IV. Ramos Mexia, the Protestant; Lacunza, the Catholic

Most of Ramos Mexia’s written works were later destroyed by his own family, during the auto da fe, for they were fanatically Catholic. But happily the marginal notations in his own characteristic handwriting have been preserved on the volumes of his set of Manuel Lacunza’s La venida del Mesias ^{12On Lacunza, see Prophetic Faith, Vol. III, pp. 303-324.} who was his favorite author. Here Don Francisco’s personality finds full expression. ^{13Clemente Ricci, Francisco Ramos Mexia: “Un heterodoxo argentine como hombre de genio y como precursor,” pp. 6, 7 (also in La Reforma, July, 1923).} This annotated copy of Lacunza is the famous London Belgrano edition of 1816, published in Spanish, at London, specifically for distribution in Argentina. Here is revived the old teaching of twelfth-century Joachim of Floris, which had largely fallen into discard,” ^{14Ibid., (also in prophetic Faith, Vol. I, pp. 683-716).} but which had markedly influenced the Protestant Reformation positions on prophecy.PFF4 925.1

1. THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF THE BIBLE

The contrast between Lacunza and Ramos Mexia is most illuminating. Their only common ground is the doctrine of the blessed second advent. In Lacunza we have largely the Catholic theologue, whereas in Ramos Mexia the Protestant theologian is ever present-hence, his critique on the Lacunzan text. Ramos Mexia holds the sixteenth-century Reformation position—no other book but the Bible; no other authority in the whole world but Sacred Scripture. To him it is the inspired Word of God, containing all that man needs to know and embracing the transcendent secrets of past and future. Thus Ramos Mexia is basically the Calvinist Presbyterian and is decidedly Puritan in his concept of the individual and of society. ^{15Ibid., pp. 8, 9.} He did not learn anything fundamental from Lacunza, as his own theology was completed before he had knowledge of the Chilean Jesuit. And he also possessed an excellent knowledge of Latin, and his Biblical citations from the Vulgate penetrate to its inner meaning. ^{16Ibid., pp. 9, 10.}PFF4 925.2

2. RAMOS MEXIA-PROFOUND PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN

In another Ricci monograph, Francisco Ramos Mexia y el Padre Lacunza” ^{17Clemente Ricci, Francisco Ramos Mexia y el padre Lacunza, pp. 9-12 (also in La Reforma, May, 1929).} the professor comments on a scholarly work by Dr. Abel Chaneton, entitled En torno de un “papel anonimo” del siglo XVIII (Concerning an Anonymous Paper of the 18th Century).” ^{18Published by the Institute of Historical Investigations of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Buenos Aires University.} This noted writer claimed that Ramos Mexia obtained his views from Lacunza. But Ricci insists that Ramos Mexia’s exegetical and theological system is diametrically opposed to that of the Chilean Jesuit. Lacunza is the able Catholic theologian; Ramos Mexia the profound Protestant theologian. Though believing in the advent, he at the same time attacks the Catholic system, basing his own views to no small degree on Lutheran and Calvinist theology. Lacunza had endeavored to support his Adventist faith by Catholic theories, hence the indignant retort of Velez and of Catholic theologians.PFF4 926.1

Ramos Mexia, on the contrary, frankly recognized the undeniable “heresy” of Adventism, but based his own Adventism solidly on Biblical exegesis, which was the heart of the Protestant thesis. Lacunza, on the other hand, had resided for many years at Imola and Bologna—that region of Italy which was a constant source of “heresies.” This was where Joachim of Floris had produced his Expositio apocalypsis ^{19Ricci, Francisco Ramos Mexia y el Padre Lacunza, pp. 11, 12.} which was available both in the original and in clandestine translations. In contradistinction, the Adventism of Ramos Mexia had its origin in Daniel, Paul, and John, as well as in the teachings of the Montanists, the Fraticelli, the Bohemian Brethren, and numerous other “sects.”PFF4 926.2

3. APOSTASY FOLLOWS TIME OF CONSTANTINE

Ramos Mexia’s concept of the original conflict of the primitive church is intriguing, as he compares it with the fateful epoch of Constantine. On the margin of page 384 of Lacunza’s Volume III, Ramos Mexia wrote tersely:PFF4 927.1

“For this they say that fifteen centuries of Rome are worth more than three obscure ones of the first faithful, including the Apostles; against whom they arise and say that they governed themselves without a constitution. Ignorants!” ^{20Ricci, Francisco Ramos Mexia: Un heterodoxo argentino, p. 11 (also in La Re forma. July, 1923).} And on page 391 he insists:PFF4 927.2

“Consequently the present church closed its eyes obstinately to the Light, and its ears to the voices of the Messengers, after the first three centuries had elapsed. How much more would they now close their ears and their eyes.” ^21Ibid.PFF4 927.3