A Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Book 2 · Chapter 11
The 11. Chapter: Concerning the marke, which Antichrist shall impose vponupon men.
1. COncerning the marke of Antichrist, Bellarmnine reciteth three opinions, vntounto which he addeth a fourth of his owne coyning. The first of the Protestants, who teach that the marke of Antichrist is some …ne of obedience and conjunction with the Pope. The second opinion is of some Catholicke Papists, who thinke this marke to be the letters of Antichrists name. The third of Hippolytus, and some others, who imagine that this marke of the beast is, not to vse the signe of the crosse, but rather to detest and … it. The first opinion viz of the Protestants, he detesteth as r…sh and …irde: The second of the Catholicks, he rejecteth as false, which he signifieth when he saith, they were deceiued. The third he would willingly embrace, because it seemeth to make against vsus; but the authour is counterfeit, and his testimonie falsified by Bellarmine. And although indeed he do reject it, as he might well, because it is absurd… to faine a priuatiue marke, as if the not vsing of some marke, were the marke whereof the Holy-ghost speaketh: yet he affirmeth, (such is his blind malice) that herein we are notable fore-runners of Antichrist. In the fourth place he addeth his owne conceit, that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue or reall marke, which as yet is not knowne: whereby as he would ouerthrow all the former opinions, so especially he confuteth the last. From whence notwithstanding, as if it were true, he would faine inferre that we are the fore-runners of Antichrist. And this opinion he doth confute by two reasons. First, because the marke must be positiue; and secondly, because it is as yet vnknowne. And this is the summe and effect of his whole eleuenth Chapter. But what of all this? or whereunto doth all this discourse tend? You will say, to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist. He had indeed propounded that question to prooue, but in this Chapter he concludeth nothing for the Pope. OnelyOnly he telleth vsus, that there be three opinions concerning the marke, and to them he addeth a fourth of his owne, and there an end. Other Papists when they handle this argument, reason thus: Antichrist shall compell men to take the marke of the beast; the Pope doth not compell men to take the marke of the beast. Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Which argument if he had vsed, and had also made good the assumption, he should hauehave said something to the purpose. But Bellarmine concludeth no such matter, Nec enim a…sus est, nec potuit. For well doth he know, that from this marke of the beast we conclude the affirmatiue, namely, that the Pope is Antichrist.
2. How then doth he argue? surely it is not easie to tell. For after the sophisters guise, he hideth his conclusion, that he may the more easily deceiue. foreign, as the Philosopher saith. But so far as I can gesle, either by resoluing the discourse it selfe, or by conferring the same with the former chapter, whereunto he seemeth to refer vsus, he would seeme to reason thus: If Antichrists marke be not yet knowne, then is not Antichrist yet come: But Antichrists marke is not yet knowne; therefore Antichrist is not yet come: and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition he omitteth, and so taketh it for granted: although in truth there is no necessitie of the consequence. For as we said before of his name, so now we say of his marke: that after Antichrist is come, his marke might bee vnknowne, yea was for a time to bee vnknowne. Otherwise he should not be able to enforce his marke vponupon manie, few or none being so desperately wicked, as knowing his marke, to suffer themselues by the same to be branded to destruction; as all they are, who doe receiue and retaine it. Apoc. 14. 9, 10. And further I adde, that although this marke bee knowne to very many of those who hauehave the Marke of God: Apoc. 9. 4.yet to them that are branded with this marke of the beast, and doe retaine the same, that is, who liue and die Papists, it neither is, or shall be knowne, or at least not acknowledged of them during this life. And therefore no maruaile though Bellarmine confesse his ignorance in this behalfe.
