceptre and crown at Mount Olivet: - that this will be the end of the Roman empire, and then immediately will follow Antichrist.

- Adso further observes, that the Antichrist would sit either in the Jewish temple, rebuilt by him, and there receive worship; or perhaps in the Christian Church; also that after killing the two witnesses, Enoch and Elias, he would be slain on Mount Olivet by Michael, or Christ, with the breath of his mouth. Soon after which (not immediately) would follow the last judgment.

* Compare the statement by the Pseudo-Athanasius, pp. 151, 152 supra..

This tradition is noted in the Encyclopedic Methodique: and it may perhaps remind some of the French Chief Bonapartes mighty empire, and Syrian expedition, in these latter days; as also of certain prophetic speculations propounded thereon, by expositors that deemed him to be Daniels so called wilful King.

This treatise is given in the 9th Volume of the late Paris Benedictine Edition of Augustine, col. 1647 - 1652. It is the same that has been incorrectly ascribed by some to Aleuin, by others (e.g. Malvenda, i. 398) to Rabanus Maurus.'

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, page 370, 1862


'About the year 950, Adso, a monk in a monastery of Western Franconia, wrote a treatise on Antichrist, in which he assigned a later time to his coming, and also to the end of the world... ‘A Frank King*, he says, ‘will rewrite the Roman Empire, and abdicate on Mount Olivet, and on the dissolution of his kingdom, the Antichrist will be revealed.'

MClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature, volume 1, page 257


Edited by Fortigurn, 31 August 2003 - 04:38 AM.


#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:37 AM

FURTHER COMMENTS:


Adso’s words on the timing of AntiChrist are notable not only because they repeat the interpretation of the Fathers (which had thus far enjoyed an unbroken line of attestation of at least 800 years from 180 AD onwards), but because he (as with subsequent expositors), did not accept that the continued existence of the eastern empire constituted sufficient grounds to deny that the empire of Rome had fallen.

Like Jerome, like Augustine, like Orosius (all of the 5th century), together with later Catholic commentators and historians (the Jesuit theologian Salmeron of the 16th century, the Catholic historian Cardinal Baronius of the 17th, the Jesuit professor Barradas, also of the 17th, and the Jesuit expositor Lacunza of the 18th), Adso agreed that the Roman empire had indeed fallen in the 5th century, and did not even attempt to represent the Byzantine half as the continuation of the whole.

Yet Adso (like Andreas before him), held to the belief that AntiChrist and his apostate system would rise subsequent to Rome’s dissolution, and so it was that he insisted Rome must again be restored as an empire, prior to its disintegration again, and the revelation of AntiChrist.

Living as he did in the aftermath of the Carolingian dynasty, Charlemagne and the Franks having restored something of the fortunes of the old empire, Adso gave as his opinion that it would be the Frankish kings who would contribute to this restoration of the Roman empire, and that it would be this restored Franco-Roman empire which would pass away before the coming of AntiChrist.

#4 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:38 AM

NAME:

Alcazar, Luis de


ABOUT:

One of the key figures of the Counter-Reformation, it was Alcasar who systematized the Praeterist methodology, and applied it to Revelation. His interpretation therefore insisted that much of Revelation had already long since passed.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Praeterist.


WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613), Spanish Jesuit of Seville:

•  Made the seals the early expansion of apostolic Christianity

•  God’s longsuffering, warnings, and punishments were allotted to the Jews

•  The trumpets were judgments on fallen Judaism

•  The two witnesses - the doctrine and holy lives of the Christians

•  After the persecutions Christianity would arise with new glory and convert many Jews

•  Revelation was the apostolic church, bringing forth the Roman church

•  The first beast of Revelation 13 declared to be the persecuting arrogance of pagan Rome - the second beast, its carnal wisdom

•  Revelation 17, the mystical meaning of idolatrous ancient Rome

•  Revelation 18, its conversion to the Catholic faith

LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic faith of Our Fathers, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, volume 2, excerpts from pages 464-532, 1948


'Near the commencement of the seventeenth century (1614), the Spanish Jesuit Ludovicus ab Alcasar published his Vestigatio arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi, a performance distinguished by one remarkable feature, which was then new. He declared the Apocalypse to be a continous and connected work, making regular advancement from beginning to end, as parts of one general plan in the mind of the writer.

