§ 1. In the Hebrew text the expression ועל חמדת נשים ועל כל אלוה לא יבין, weʿal ḥemdat nāšîm weʿal kol ʾĕlôah lōʾ yābîn, is ambiguous: “concerning the desires of women and concerning God he will not understand.” The Greek text has nothing else concerning this mark of Antichrist than καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ γυναικῶν, “and the desire of women.” Thus is the present reading. But Saint Jerome shows that the Septuagint had it otherwise, and his words must be set down:
For what we have interpreted, “and he will be among the desires of women,” the seventy-two translated, “and he will not be subject to the desires of women,” and so forth. But because in the Hebrew, for what we said, “and he will be among the desires of women,” it has been stated ambiguously, Aquila, who expressed it word for word, saying, καὶ ἐπὶ θεὸν τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει, καὶ ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμίαις γυναικῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν οὐ συνήσει—“and concerning the God of his fathers he will not understand, and concerning the desires of women, and concerning every god he will not understand”—by these words it is understood that he both has the desires of women and does not have them. If we understand the words ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, “as shared in common,” he does not understand concerning the desires of women. With respect to Antichrist the easier interpretation is that he feigns chastity for this reason, so that he may deceive very many. But if we read, “and concerning the desire of women,” with “he will be” understood, it will be fitted better to the person of Antiochus, who is said to have been most lustful and to have descended through debaucheries and corruptions into such disgrace of royal dignity that he publicly joined himself even to mimes and prostitutes, so that he might gratify his lust in the presence of the people.
If, therefore, it is understood of Antiochus, it is sufficiently understood that that monster was above all others γυναικομανῆ, “mad for women,” and most womanizing, and that not only his chastity but even his sense of shame had been prostituted; the histories testify to this. Those, therefore, who interpret it of cruelty from 2 Maccabees 5:13 labor in vain: “For he did not spare even women”; and they translate, “He will not even attend to tenderness toward women.” For it has always appeared savage to be cruel toward women:
For there is no memorable name in punishing a woman, nor does victory have praise.
But as far as the matter itself is concerned, ḥāmad is not “tenderness,” but “desire” and “beauty”; and not to understand concerning desire is not to desire. Thus also Job 31:1: ûmâ ʾetbônēn ʿal betûlâ? “Why should I make myself understand concerning a virgin?”
The opinion of Pererius and others does not displease me: namely, that the words “concerning the desire of women” are set down separately, and hûʾ or yihyeh, “he” or “he will be,” must be understood, in the manner in which the Greeks and Jerome also explain them. For, first, it is the opinion even of all the heretics that Antichrist will be lustful; and although at the beginning he will feign chastity, he will soon express his Antiochus to the life and outstrip him by white horses. Second, his wantonness is shown from Revelation. Third, his cruelty does not stand in the way, for one who is cruel is also rotten in lust, and one who is lustful is also cruel, for the physiognomic signs of each passion are not different. Finally, he will be an instrument of the devil, which I would not believe will be chaste and pure—especially since the ancient and modern forerunners of Antichrist, votaries of Venus, have disgraced themselves by vice. Lusts drove Luther headlong; Carlstadt entered the first marriage; Calvin’s brands and Beza’s paradigms are known; Ochino instituted polygamy.
§ 2. The jubilators object from Powell, notes 18 and 27, that the Pope forbids marriages, and they add that he permits fornication. They adduce examples.
I answer that marriage is prohibited to no one except one who has bound himself to chastity by a vow. It is not lawful to make void the pledge of chastity given to Christ. He gravely prohibits adulteries and fornications. The Pope’s judgment is proposed in various places; for me Cause 27, question 1, chapter 20, suffices:
Permission to marry is granted to some, namely those who have in no way professed either virginal or widowed chastity; but to some it is not granted, namely those who have resolved to be virgins or continent. Fornication, however, is permitted to no one with impunity.
And chapter 21:
It is manifest that women who have fallen from the better purpose of a holier chastity which is vowed to God, if they marry, are worse than adulteresses.
Concerning the whole class of the matter, see the canons of Cause 32, question 4, and likewise questions 5, 6, and 7.
For by these marriage is praised, while adulteries and fornications are forbidden. But certain Pontiffs lived impurely. I cannot deny it, nor is it necessary for the defense of the Church. Yet the ministers are not therefore to be excused. They argue thus: “Some Pontiff is a fornicator; Antichrist is a fornicator; therefore the Pontiff is Antichrist.” Who does not see that such things agree with many of their magnates? Who does not see that the miserable consequence must be chastised with the rod? For if, whenever some king or prince sins, the kingdom is immediately to be stigmatized with Antichristianism, nothing in the whole world is pure.
Produce a series of innocent kings or princes—even among those taught by you—and show that the law against adulteries cannot be observed. If the matter comes to reasoning, we shall prevail. To the examples I answer: some are manifestly false, such as those concerning Gregory VII and others; some were invented by enemies; some men lived a more licentious life before the Pontificate and corrected it in the supreme dignity. At most there were six or eight whose life was wicked in so holy an office. I speak of Pontiffs, for I no more concern myself with pseudo-popes than with the Jasons and Menelauses who disturbed the ancient Church.
It is the greatest glory of the Church that 237 Pontiffs are now counted, among them thirty-three martyrs in an uninterrupted succession, and among their successors so many martyrs and so many illustrious in holiness and learning that not even their enemies, although aided by all the calumnies of every age, can name one unchaste man among thirty chaste men. Give me a kingdom, principality, or county in which there have been so many good rulers and so few bad. I know that this cannot be done by you. Yet this is the perversity of the adulterous generation of viperous offspring among the preachers, whose lies bear damnation: they impute to others the things they themselves do. Who should marvel that they invent stories concerning the ancients, when knowingly and willingly they invent everything against the living? They all bring forward Alexander VI, who was indeed wicked but was compelled to hear of more evils than he committed.
But why do they omit the others whom the histories praise extraordinarily? Why do they not remember the crimes of their own men?