3. But let vsus see also how he prooueth the assumption, viz. that the marke of the beast is not yet knowne. Forsooth by this reason: If neither that be the marke of the beast which the Protestants teach, nor yet that which the Catholicks imagine (so many of them as take vponupon them to know what this marke is) th… assuredly this marke is not yet knowne: But neither is that the marke which the Protestants speake of, nor yet that which the Catholickes hauehave supposed: Therefore this marke is not yet knowne. As for the Papists, we confesse that either they know not, or at the least acknowledge not this marke, for if they did, the most of them would refuse to take it. Wherefore leauing them to Bellarmines discretion, whether to be confuted or allowed; let vsus consider whether that be the marke, which the Protestants hauehave supposed, or not. The heretickes of this time (saith Bellarmine) teach that the character of Antichrist is some signe of obedience and coniunction with the Pope of Rome. But what this signe is, they doe not expresse after the same maner. Bullinger vnderstandeth by the marke the Chrisme, wherewith young ones are annointed in …. 61. in Apoc. Chron. ta…. 10.their confirmation. Bibliander saith, it is the profession of the Romish or Popish faith. Chytraeus to these addeth the oath of fidelitie, which many are compelled to sweare to the Pope: as also the priestly vnction which is receiued in the head and the hand, impressing (as the Papists speake) Characterem indelebilem: Finally to fall downe before Images, and the hoste, and to be present at Masses for the dead. Sed facile est (saith he) has nugas refutare. But it is easie to refute these toyes. But before I come to answer his trifling cauillations, I thinke it needfull first to referre the reader to the former booke, See lib. 1. Chap. 8. §. 4. &. 5.where I shewed what this marke is, and that this marke which is but one in substance, is diuersly expressed and testified; and therfore that there is no opposition in the opinions of the Protestants, concerning this matter, all these notes, which they mention, belonging to the marke of the beast. And secondly, to deliuer briefly the Popish conceit concerning this marke. For the Papists imagine that the character is a visible marke of Antichrists name, which the followers of Antichrist shall hauehave imprinted in their foreheads, and carrie as a signe in their hands, that it may be as it were their warrant to buy or sell: And so Bellarmine (to omitte others) writeth also of the name and the number. The proper name of Antichrist (saith he) must be shewed for a token of Chap. 10. lib. 3. de. pontif. Rom.all that buy or sell. To which purpose he approueth the judgement of Rupertus, who saith, that Antichrists name is such a one as he shall glory in, Adeo vt jubeat inscribi in frontibus hominum, Insomuch that he shal cause it to be written in the foreheads of men. And againe, the beast (whose number this is) shall command all merchants that they vse this number for a signe or token in their contracts. But who could be so grosse as to imagine that Princes and Magistrates, and men of all sorts, would euer suffer themselues to be branded as it were with Antichrists visible marke? or if that were Antichrists practise, who should not be able to discerne him? Why, their ordinarie glosse could tell them, that the marke is receiued in the forehead by confession, and in the right hand by operation, as we also hold. Antoninus also and Lyra teach that Character est determinatus modus viuendi secundum legem alicujus, quo à caeteris distinguuntur; A Character or marke is à certaine manner of siuing according to the lawe of any, whereby men are distinguished from others: which also agreeth with our judgement. Againe, the Scriptures often times make mention of markes and seales, which cannot Ezec. 9. Apoc. 9. 4. …t 7. 2. et. 2 17. 2. Tim. 2. 19.without absurditie be vnderstood of visible markes.
4 Now let vsus see how easily this trifler is able according to his vaine brag, to refute those toyes of ours. His reasons are two: the former, because that which we deliuer concerning the marke, agreeth not with the words of the text: which he sheweth by foure instances. First, because the text speaketh but of one character, we speake of many. We answer, that as of the Lambe, so of the beast also there is but one character in substance, although the same by diuers meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified; that is, subjection to the Pope as their head, and the acknowledgment of the See of Rome, and of the Popes supremacie, &c. And this marke (to answer his second instance also,) is common to all, as being inforced vponupon all sorts of men without exception. Heare the words of their law; Subesse Romano pontifici, omni Extr. de maior. et obed. C. v…a sancta.humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis: For eueryevery humane creature to be subiect to the Pope of Rome, we declare, affirme, determine, and proneunce, that it is altogether of the necessitie of saluation. See more lib. 1. cap. 8. § 6. & 7. Thirdly, saith he, The scripture sheweth this character to be such a one, as may indifferently be caryed either in the right hand or in the forehead. But none of these markes which the Protestants mention are such. The Chrisme is receiued in the forehead, and not in the hand, &c. The scripture saith thus, Apoc. 13. 16. And he causeth all, both small and great, &c. That he may giuegive them a marke on their right hand, or else vponupon their foreheads. That is, by his vsurped dominion and tyranny, he shall make all sorts of men subject vntounto him: and in testimony of their subjection, to receiue his marke on the forehead by profession, or in the right hand by practise and operation. Of the carying of this marke, and the carying of it indifferently either on the forehead, or in the hand, the scripture speaketh not. The marke is subjection vntounto him, which (as hath beene said) is diuersly expressed and testified. Fourthly, the Scripture saith, that none in the kingdome of Antichrist, shall be suffered to buy or sell, vnlesse he hauehave this marke: but how many (saith he) are there within the dominion of the Pope, who hauing none of these markes, doe buy and sell, as namely the Iewes? I answer, that Antichrist was to sit in the Church of God, and to tyrannize ouer Christians. Now of all those that professe the name of Christ, the Pope suffreth none where he hath to doe, either to buy or sell, except he hauehave his marke. See the Bull of Martin the fift, annexed to the councell of Constance, where expresse and straight charge is giuen, that whosoeuer doth not liue in subjection to the Pope, and communion with the Church of Rome (meaning such as Wicliffe and Husse) shall not be suffred See lib. 1. cap. 8. §. 7.to buy or sell, or to enjoy the comforts of humane societie. Whereas therfore the Pope permitteth that to the Iewes, which he will not permit to the professours of the Gospell of Christ: that, as it sheweth his greater opposition ot the seruants of Christ, then to the enemies of Christ the Iewes; so it bewrayeth him to be Antichrist.