In conformity with this he brought out a result which has been of great importance to succeeding commentators. Rev. v-vi, he thinks, applies to the Jewish enemies of the Christian Church; xi-xix to heathen Rome and carnal and worldly powers, xx-xxii to the final conquests to be made by the church, and also to its rest, and its ultimate glorification.

This view of the contents of the book had been merely hinted at before, by Hentenius, in the Preface to his Latin version of Arethas, Par. 1547. 8vo; and by Salmeron in his Preludia in Apoc. But no one had ever developed this idea fully, and endeavoured to illustrate and enforce it, in such a way as Alcasar ... Although he puts the time of composing the Apocalypse down to the exile of John under Domitian, yet he still applies ch. v-xi to the Jews, and of course regards the book as partly embracing the past.

It might be expected, that a commentary that thus freed the Romish church from the assaults of the Protestants, would be popular among the advocates of the papacy. Alcasar met, of course, with general approbation and reception among the Romish community.'

Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Apocalypse, volume 1, page 464, 1845



#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:40 AM

NAME:

Ambrose

The name Pseudo-Ambrose is given to works incorrectly attributed to Ambrose.


ABOUT:

Roman Catholic Bishop of Milan who served under both Constantine and his son Constantius. He died in 397 AD.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT HE WROTE:

135. John, likewise, saith that heretics are Antichrists, plainly marking out the Arians. For this [Arian] heresy began to be after all other heresies, and hath gathered the poisons of all. As it is written of theAntichrist, that "he opened his mouth to blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His Name, and to make war with His saints," so do they also dishonour the Son of God, and His martyrs have they not spared.

Moreover, that which perchance Antichrist will not do, they have falsified the holy Scriptures. And thus he who saith that Jesus is not the Christ, the same is Antichrist; he who denies the Saviour of the world, denies Jesus; he who denies the Son, denies the Father also, for it is written; "Every one which denieth the Son, denieth the Father likewise."

Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith, book II, chapter XV, section 135



WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘The only prophetical notices on the point proposed in the genuine writings of this father, are those in his Comment on Luke 21: 20; Book 10 chap 15-18.

He there (like Cyril) explains the apostasy of St. Paul to mean an apostasy from true religion: that it would be the Jewish inner or mental temple in which Antichrist would sit: and that then, seizing on the kingdom, (I presume the Roman kingdom or supremacy.) he would claim for himself a throne of divine authority.

In the Comment on 2 Thes. 2 of the Pseudo-Ambrose, the hindrance to Antichrist's manifestation is explained to be the Roman empire; its defection or abolition, being the occasion of his appearance…’

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 1, page 389, 1862



#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:41 AM

NAME:

Ambrosius Autpertus

Also known as Ambrose Anspert, or Ambrose Autpertus.


ABOUT:

Western Roman Catholic monk of the 8th century.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘Ambrose Anspert wrote a copious commentary on the Apocalypse in the middle of the eighth century. He expounds the second beast of Revelation 13 as meaning the preachers and ministers of antichrist, and teaches that antichrist will be "pro Christo," or in Christ’s place.’

Grattan Guinness, Romanism and Reformation, lecture 5, 1888


‘Ambrose Ansbert is my next Latin Expositor.  He fixes his own æra to about A.D. 760 or 770.  For he dedicates his Apocalyptic Commentary at is commencement to Pope Stephen; and at the end tells us that it was written in the times of Pope Paul, and of Desiderius, king of the Lombards. [47]

Now Desiderius was king of the Lombards from 756 to 774; in which year he was defeated, and the Lombard kingdom overthrown by Charlemagne.  Also Pope Stephen III died in 757, Pope Paul in 767, Pope Stephen IV his successor in 772.  [48]  He further tells us in his Postscript, that he was a native of Provence in Gaul; and had become a monk of the monastery of St. Vincent in Samnium. [49]

Elsewhere he mentions that he had to write the comment with his own hands, the aid of a notary not being afforded him. [50]  The Commentary is a copious one, occupying some 250 folio pages in the Bibliotheca; viz. from p. 403 to p. 657 of is xiiith volume. 

He makes mention of Victorinus as the earliest Apocalyptic expositor among the Latins; and as expurgated and altered by Jerome: also of the two next as Tichonius and Primasius: a specification satisfactory, as showing us that we still possess all the earliest Latin expositors on this Book.

[47]  B. P. M. xiii. 403, 657.

