A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 11
Chapt. 11. Of Antichriſts Mark.
IN what things the Mark of the Beaſt conſiſteth; I have largely declared chap. 13.16.17. Againſt which Bellarmine obiecteth two things; one from the text; another from the antiquitie of the ſignes by which we define the mark. From the text he gathereth four things. Firſt, that the mark ſhalbe one, not many. For alwayes, ſaith he, the Scripture ſpeaks in the ſingular number, as wel of the mark as of the name, and of the Number of the name of Antichr. And therfore ſ…ing the adverſaries doo make ſo many marks, as the oth of fealtie, the Prieſtly unction, the profeſſion of the Roman faith &c. they know not what mark it is. I anſwer: that which you ſay of the ſingular number of the Mark, is verie infirme; ſeing Aretas, the Compl. edition, and ſome other copies of no ſmal authoritie, doo read, that they might give them foreign, Marks, or Characters: ver. 16. Neither is that by reaſon of the multitude which receiveth: foraſmuch as the ſame copies with one conſent doo expreſſe the ſeal of God in the ſingular number, although they ſpeak of many; as they which have not the ſeal, foreign, not, the ſeals, chap. 9.4. Moreover, is it ſtrange unto you that any multitude should be ſignified in the ſingular number, and contrariweiſe, one thing in the plural number? But the name and number of the name, you ſay, are ſingular things. Be it ſo; ſurely by like reaſon you might conclude that Muſraijn is of the form ſingular, becauſe Put and Canaan, with which it is ioyned, ar of that form: Gen. 10.6. Who ever urged this, that al words should be of lik force, which ar rehearſed in any one ſentēce? But, if Grammar perhaps wil not ſatiſfie you, yet Logike wil conſtrein you to reſt; which teacheth that a mark or character is one in the name, but manifold in the thing. For a mark is that which neceſſarily al muſt receiv, ver. 16. but it is neceſſary that al receiv, eyther the mark properly ſo caled, or the name of the Beaſt, or the number of his name, ver, 16. Therfore theſe al ar marks; & that which is univerſally caled a mark ver. 16 we now perceiv cōteyneth moe kinds, & that you falſly affirm the marke to be one.
Secondly, you obiect, that the mark is common to all: the oth of fealtie, and Preiſtly unction, is of few: I anſwer, the mark is twofold; the one general cō prehending in it al the other enſignes of the Beaſt: the other ſpecial, a part & member of the former. For that which is firſt caled a mark, ver. 16. is diſtributed into three members, ver. 17. namely, into the mark, ſo caled by the name of the whole; the name of the Beaſt; & the number of his name. Now then ſee how finely you reaſon. The mark is common to all: the oth of fealtie is not common to all: therfore it is not the mark. In the major, the mark is taken generally: but then nothing can be concluded therupō, but that the oth of fealtie, or preiſtly unction, & ſuch like, is not the general marke: which I eaſily grant. Or if it ſignify a ſpecial mark; the propoſition is particular, and ſo the whole reaſon, is without reaſon. After the ſame manner one may prove that a man is not a ſenſible creature. For a sē ſible creature is a thing common to al that have ſenſe; a man is not a thing common to al that have ſenſe; therfore, no ſenſible creature. Of all the flours of Logik, you ſeem moſt to delight in Aequivocations: which yow uſe ſo often, as if you reliſhed nothing, that is not ſeaſoned with this ſalt.