5. His second reason is thus concluded. If all these things, which the Protestants mention, were vsed in the Catholick Church before the comming of Antichrist, then none of them belong to the marke of Antichrist, (for otherwise Antichrist should hauehave learned them of the Church:) But all these things as namely Chrisme and the rest, which the Protestants mention, were vsed in the Catholicke Church before the yeere 607. that is, before the comming of Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Protestants: therefore none of these belong to the marke of the beast. First I answer to the proposition, that although these things had beene vsed in the Catholick Church before the reuelation of Antichrist, yet that hindereth not, but that now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast. For we doubt not to affirme that before the reuelation of Antichrist there were many corruptions crept into the Church, both in Doctrine and in the worship of God (the mysterie of iniquitie more and more working, euen from the Apostles times, vntounto the reuelation of Antichrist) which corruptions Antichrist was to retaine with increase. If therefore the seeds of Antichristianisme, which were sowne before Antichrists appearing, were signes of his approaching; the same being as it were growne vp, confirmed and increased, may without absurditie bee sayd to belong to the marke of Antichrist already come. Especially if we consider the diuersitie in vsing of them since the reuelation of Antichrist and before. For there was not in the Catholicke church an vniuersall subjection to the Pope as the head, vntill he by much ambition and contention obtained the supremacie, and was called the vniuersall Bishop, and head of the vniuersall Church, which he could neuer obtaine vntill the yeare 607. Seeing then there was not an vniuersall subjection to the Pope before that time, these things if they had beene vsed at all, could not be vsed as signes thereof; as since they hauehave: Neither were they imposed before and enjoyned vponupon all by the lawes of the Pope, as since they hauehave: so that the cause of vsing them now, is not the example of the ancient Church, but the authoritie of the Popes lawe, injoyning and commaunding them. Therefore although these thinges had beene vsed in the Church before the yeere 607, yet now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast: And therefore the connexion of the proposition, is first to be denied. But now if these things were not vsed in the first 600. yeeres, will not he then in confuting those toyes, shew himselfe a meere trifler?
6. But let vsus consider of the particulars. And first, that Chrisme was vsed before the yeere 606. he proueth by the testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine. I answer, that these Fathers speake of the annointing with Oyle vsed in the Sacrament of 1. Chrisme.Baptisme, which also without warrant of the Scriptures is retained among the Papists. But of the chrisme of saluation, which the Papists make the element of their counterfeit sacrament of confirmation, whereof there is no institution in the Scriptures, no worde, no element, these Fathers speake not. The ceremonie of imposition of hands, with prayer for the confirmation and strengthning of those, which before had beene baptized, was indeed vsed in the primitiue church: neither is it altogether misliked of vsus, although not much vsed among vsus, because it was so much abused by them. But this ceremonie was done without vnction or chrisme: for further proofe whereof see D. Fulke his answer to the Rhemists, Acts. 8. 17. And therefore notwithstanding that ancient practise of the Church, this Chrisme vsed in confirmation, may belong to the marke of the beast. And the rather because the Papists make their confirmation with Chrisme, not onelyonly a sacrament, but also a most necessary and Principall sacrament. So necessary as that they hauehave set it downe as a law, that no man is to be esteemed a Christian without it. Nunquam De consecrat. dist. 5. C. vt iciuni.erit Christianus nisi confirmatione episcopals fuerit Chrismatus. He shall neuer be a Christian, who is not confirmed with Chrisme by a Bishop. So principall, as that they preferre it before Baptisme, affirming that it is maiore veneratione venerandum, with greater veneration to be reuerenced. Now if it be a priuiledge De consecrat. dist. 5. C. de. his vero.peculiar vntounto Christ the author and bestower of grace, to ordaine Sacraments of grace; then must it needes be accounted a practise Antichristian, if any man shall take vponupon him to ordaine a Sacrament, and not onelyonly to obtrude the same vponupon all as necessary to saluation, but also to preferre it before that excellent Sacrament of Baptisme ordayned by Christ himselfe. Therefore as the ordayning and enforcing of this Sacrament vponupon men is a note of Antichrist, so those which doe not onelyonly receiue it when they are young, but also retaine it when they are olde, remayning in the communion of the Church of Rome, may be said to hauehave the marke of the beast.