[48]  Trithemius strangely writes of his age; Claruit sub Arnoldo Imperatore A.D. 890. Quoted B. P. M. xiii. 403.

[49]  Ibid. 657.

[50]  Quia in hoc tam laborioso opere notariorum solatia deesse mihi videntur, ea quæ dictavere manu proprià exarare contendo. p. 408. He was in this respect less fortunate than Joachim Abbas afterwards.’

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, pages 347-8, 1862



‘Ambrosius Autpertus, Ambrosii Autperti Opera expositionis in Apocalypsin, Partes I-II (CC 27-27A, Turnholt, 1975).  This commentary was written between 758-767 in Lombardy.

It becomes one of chief sources for future commentaries.  Ambrosius presents a spiritual interpretation for future generations.  His work comprises 10 bks (1:19; 3:13; 5:14;9:21; 12:12a; 14:13b; 16:21; 10:10b; 21:8.).  A perusal of the index of sources in Weber's edition will show the reader Ambrosius' sources which are many and varied.  The main themes that he addresses are the Incarnation and the nuptial relationship between church and Christ.

He begins with an extensive preface which surveys previous commentaries on the Apocalypse and also methods of exegesis.  Long prologues also preface books 5 and 9. (CC 27:365-85 and CC 27A 717-22).  He relies strongly on Primasius.

From The Apocalypse of John In the Western Tradition, notes on a syllabus of a seminar on the New Testament, found here



#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:48 AM

NAME:

Andreas of Caesarea

Also known as Andreas of Cappadocia.


ABOUT:

Roman Catholic Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia. He lived during the 6th century, and his commentary on Revelation appears to have been written around 520 AD.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘Andreas was Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia.  His age is said by Bellarmine, and also by Peltan the Jesuit, in his Preface to the first printed Edition of Andreas Apocalyptic Commentary,   [81]  to have been uncertain; save only that it was later than Basil, the famous Father of the fourth century, since Andreas quotes him.

By Cave and Lardner, [82]  while admitting its uncertainty, he is assigned to the latter part of the fifth century. And so too Professor M. Stuart. [83]  But I think internal evidence is not wanting to fix his date a half-century at least, if not a whole century, later.

[81]  Prefixed to the original Edition in Greek, which is appended to Commelins Edition (A.D. 1696) of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on St. Pauls Epistles; also to Peltans Latin Translation in the B. P. M. 589-635.

[82]  Lardner cites Caves statement. Vixisse videtur circà exitum seculi istius, acclaruisse anno 500. Incerta enim prorsus illius ætas. Lardner v. 77.

[83]  In Apoc. Vol. i. p. 267. - Prof. Hug, in his Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. i. p. 230, (Waits Translation,) speaks of Andreas age as not known; and that people vary in their conjectures from the 5th to the 8th century.



In the vision of the Dragon and Woman, Apoc. xii., Andreas (following the great Methodius, whom he cites)  [123]   makes the Woman to signify the Church, bringing forth (just as in Isa. lxvi., which the citation refers to) a Christian people: the moon under foot meaning either the world, or the Jewish ritual law; and the male child, and his iron rod, having fulfillment in the Roman Christian people and emperors, ruling the heathen.  [124]

[123]  See p. 146 suprà.

[124]  Arrhn de uiov o thv ekklhsiav laov…  di ou hoh, taiv twn dunatwn 'wmaiwn cersi, taiv krataiaiv wn o sidhrov, ta eqnh epoimane cristov o Qeov. An explanation similar to my own.- Andreas adds that the people of God are moreover to rule the nations after the resurrection of the dead.



Then, on the Beast of Apoc. xiii.,  [125]  Andreas, professedly, but not really, following Hippolytus, [126]   interprets it as Antichrist: stating that this Antichrist, or pseudo-Christ,  [127]  is to rise after the ten kings rising, answering to the ten toes of the prophetic image: and, coming with the title of Roman king,  [128]  to overthrow their princedoms; like Augustus healing and restoring the Roman kingdom, when (like the Beasts wounded head) as it were dissolved by its division into ten.  [129]

[125]  In Apoc. xiii. 1, And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy., Andreas reads estaqhn.

[126]  See p. 140 suprà.