Thirdly you ſay, the mark may be caried indifferently in the right hand or in the forehead: but the oth, unction, profeſſion, &c. belong not to theſe parts: & therfore ar not marks. I anſwer, by your ſport you make your ſelfe a ſport moſt of al. Surely no ſober man, when he ſeeth the mark to be caled by a borowed Speech, would require the places on which it is imprinted, to be taken in their natural ſignification. We read that the elect were ſealed on their foreheads, Chapt. 7.3. Think you ther was ſome very brand marke ſet on thoſe parts of their face? So Ezechiel ſaw the godly of Ieruſalem, ſigned on their foreheads: yet no man ever beleeved, that the men, (excepting in the type) wer painted with a verie ynken mark, Ezek. 9 4. The like borowed ſpeech is here of the forehead, & hand, & mark. The forehead is the bold & open profeſsion: the hand is the ſtout and diligent labour: for the performance of both of theſe to the Biſhop of Rome, everie of his ſervitours according to the condition of his place, is bound by mark. Wherupon this mark is not ſeen onelyonly in the knees, as you would prettily frump our men: but, that you maie the more marvel, even whiles your ſelfe in time paſt ware a cowl on your ſhoulders, you openly shewed by the mark on your forehead, whoſe beaſt you were.
Fourthly, you ſay, in Antichriſts Kingdome no man ſhould be ſuffred to buy or ſell unleſſe he ſhewed the mark, or name, or number of his name: but many of the Popes dominion doo buy and ſell, which have not yeilded the oth of fealtie, yea in the Citie of Rome it ſelfe, as Iewes &c.
I anſwer, the neceſsitie of the mark for mutual traffique, is required in the ſubiects onelyonly; not in ſtrangers, ſuch as the Iewes are eſtemed. For who iudgeth them that are without? But if any that is caled a Chriſtian should shew his mind to be alienated from the Pope of Rome, he can no otherweiſe traffique among you, than by procuring to himſelfe the danger of his head; as we have shewed more at large Apoc. 13.17. The words therfore of the text, have not yet refuted theſe which you cal trifles: but plainly doo confirm them to contein one true meaning.
Your other reaſon is wherby you prove that al theſe ſignes are more anciēt than Antichriſt. Which that it may the more diſtinctly be underſtood, we are to know, that Antichriſts time is two fold; (for this ſummarie diviſion is now ynough.) The one, of his firſt riſing, wherby he is the firſt Beaſt; the other, of his ſecond riſing after his head was healed, wherby he is the ſecōd Beaſt. Now the Mark is the ordinance of this ſecōd Beaſt, within whoſe borders it is conteyned, though the foundations were layd before: which began then to get it force, when the Romish ceremonies were obtruded on the Churches, and al were conſtreyned to undergoe the yoke of them. Wherupon that which you bring of certain rites, is altogither from the queſtion in hand. For the antiquitie of theſe rites is not now dealt with al; but the time when firſt they were uſed for a ſacrament of Romish obedience: which you shal not find to be before the birth of the ſecond Beaſt, if you wil caſt a true account. For wheras in the firſt place you mentiō the Chriſme of Baptiſme, we acknowledge the ſuperſtition therof to be ancient; yet Sylveſter the Roman, put to it ſome new thing, not neceſſarilie uſed in other Churches; til Auguſtine the Monk the Roman Apoſtle about the yere 600. cōpelled the Brittans to adminiſter Baptiſm after the Romish manner, and to receiv the books of their other ceremonies. Con. Rom. 1. Can. 5. Innocent. 3. Decret. Epiſt. Beda Hiſtor. Angl. lib. 2. cap. 2. And this Mark once received, the age folowing alſo imprinted deeper, & propagated larger through al Germanie by meanes of Boniface the Englishman, who ſtablished the Romish rites everie where, and remooved out of their places manie godly and learned men, that ſomewhat reſiſted the ſame. What should I mention other countries, of which it is now ſufficientlie known to everie one, both by what beginnings and proceeding at laſt al were branded with the ſame marks?