7. Secondly, that to adhere to the Romaine Church was a marke of a true Catholicke before the yeere 606. he prooueth by 2. Romanae ecclesie adhaercre.the authority of Augustine, Ambrose and Victor Vticensis. But we speake of the Church of Rome that now is, that is, the apostaticall Church of Rome: he argueth of the ancient Church which was apostolicall. Indeed whiles the Church of Rome did cleaue vntounto Christ, so long might it be a note of a good Christian to cleaue vntounto it, although these testimonies doe scarce proue it: but after that Church became apostaticall and adulterous, as appeareth by their fundamentall heresies, and horrible Idolatries, and consequently of a faithful Church became an harlot, and of the Church of Christ the synagogue of Antichrist: it hath beene the marke of an Antichristian to liue in the communion of that Church. Besides this great difference betwixt the present and the ancient state of the Church of Rome, there is also great oddes in the manner of adhering or cleauing thereto. Then, as other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome, so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them: now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe. Then the Church of Rome was accounted but a part of the Catholicke Church, and so a man might be a good Christian although he were not of the Church of Rome: now the Church of Rome alone must be accounted the Catholicke Church; and consequently he that is not a member of that Church, must not be taken for a Catholicke or true Christian. For when the Pope got the title of vniuersall Bishop, or head of the vniuersall Church, then the church whereof he was head, was accounted the onelyonly Catholicke and vniuersall Church. Hereunto agreeth that Glosse, Constat ecclesiam ideo esse vnam, quia in vniuersali ecclesia est vnum caput suprem…, Clementin. Lib. 5. ad nostrum in gloss.cui omnes de ecclesia obedire tenentur seil. Papae. It is euident that the Church is therefore one, because in the vniuersall Church there is one supreame head, whom all that are of the Church are bound to obey. And agreeably therunto saith a late writer, whose bookes were published at Venice in the yeere 1588. Non potest quis se Christianum fateri, qui curae Papae dicit se non subesse. No man may Rod. Cupers 127. num. 29.professe himselfe to be a Christian, who doth not confesse himselfe to be subiect to the Popes cure or charge. And therfore in the conclusiō of his booke he professeth himselfe to be Mancipium S. R. E. The bond seruant of the holy church of Rome, Non ignorans (he saith) haud possehaberese deum patrem, si sanctam vniuersalem Romanam ecclesiam non habuerit matrem, knowing that a man cannot hauehave God to be his father, vnlesse he hauehave the holy vniuersall Church of Rome to be his mother. Seeing therfore the Church of Rome is become the whore of Babylon, as hath bene prooued, and the synagogue of Antichrist; & seeing the Pope compelleth all men to cleaue to the church of Rome, suffering none to buy or sel, or to enioy any benefits of humane society, which professe not themselues to be members of the Church of Rome: it followeth that this cleauing to the Apostaticall Church of Rome, or liuing in the communion thereof, belongeth to the marke of the beast.