[127]  So Andreas calls him three or four different times, on Apoc. xii., xiii., xvi.,

[128]  wn (viz. of the Greek, Persian, and Babylonian empires, signified by the Beasts likeness to the leopard, bear, and lion,) krathsei o Anticristov, wv rwmaiwn basileuv eleusomenov. So again on Apoc. xvii. 11, And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition., xviii. 24, And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

[129]  Thn wmaiwn basileian, th diairesei sfaghn tropon tina upomenousan, thn monarcian td, teqermpeusqai dukousan, kata thn eikona Augoustou Kaisarov. So again on Apoc. xiii. 11, And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.: just as Hippolytus, before him. See p.140 suprà.

Of which restoration of Romes empire, however, Mr. C. M. in his notice of Andreas says nothing. - Andreas offers the alternative solution of the revival of one of the rcontev of the empire, after being killed, by Antichrists magical arts.’

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, pages 353-363, 1862


’Andreas, who was Bishop of Caesarea, states definitely that the Apocalypse was a prophecy of the things to happen from Christ’s first coming to the consummation. He interprets the "hundred and forty-four thousand" as meaning true Christians, and antichrist to be a Roman king and "pseudo- Christ," or false Christ.’

Grattan Guinness, Romanism and Reformation, lecture 5, 1888


Edited by Fortigurn, 31 August 2003 - 04:48 AM.


#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:49 AM

NAME:

Arnulf, Archbishop of Orleans

Also known as Arnulf of Rheims, Arnulph, Arnulphus, Arnulfus, Arnould or Arnuld.


ABOUT:

French Archbishop of the 10th century (the 900’s), who protested vehemently against the corruption of the Catholic Church, and especially against the papacy, which he denounced in perfectly Scriptural terms. For this, he was deposed.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT HE WROTE:

‘Looking at the actual state of the papacy, what do we behold?

John [XII.] called Octavian, wallowing in the sty of filthy concupiscence, conspiring against the sovereign whom he had himself recently crowned; then Leo [VIII.] the neophyte, chased from the city by this Octavian; and that monster himself, after the commission of many murders and cruelties, dying by the hand of an assassin.



If, holy fathers, we be bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, and the attainments of the meanest candidate for the sacerdotal office, how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the lord and master of all priests!



Yet how would it fare with us, if it should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, one so abject as not to be worthy of the lowest place among the priesthood, should be chosen to fill the highest place of all?

What would you say of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold?

Must he not be the “Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God?
’’’

Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the temple as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.



O Rome, you are to be mourned, who once brought the bright glories of the Fathers to our ancestors, yet in our day have poured forth monstrous smoking darkness into future ages.’

Arnulf, Archbishop of Orleans, speech at the Gallican Synod, Council of Rheims, 991



WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

'The shocking immoralities of the popes called forth strong protests, though they did not shake the faith in the institution itself.

A Gallican Synod deposed archbishop Arnulf of Rheims as a traitor to king Hugo Capet, without waiting for an answer from the pope, and without caring for the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (991).’

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, chapter IV, section 64, 1910


Edited by Fortigurn, 31 August 2003 - 04:50 AM.


#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:53 AM

NAME:

Arethas, Bishop of Caesarea


ABOUT:

Roman Catholic Bishop of Caesarea, successor to Andreas (see above). He lived in the 6th century.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Historicist.


WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

’Arethas, a successor of Andreas in the Bishopric of Cæsarea, was his follower also in great measure in the Commentary that he wrote on the Apocalypse.  Thus much he tells us himself.  [145] 

Respecting his date there seems to me to have been a considerable mistake on the part of most that have expressed an opinion about it. Alike Coccius, the Editor of the B. P. M. (which work gives a Latin translation of Arethas Commentary in its sixth Volume, [146]) and Cave too, and Lardner, and just recently Professor M. Stuart,  [147]  assigned to his the date of A.D. 540 or 550.

On the other hand Casimir Oudin and Fabricius incline to identify him with a Presbyter of the same Cappadocian Cæsarea, of the name Arethas, who, about A.D.920, translated a work of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Euthymius. But, says Cave,  [148]  Oudin had no argument or evidence to adduce in favor of his conjecture. Nor Indeed Fabricius either; if (not having access to his work) I may judge from the reference to him in Lardner.  [149]

I have observed, however, very decisive evidence in the Commentary itself, of Arethas having lived as late at least as near the end of the eighth century.  For he speaks of the capital and palace of the Saracens as being then still at Babylon, evidently meaning Bagdad:  [150]  - a capital not built till A.D.762;  [151]  and where the Saracen Caliphs continued to hold a waning empire through the ninth century, till its extinction A.D. 934 by the Bowides.  [152] 

A curious reference to Constantinople, which will be found in my page 180, following  [153]  may possibly appear to furnish a further indication.  The identity of our Cæsarean Bishop with the Cæsarean Presbyter that translated Euthymius seems to me more than doubtful.