Secondly, for the name Catholik, we confeſſe the Romish Church was in old time Catholik, (ſo farr as this nam cā agree to a particular Church) whiles integritie of doctrine flourished in the ſame: and therfore was not amiſſe by the ancient Fathers often ſo caled. I confeſſe alſo, the firſt declining of this Church not being wel perceived, and Auguſtine, Victor Vticenſis, & others ſpake honourably of this Church. But what is theſe mens commendation, to excuſe the Antichriſtian loftynes that folowed? It is one thing to be Catholick; another thing to be the onelyonly Catholik. The firſt, holy men acknowledged becauſe of the conſent of holynes: this other, the later Popes chalenged as proper to their ſeate, after that they could ſuffer no man, except they had him bound unto them by ſome ſign of ſervitude. Then boaſted they impudently, that it was neceſſarie to ſalvation, to be ſubiect to the Church of Rome: Bonifac. 8. Extrav. de Majorit. & obed. tit. Vni, unam ſanctam: and that he was an heretik, which denyed the authority and prerogative of that ſeat: Nicolaus to the Bbs. of Millain, Diſtinct. 22. Omnes. Which verie thing you chant at this day to the world: but a thing never heard off before, til the Beaſt came foorth with his branding yron. You ar wont fooliſhly to skip, at this word Catholik ſo often as you meet with it, as if it were your peculiar enſigne: but bring forth anie one place of anie approved and ſufficiēt author, that made Rome a ſquare and rule of faith, ſo as your Popes ſacrilegiouſly arrogated to their ſeat, after the riſing of the ſecond Beaſt, namely after the yere of our Lord, about 600. And if you can not, then acknowledge eyther the Mark, or at leaſt your owne lamentable obſtinacie.
Thirdly, you ſay, the oth of fealtie is found in the time of Gregorie, lib. 10. Epiſt. 31. I anſwer, miſerable is your want, Bellarmine; who were neceſſarily boūd to inſiſt in the firſt degree, before the riſing of the ſecōd Beaſt. Could nothing be produced more ancient, wherby you might put the thing out of cōtroverſie? But neither dooth this oth profit you any thing; ſeing it was not compelled, but willingly offred; nor of anie univerſal order receiving authoritie to doo a thing, but of one ſchiſmatik asking pardon, and returning to the communion of Rome. Wherupon it was not the Mark, ſo much as a kind of reſemblance and image of it to come ſoon after. In creating of Biſhops, I find no oth more ancient than that of Boniface, about the yere 726. after that the ſecond Beaſt was riſen up. And in ordeining of the civil Magiſtrate, none before that of Otho the firſt, in the yere 912. Shew you ſomthing before, or confeſſe that this ſign, wherin the chief force of the ſpecial mark is conteyned, came not abroad, before the ſecond Beaſt had brought it forth.
Fourthly, you ſay, Gregorie Nazianzen mentioneth the anoynting of Preiſts. I anſwer, Nazianzen ſpeaketh not properly but figuratively. No writer of that age, makes mention of that ordinance of Anoynting. And Innocēt 3. takes away al ſcruple, who plainly cōfirmeth that the Greeks uſed not this manner of Anoyting in ordering Bishops, before his time. For ſo Decret. Epiſt. lib. tit. 15. he writeth to the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, of a certayn Branditribarenſe Biſhop, who in his conſecration had not received the holy unction as he caleth it. Becauſe, ſaith he, with you, Biſhops are not wont to be anoynted when they ar conſecrated: we have commanded that to be ſupplied in him, which he wanted, cauſing his head and hands to be oynted with the holy Chriſme, by the Biſhop of Alba, two Biſhops moe aſſiſting him, according to the Eccleſiaſtical manner. Wherupon afterward he exhorteth alſo the Patriarch himſelfe, that he would likeweiſe be anoynted. We warn therfore, ſaith he, your brotherhood, and diligently exhort, that you alſo receive the ſacred unction, that you maie want nothing to make up the ſacrament: and when you are anoynted with the holy Chriſme, that you likeweiſe anoynt your Archbiſhops and Biſhops: & by them cauſe the hands of the Preiſts to be anoynted with the bleſſed oil: that in ordeyning Preiſts and conſecrating Biſhops, you maie keepe and cauſe that manner to be kept, which the Apoſtolical ſeat obſerveth. Thus wrote he: By which it is manifeſt that neither Patriarch nor Archbishops nor Bishops nor Preiſts received any oincting in their ordination▪ til the Romiſh mark came unto them. Which alſo might be underſtood by Nazianzens words, who ſpeaketh no otherweiſe of the Preiſts oil, than of the uſe of the talents, of the care of the flock, and of the oil of perfection: which are all ſpoken figuratively.