8. Thirdly, as touching the oth of obedience and fealty 3. Iura… ium obedientiae.made to the Pope of Rome, Bellarmine prooueth that it was vsed in the time of Gregory the great, and therefore before the yeere 606. as appeareth in the Epistles of Gregorie. I answere, that although Lib. 10. Epist. 31.before the yeere 606. the Bishops of Rome tooke more vponupon them, then became the ministers of Christ: yet Bellarmine is not able out of all antiquity to alleadge one example of such an oath of fealty and allegeance imposed by the Pope vponupon forraine Bishops, and much lesse vponupon Kings and Princes, as all Catholicke Bishops, as they call them, Priests, graduates, Princes and potentates are compelled to sweare vntounto the Pope of Rome. That one example, which, as it seemeth, is all that he can alledge, of an oath taken not long before the yeere 606. is little to the purpose. For it is not an oath of obedience and allegeance to the Pope, but of faith and religion towards God, conformable to the faith and religion then professed by the Bishop, and Church of Rome. For it is the oath of a certaine Bishop who sweareth to renounce his former heresies, and to professe and maintaine that faith and religion, which then the Bishop and Church of Rome did professe: which oath in effect is no otherwise to be vndestood, then if a minister among vsus, being reclaimed from Popery or some other heresie, should take an oath before a Bishop, that whiles he liueth, he will professe and maintaine that religion which is now professed and established in the Church of England, and other reformed Churches; which is not to sweare allegeance to them, but the like allegeance with them vntounto Christ.
9. Fourthly, the annointing of Priests, we confesse to be as ancient as the Priesthood of Aaron, from whence they professe 4. Vnctio sacerdotalis.they hauehave receiued this Iewish ceremony; which together with the sacrifices, Priesthood and ceremonies of the law, are abrogated by the sacrifice & death of our Sauior Christ. And why then do they not as well retaine circumcision, the sacrifices of Buls and Goats, & other ceremonies of the Leuiticall Priesthood, that they might more plainely shew themselues, whiles they seeke to be the Apes of the Iewes, to be as indeede they are, according to the censure of Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians, Apostates from Christ. But as their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian, wherby the Leuitical priesthood and many Iewish ceremonies are retained, as though Christ had not put an end to them: whereby Christ is denyed to be our onelyonly Priest: whereby Christ himselfe (as they say) is daily offered, to the disgrace of his owne sacrifice, as though that once performed had not beene sufficient: to the ouerthrow of his humaine nature, which they hold to be in many places at once inuisible and incircumscriptible, without quantity and dimension, and consequently no body; to the disparagement of his diuine excellencie, whiles eueryevery shaueling Priest taketh vponupon him by breathing out a few words after a magical maner to create his maker, and when he hath done to offer him as a sacrifice to the father, eueryevery sacrifice being inferiour to the sacrificer: to the deifying of a piece of bread consecrated to most sacrilegious Idolatry: as I say, their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian, so their vnction, whetherof Bishops on the head, or of Priests on the hand, vndoubtedly belongeth to the marke of Antichrist. And although they were able to shew some practise hereof in the Church before the yeere 606. yet this hindreth not, but that this Priestly Vnction may belong to the marke, because as I said, some corruptions were before the reuelation of Antichrist crept into the Church, which by him were to be retained with increase and maintained, as also because this ceremony is vsed not by authority of their example, but as receiued from Moses by the authority of the ceremoniall law, as though it were not abrogated by Christ, and as imposed vponupon the Church by the law of the Pope: And lastly because it is a ceremony belonging to such a sacrificing Priesthood, as was not known in the primitiue Church. But as I suppose they are not able to produce any sufficient testimony or authenticke proofe to declare the vse of this ceremony in the primitiue Church, which some of them impute to the rudenes, and vnsetled estate of that time. For whereas he alledgeth two testimonies of Nazianzene, both places are to be vnderstood …ighius.figuratiuely, of consecration to the ministerie. For as appeareth De sacra vnctione C. cum venisset.by the testimony of Innocentius 3. this ceremony of annointing was not vsed in the Greeke Church, whereof Nazianzene was, but reiected as Iewish, vntill he imposed the same vponupon them, about the yeere 1200.
10. As touching the fift: Sacrifices of praise we offered for 5. Missa pro defunelis.those that dyed in the Lord; but no propitiatory sacrifices, such as their masses be, were offered for them. The oblations for the dead, whereof Augustine speaketh, prooue not that masse, Lib. de hares. C. 53. See D. Fu…ke. in Apoc. 14. 13. s. 5. contra. Rhem.were vsed as propitiatory sacrifices for the quicke and the dead. Vnlesse therefore he can prooue that they had before the yeere 607. masses as superstitious and Idolatrous as since: the frequenting of Masses may now belong to the marke of the beast, which before did not.