The very appellative of the one as a Bishop, the other as only a Presbyter, constitutes a presumption against that idea.

Moreover, Arethas reference to the Saracens and Bagdad seems to indicate the fact of their empire being still powerful there.  I say still, after Arethas in hoe usque tempus; and powerful, because of his representing it as in place of the old lion-like Babylonian empire.

Hence, on the whole, we may I think reasonably reckon his date as somewhere within the limits of the first half of the 9th century; between A.D. 800 and 850. [154]

In the heading of his Apocalyptic Commentary there is, as hinted by me just before, an intimation of its having been very much taken from that of Andreas. He generally indeed gives the opinions of the latter; sometimes in the form of direct quotation, and by name; more often silently: adding however from time to time some strange conceits of his own  [155].

[146]  Pp. 741-791.

[147]  On the Apocalypse, Vol. i. p. 268: Arethas. . who lived near the middle of the 6th century.

[148]  Hist. Litt. i. 408, ad ann. 540. Verum id gratis affirmat Oudinus; nec enim præsto ei est argumentum quo sententiam suam confirmet.

[149]  Hug too, i. 230, assigns him to the xth Century; but without giving his reasons.

[150]  On Apoc. xiii. 2: Peros leonis regnum designatur Babyloniorum: cui Saracenorum reguum maniestè successit; quòd, in hoc usque tempus, regia corum Babylone sit. B. P. M. 771. - I have noted this already in my Vol. i. p. 39.

[151]  See my Vol. i. pp. 461, 462, and Vol. iii. p. 439.

[152]  See my Vol. i. p. 466.

[153]  Note 1495 p. 180 infra.

[154]  Mr. C. Maitland (p. 276), while noticing after me (though without acknowledgment) the passage in Arethas about the Saracens and Bagdad, yet strangely dates him A.D. 650; i.e. above 100 years before Bagdad was built!

[155]  Of these his explanation of the 3rd Seal may furnish a specimen. Besides symbolizing famine, it may have a moral signification. The chænix of wheat for a denarius means faithful witnesses for Christ, each counted worthy of a denarius; quasi datæ sibi divinæ imaginis custodes exactissimi commonstrati: while the three choenixes of barley are the weak ones who have failed in the day of trial, but repented; and who altogether are only valued at a denarius!'

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, pages 366-368, 1862



#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:56 AM

NAME:

Aquinas, Thomas


ABOUT:

Medieval Roman Catholic theologian.


PROPHETIC POSITION:

Undetermined.


WHAT HE WROTE:

...secundo ponitur locus ubi sunt occidendi; quia in jerusalem unde dicitur: civitatis magnae, idest jerusalem, quae dicitur magna propter duo. primo, quia semper pro magna est habita; unde civitas regalis appellatur isai. 1: jerusalem civitas sancta. in ea enim erant omnia sanctuaria; in ea enim celebratur deus, ps. 86, 2: gloriosa dicta sunt de te, civitas dei.

secundo dicitur magna propter multa vitia et peccata quae in ea facta sunt et fient, sicut quondam erat magna in virtutibus. unde sequitur quae vocatur spiritualiter sodoma, isai. 1, 10: audite verbum domini principes sodomorum, et percipite auribus legem dei nostri populus gomorrhae. hoc dicit isaias pro tempore antichristi; quia, cum tunc essent mali, non tamen tantum quantum erunt tempore antichristi.

thren. 4, 6: major effecta est iniquitas filiae populi mei peccato sodomorum, et aegyptus, idest tenebrosa et flebilis, quia ibit in tenebras exteriores ubi erit fletus et stridor dentium, matth 8, 12.

ubi et dominus illorum crucifixus est; cui ipsi servient ad literam temporali passione; et spiritualiter crucifigetur in servis suis. hebr. 6, 6: rursus crucifigentes sibimetipsis filium dei. unde dictum est petro: vado romam iterum crucifigi: quia quod fit servis suis sibi reputat christus fieri. matth. 25, 40: quamdiu uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis: et act. 9, 4, paulo dictum est: saule saule quid me persequeris? etc..