Fiftly, you bring forth, the ſacrifice for the dead, and the worſhipping of Images: of the beginning of which impieties ther is no need curiouſly to diſpute. VVhoſoever was the author by whom firſt they tooke place, they became the ſymbols of Rome onelyonly, after that she would have them exerciſed by her onelie authoritie. For when she had bereft Leo Iſaurus of the Empire of the VVeſt, for being againſt her Idolatrie; ſhe made manifeſt unto all, both what her marke was, for which she ſo egerly contended, and with how great perill men did refuſe to receive the ſame. Of theſe ſignes therfor, ſome indeede are before the ſecond Beaſt, in the beginning of their ſuperſtition: but in force of binding to Rome, they be eyther al equal, or in age a litle after.
But becauſe to the former marks we have adioyned the numeral name Latinos; leaſt perhaps you ſhould here object the ſame thing which you doo in the other; I wil ſpeak of it a few words. This name is moſt ancient: who knowes it not? which notwithſtanding lay dead for many ages, til the Emperours tranſlated their ſeat to Conſtantinople. Then it ſomwhat revived, and began to be famous; as appeareth by Epiphanius in his book De menſur. & pond. ſpeaking of the Romans, which are not ſtil caled Romās, ſaith he, but Latines. But this name was not yet ſo commonly uſed, or ſo obtruded on the Churches, as to have the dignitie of a mark. VVherupō Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, Evagtius, doo uſe the ſame very ſparingly, or no where rather, to my remembrance: but ſo often as they ſpeak of Rome, they cal it Old Rome, & the Provinces they diſtinguiſh by the names of the Eaſt and Weſt onelyonly. But after when at length the ſecond Beaſt turmoiled al things, and a partition of the Empire was made, & limits were appointed, by Nicephorus of Conſtantinople, & Charles the Great: then did the name of the Roman Provinces remayn in the Eaſtern countries: & the VVeſtern were by a common name caled Latin; as appeareth by Zonaras, Nicetas, Gregoras, and Chalchocondilas. Neither was it ynough thenceforward for the Greeks to ſubmitt themſelves unto the Roman Patriarch; (for they chalenged this name of Romans to themſelves;) but now the chieftie was to be yeelded unto the Latin Biſhop, or Bishop of Old Rome; or otherweiſe no reconciliation could be made, as appeareth by the Council of Lions, under Gregorie 10. However therfore theſe and many other ſuperſtitions were in uſe many yeres, before Antichriſt was known to the world: yet after they were made bonds to tye men for to defend the errours of the Church of Rome, then put they on the nature of Brands & Marks. Theſe things doo you diſpute againſt the true Mark, ſtabliſhing rather our opinion by your empty oppugnation, than doing it the leaſt hurt. But what Mark doo your ſelfe now feign unto us? forſooth ſome poſitiv Mark which Antichriſt ſhould deviſe, but what it is, ſhal not be known until he come. I anſwer; if it be a poſitive mark, and al muſt receive it, as the Spirit evidently ſaith; then Antichriſt muſt eyther goe to all, or at leaſt muſt cō pell al to come to him. VVhither of the two we make it, here wil come againe that admirable journey into al lands in his three yeres ſpace & a litle more; of which we ſpake in the 6. chapter of this Refutation, againſt the publik perſecution. Or though the performance hereof be committed to his Legats: ther wil, I beleev, be more travel and buſynes, than can be diſpatched in ſo litle a ſpace.