11. Adoration of images and of the Eucharist, may most fitly be said to belong to the marke of the beast. For those 6. Adoratio imaginum et Eucharistiae.that are made drunke with the cup of the whore of Babylons fornications, that is, which are besotted with the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, are the same with those that receiue the marke of the beast: But the adoration of Images and of the Eucharist, is notorious Idolatry or spirituall fornication; and therefore those that are besotted with these Idolatries hauehave receiued the marke of the beast. And as touching the worshipping of Images, it is most plainely forbidden and condemned in the Scriptures, and Councels, and writings of the fathers, who liued in the first 600. yeeres. The Wine of this fornication, wherewith all sortes hauehave beene made drunke, was first set abroach to the world in the second Councell of Nice, about the yeere 789. For further proofe whereof read B. Iewell in his 14. article against M. Harding. And the like may be said of the adoration of the Eucharist, which is a consequent of the eleuation of the sacrament and transubstantiation, neither of which were vsed or heard of in the first 600. yeeres, as the same Iewell prooueth Artic. 75. 10. And Artic. 8. he sheweth that the adoration of the sacrament cānot be warranted by any commandement of Christ, nor by any word or example of th'apostles or ancient fathers, but that it is a thing lately deuised by Pope Honorius about the yeere 1226. But let vsus weigh his proofes. That Images were worshipped he prooueth by the testimony of Ierome, who in the life of Paula, speaking of her zeale and deuotion in visiting those places, where our Lord Iesus had beene conuersant; he sheweth how at length she commeth to the sepulcher and kisseth the stone, which the Angell had rouled away frō the mouth of the sepulcher, and licked the place where Christs body lay: and seeing that very Crosse (as was supposed) whereon Christ was crucified, Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat, Falling downe before the crosse she worshipped the Lord, as if she had now seene him hanging on the Crosse. I answere that this practise was not common, but peculiar to her; and to her not vsuall, but onelyonly at that time, and in that place: neither did she worship the Crosse (as the Papists doe the images of that Crosse, cult… latriae with diuine worship) but seeing the Crosse whereon Christ was crucified, and being rauished with the memory of his death, she falling before that Crosse, worshipped Christ. Now that the adoration of the Eucharist was also in vse before the yeere 606. he prooueth by the testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine. Ambrose his words are these, Itaque per scabellam terra intelligatur, per terram caro Lib. 3. de spiritu S. chap. 12.Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysterijs adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu, vt supra diximus, adorarunt. Therefore by the footestoole let vsus vnderstand the earth, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in the Lord Iesus, as we said before. But it is one thing to adore and honour Christ in his sacraments, as the ancient Christians and we doe: and another thing to adore the sacrament, as if it were Christ himselfe, as the Papists doe, deifiyng a piece of bread, and adoring it with such a worship as indeed belongeth not (I say not to the man Christ, but) to the humanity of Christ, whereof alone and not of the deity the bread is a sacrament: For the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ crucified, and the wine of his blould-shed. But if Bellarmine would hauehave read but fiue or sixe lines further, he should hauehave sound a better testimony against their adoration of Saints and images, then this was for the adoration of the sacrament. For Ambrose proouing that the holy Ghost was to be adored, because he is adored that according to the flesh was borne of the holy Ghost: Ac ne quis h…c deriuet (saith he) ad Mariam virginem: Maria erat templum dei, non deus templi, et ideo solus ille adorandus qui operabatur in templo: And least any should deriue this to the virgine Mary: Mary was the Temple of God, not God of the Temple; and therefore he alone is to be adored who did worke in the Temple. Augustine vnderstanding In Psal. 98.by the footestoole mentioned Psalme. 99. 5. the flesh of Christ saith, Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit. Nemo autem …arnem illam manducat nisi p…us adorauerit: He gaue his flesh it selfe to be eaten of vsus to saluation, but no man eateth that flesh vnlesse he first hauehave adored it. Where Augustine speaketh no more of the sacrament or of the bodily eating of the flesh, then Christ himselfe doth Iohn 6. & therfore this allegation is impertinent; or if it were not, yet is it one thing to adore the flesh of Christ, and another thing to adore a piece of bread, which by the testimony of Christ Iohn 6. and of Augustine, is prooued not to be turned into the body of Christ, because both doe signifie, that the wicked doe not eate the body of Christ. To conclude therefore, whereas Bellarmine argueth thus, These things were vsed before the yeere 606. therfore they belong not to the marke of the beast: the summe of my answere is this, that they were not vsed in the first 600. yeers: and againe, if they had bene vsed then, yet they may belong to the marke of the beast now, for the reasons before alledged.