Translation

Secondly it is put for the place where they are will perish; because it is said of Jerusalem: the great city, that is, Jerusalem, which is called 'great' on two accounts.

Firstly, because the Great one [Aquinas is obscure here, but I think this is what he means] has always been there; from which Isaiah calls it the royal city: Isaiah 1 Jerusalem the holy city. For indeed, in her were all the sanctuaries; indeed, in her God delights. Psalm 86,2: Glorious things have been said of you, city of God.

Secondly, it is called great on account of the many fauts and sins which in her have been done and have taken place, just as formerly she was great in virtue. From the place which follows anyone is called spiritually Sodom who has lost the approval of God [my translation here is very bad, but you get the idea]

Isaiah 1,40: Hear the word of the Lord, princes of Sodom, and learn by hearing [literally 'by the ears'] what is said by God about our people Gomorrah.

This Isaiah says about the time of AntiChrist; because, while at that time they were evil, yet they were not so much evil as they will be by the time of AntiChrist. Lamentations 4:6: For the punishment of the sin of the daughter of my people is greater than Sodom, and Egypt, that is, dark and doleful, because it will go into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, Mathew 8:12.

Where also the lord of them has been crucified; who themselves will serve according to the book, at the time of suffering; [the 'great tribulation' which Aquinas believed would be brought by AntiChrist] And spiritually he will be crucified in his servants.

Hebrews 6,6 Turned back crucifying to himself again the son of God. From which also has he said to Peter: I go again to be crucified at Rome: [reference to the legend that Peter, leaving Rome, met Christ walking towards Rome with his cross 'to be crucified at Rome', as Christ told him] because that which is done to the men who are his servants, Christ counts it to have been done to himself.

Matthew 25,40: That which you have done to my little ones, you have done to me, and in Acts 8,4 it was said to Paul: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? etc...

Thomas Aquinas, De Adventus AntiChristo, sections 6-7



WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘This angelic doctor of the Romish Church was a pupil of Albertus: but ran a shorter career than his master: the date of his birth being 1224, of his death 1274. The scene of his literary labors and triumphs was Italy; chiefly Naples, where he died. His canonization, or (as the recent Popish Editor and Annotator  [203]  of his work De Antichristo,  [204]  which is the subject of my present notice, characteristically expresses it) his apotheosis, was solemnized in 1323.

Whence a question as to the supposed early date of the MS.; superscribed as it is as a work of St. Thomas. But, it seems, his fame was such, that the Pope's act was anticipated by the public voice; and the title saint attached to him ever before the year 1330, per prolepsin.

[203]  Hyacinthus de Ferrari O. P. S. Theologiæ Magistri, Bibliothecæ Casanat. Præfecti.

[204]  This is the title of the first of Two Treaties of Thomas Aquinas; that of the second being De Præambulis ad Judicium. They are connected Treatises; and were published at Rome, with the usual license, in 1810. They contain each of them about 130 octavo pages. The first Treatise is the one referred to in my Notes and Numerals, except where the Numeral ii. is inserted.’

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, page 425, 1862


Edited by Fortigurn, 31 August 2003 - 04:57 AM.


#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 02:59 AM

NAME:

Bale, Bishop John of Ossory


ABOUT:


‘Educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, Bale was an astute student of history, with an interest in biblical prophecy.  He wrote several plays (to escape ecclesiastical censure) under the patronage of Thomas Cromwell.

In these he used history to illustrate the failure of the Papacy and the need for ecclesiastical reform.  He was the first English dramatist to write historical plays combined with the elements of a morality play.  [15]

[15]  Cf. J. Harris, John Bale: A Study in the Minor Literature of the Reformation (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1940); H. McCusker, John Bale: Dramatist and Antiquary (Bryn Mawr: Haverford College, 1952); and Firth, "John Bale and the two Churches," op.cit., 32-68.



Contrary to most medieval interpreters, Bale rejected the idea that Satan was bound during the Church Age.  Instead, he placed the defeat of the Antichrist and the binding of Satan in the future.

For the first time, English apocalyptical writers began to look beyond their own times for the possible fulfillment of future prophetic events.’  [This is not to say that Bale was a Futurist – far from it – but that he was one of the first English expositors of Revelation to understand that the fall of AntiChrist and return of Christ was not necessarily to be looked for in one’s own day.]

Article ‘Medieval and Reformation Backgrounds of Dispensationalism’, for The Conservative Theological Society (copyright 2002), by Edward E. Hindson (Dean of the Institute of Biblical Studies, Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia)



#12 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:00 AM

WHAT HE WROTE:

’Moreover in her hand, which is her external ministration, she hath a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of her execrable whoredom. This cup is the false religion that she daily ministereth, besides the chalice whom her merchants most damnably abuse; and it containeth all doctrine of devils, all beastly errors and lies, all deceitful power, all glittering works of hypocrites, all crafty wisdom of the flesh, and subtle practices of man's wit, besides philosophy, logic, rhetoric, and sophistry; yea, all prodigious kinds of idolatry, fornication, sodomitry, and wickedness.

Outwardly it seemeth gold, pretending to the glory of God, the holy name of Christ, the sacred scriptures of the Bible, perpetual virginity of life; and all are but counterfeit colours and shadows of hypocracy in the outward letter and name.

Full of abominations is the drink of the execrable faith of that Romish religion received of others, and full of filthiness also.’

Bale, as quoted by Le Roy Edwin Froom, ‘Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers’, volume II, page 400



#13 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:01 AM

WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:


‘Bale, Bishop of Ossory under Edward VI, and twice an exile from England, viz. in 1540 under Henry VIII, and in 1553 under Mary,  [63]  next calls for our notice. - He published his Apocalyptic Commentary, under the significant title Image of both Churches, i.e. of the true and the false, shortly, as it would seem, before Bullinger's  [64] consists of three Parts, published at three different times, and paged as separate volumes: the first with frequent marginal references to previous authors, of the incorrect printing of which he complains grievously;  [65] the other two, in consequence, without.

[63]  So Part i. B/4 John Bale, an exyle also in this lyfe for the testimonye of Jesu. See Bale's Life, prefixt to the Parker Edition of his works.

[64]  He alludes frequently to the persecutions of Protestants in England at the time when he wrote; and this in his first Volume and Part, as well as the others. So in the primary Preface; The boystuous tyrauntes of Sodoma, with theyr great Nemroth Wynchester, (i.e. Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, mentioned Part 2, § 6, on Apoc. 13,)  have of long tyme taken much payne; and many have they cruelly burned; as was scene of late years in Coventrie, London, and other places. Of these Anne Askew is mentioned, p. 170, who was martyred in London under Bonner, in 1546.

Again, at the conclusion of the whole work, on the last page, there occurs the following passage, as written while Henry VIII was still living. In the which dayly prayer is that most worthy minister of God Kyng Henry the 8, afore all other to be remembered; which hath so sore wounded the Beast that he may before his departure, or Prynce Edwarde after him, throw all his supersticions into the bottomlesse lake agayne.

Hence it is evident the English persecutions and martyrdoms of Protestants that Bale refers to are those of the later years of Henry VIII, after Cromwell's fall.*  In the Parker Edition the allusion to Henry VIII is omitted; being copied from some later Edition than mine.

*'As regards Bullinger his Treatise is dated, we saw, 1557: but Bale does not mention it in his list of neoteric Apocalyptic Expositors, given in my Note 1856 below.  Later, however, in the Work he refers to Bullinger himself as a contemporary. See p.220, Note 1875, infrà.

[65]  Two cruell enimyes have my just labours had…  The Printers are the fyrst; whose headic hast negligence and covetousnesse commonly corrupteth all bookes.  These have both dysplaced them; (sc. my many allegacions, both of the Scriptures and doctors, in the mergent of the first Part or Volume:) and also changed their numbers, to the truthes derogacion.

Preface to the 2nd Part. - Bale was of a rather choleric temperament.‘

E B Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, volume 4, 1862



#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:04 AM

NAME"

Barnes, Albert


ABOUT:

American Presbyterian, whose ‘New Testament Notes’ remain one of the most popular commentaries available. A careful and methodical expositor, he was firmly Historicist in his views on prophecy, though he avoided speculation, and was extremely cautious in his treatment of passages dealing with prophetic time durations.

A highly learned scholar, his notes on the New Testament are the more valuable for containing quotes from, and references to, the opinions of many other expositors, which he weighs with great deliberation.

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:04 AM

WHAT HE WROTE:

France, in the time of Charlemagne, was the kingdom to which the Papacy owed its civil organization and its strength - a kingdom to which could be traced all the civil or secular power of the Papacy, and which was, in fact, a restoration or re-construction of the old Roman power - the fourth kingdom of Daniel. See Barnes on "Da 7:24-28" and compare Barnes on "Re 13:3,12-14".

The restoration of the old Roman dominion under Charlemagne, and the aid which he rendered to the Papacy in its establishment as to a temporal power, would make it probable that this kingdom would be referred to in the series of judgments that were to accomplish the overthrow of the Papal dominion[/b].’

Albert Barnes, ‘New Testament Notes’, commentary on Revelation 16:2, 1851


Edited by Fortigurn, 04 October 2003 - 03:05 AM.


#16 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:05 AM

‘That the phrase, "the man of sin," may refer to a succession of men of the same general character, and that it does so refer here, is evident from the following considerations:

(1.) The word "king" is used in #Da 7:25 11:36, to which places Paul seems to allude, to denote a succession of kings.

(2.) The same is true of the beast mentioned in Daniel Chapters 7, 8. Rev 13., representing a kingdom or empire through its successive changes and revolutions.

(3.) The same is true of the "woman arrayed in purple and scarlet," (#Re 17:4,) which cannot refer to a single woman, but is the emblem of a continued corrupt administration.

(4.) It is clear that a succession is intended here, because the work assigned to "the man of sin," cannot be supposed to be that which could be accomplished by a single individual.

The statement of the apostle is, that there were then tendencies to such an apostasy, and that "the man of sin" would be revealed at no distant period, and yet that he would continue his work of "lying wonders" until the coming of the Saviour.'

Albert Barnes, ‘New Testament Notes’, comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 1851



#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:05 AM

The question now is on the applicability of the phrase "the man of sin" to the pope.  That his rise was preceded by a great apostasy, or departure from the purity of the simple gospel, as revealed in the New Testament, cannot reasonably be doubted by any one acquainted with the history of the church.  That he is the creation or result of that apostasy, is equally clear.  That he is the grand agent in continuing it, is equally manifest.

Is the phrase itself one that is properly applicable to him?  Is it proper to speak of the pope of Rome, as he has actually appeared, as "the man of sin?"  In reply to this, it might be sufficient to refer to the general character of the Papacy, and to its influence in upholding and perpetuating various forms of iniquity in the world.

It would be easy to show that there has been no dynasty or system that has contributed so much to uphold and perpetuate sins of various kinds on the earth, as the Papacy. 

No other one has been so extensively and so long the patron of superstition; and there are vices of the grossest character which have all along been fostered, by its system of celibacy, indulgences, monasteries, and absolutions.

But it would be a better illustration of the meaning of the phrase "man of sin," as applicable to the pope of Rome, to look at the general character of the popes themselves. 

Though there may have been some exceptions, yet there never has been a succession of men of so decidedly wicked character as have occupied the Papal throne since the great apostasy commenced.

A very few references to the characters of the popes will furnish an illustration of this point.

Albert Barnes, ‘New Testament Notes’, comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 1851



#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:06 AM

Of the popes, Platina, a Roman Catholic, says: "The chair of Saint Peter was usurped, rather than possessed, by monsters of wickedness, ambition, and bribery. They left no wickedness unpractised." See the New Englander, April, 1844, pp. 285, 286.

To no succession of men who have ever lived could the appellative, "the man of sin," be applied with so much propriety as to this succession.

Yet they claim to have been the true "successors" of the apostles; and there are Protestants that deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true "succession" through such men.’

Albert Barnes, ‘New Testament Notes’, comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 1851



#19 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:06 AM

WHAT OTHERS WROTE ABOUT HIM:

‘Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870



Barnes was the author of several other works of a practical and devotional kind, and a collection of his Theological Works was published in Philadelphia in 1875.  He died in Philadelphia on the 24th of December 1870.’

1911 Encyclopaedia


Edited by Fortigurn, 04 October 2003 - 03:10 AM.


#20 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2003 - 03:10 AM

NAME:

Baronius, Cardinal Caesare

ABOUT:


A Roman Catholic historian of the 16th to 17th centuries (1500’s to 1600’s), Baronius records bluntly some of the most depraved years of the Roman Church, without excuse.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users