his image.

and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."* Can any one from this passage reasonably infer, that the beast under his last head is the same as his image, and that both are the same as the head of the second beast or the false prophet? It is worthy of notice, that, although St. John here makes joint mention of the two beasts and the image, he only states, that these both (in the original it is these two) were cast into the lake of fire. Hence we may infer, both that the image was not cast into the fiery lake; and that the two beasts are really two distinct beasts, not two (as the scheme of Bp. Newton necessarily supposes) subsisting under common a head. Let us then only adopt the mode of interpretation which I have been endeavouring to establish, and we shall immediately perceive the exact propriety of the language here used by the prophet. The secular beast under his last or patricio-imperial head (whatever family may be the representative of this head at that time), the great supporter of the abominations of Popery and the cruel persecutor of the saints; and the ecclesiastical beast under his spiritual head the Pope, the deceiver of the whole earth and the diabolical promoter of the first beast's persecutions: these two main enemies of the Messiah are taken in open rebellion against his authority, and cast into the lake of fire. But the image, which was a mere senseless tool of monastic imposture, and therefore incapable of punishment, is neither said to be engaged in this rebellion, nor to incur the divine vengeance, like its contrivers and worshippers.†

*Rev. xix. 20.

Mr. Whitaker's sentiments respecting the image of the beast are nearly the same as those of Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton. He supposes the image to mean the Papal authority and empire actually established over the world by the instrumentality of the mo nastic orders. Every objection, that has been made to the scheme of Mr. Mede and the Bishop, applies with equal force to that of Mr. Whitaker. Sir Isaac Newton thinks that the making an image to the beast means only the assembling a body of men, er the calling a council of men, like the beast in point of religion. This opinion seems to me to accord very ill with the simple language of St. John. I cannot but think indeed, that the whole of Sir Isaac's explanation of this prophecy is radically erroneous. His idea, that the second apocalyptic beast is the Greek church entirely violates the order

There have been other opinions respecting the image besides this of Bp. Newton. Some have supposed it to be the Carlovingian empire, the express image of the old Roman empire. But the Carlovingian empire is the Roman empire under its last head, and therefore cannot be the image, which is represented as something quite distinct from the beast. Moreover the making an image to or for the beast cannot mean the making a representation of him. Others again have fancied, that the image is the inquisition. This opinion however is as little tenable as the former. The inquisition is neither a graven image, if the passage be interpreted in this sense, as I think it must; nor will it be an easy matter to discover any resemblance between that iniquitous court and the Roman · Cesars, if the passage be interpreted in the manner proposed by Bp. Newton.* In short, every exposition of the prophecy relative to the image, excepting that which I have here adopted from Dr. Zouch, appears to me to be clogged with far too many difficulties to be admissible.

8. He caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the (secular) beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is 666-We have found, that in every particular hitherto considered the character of the second apocalyptic beast perfectly accords with that of the catholic church of Rome, the spiritual empire regular and secular, of which the Pope is the head. Two points yet remain to be investigated: I mean the peculiar name and the peculiar mark of the first beast, which the second beast required the whole Roman world to bear as a badge of ecclesiastical communion.

In order that this enquiry may be satisfactorily prosecuted, the sound rule, which I have hitherto endeavoured to observe, must in the present case also be steadily attended to. No name, though it may possibly compre

and regularity of the prediction: for the little book treats entirely of the affairs of the West. See Observ, on the Apocalypse, Chap. 3. and Addenda to Observ.

*See Bp. Newton's Dissert. on Rev. xiii.

hend the number 666, can be the name of the beast, unless it equally answers in all other particulars, to the prophetic description of that name.

From the description itself we learn, that four things must concur in the mysterious name of which we are in quest 1. it must be the name of the Empire symbolized by the ten-horned beast; 2. it must be the name of some individual man;* 3. it must be a name, borne, along with some superstitious badge or mark, by every member of the beast, as a test of spiritual communion with his colleague the second beast, and under pain of a severe ecclesiastical interdict; 4. and it must be a name, which comprehends in its numerical letters the precise sum of 666.

Various names have been pitched upon as this name of the beast; but, before we adopt any of them, we must enquire whether they will accurately correspond with St. John's description of it. Two of the papal titles, Vicarius Filii Dei, and Vicarius Dei generalis in terris, have each been found to comprehend the number 666: but yet neither of them can be the name intended by the Apostle; because neither of them is the name of the temporal beast, neither of them is the proper name of a man, and neither of them can obviously be borne by each individual Papist. The Hebrew word Romith, or the Roman beast, has likewise been found to contain the same number 666 :† but yet this can as little be the apocalyptic name of the beast as either of the others; for, although every Papist delights to term himself a Roman-catholic, yet Romüth is certainly not the name of any man.‡

Bp. Newton supposes the number of a man to mean nothing more than a method of numbering practised among men. I prefer the interpretation here adopted, both as being the most obvious meaning of the expression, and as suiting better to the designed obscurity of an enigma. Since the number of the beast is the number of the name of the beast, it seems most natural to conclude, that the number of a man is the number of the name of a man: and, since these two numbers are the same, the two names which contain them, that of the beast and that of the man, must be the same likewise.

Mr. Lowman supposes, that the number 606 is the numer of years to be computed from the time when St. John saw this vision to the complete establishment of

I conceive then, that the apostle designed to intimate in this confessedly difficult passage, that we should seek out some name, which should at once be the name of an empire, the name of its supposed founder, and the name of every individual in that empire. This identity of appellation is very frequently found to occur, particularly in the early ages of the world: thus Ashur is equally the name of Assyria, of the father of the Assyrians, and of every individual Assyrian; thus also Misraim is equally the name of Egypt, of the father of the Egyptians, and of every individual Egyptian; and thus, to descend to modern times, Ottoman or Othman is equally the name of the Turkish empire, of its founder, and of every individual Turk. Now, had the prophet said nothing more than this respecting the name of the beast, we might for ever have wearied ourselves with endeavoring to discover it; because numerous indeed are the names, which, like

the Papacy as a temporal power about the year 756, at which time he conceives it to have become the beast of the sea under his last head. Respecting this opinion it will be sufficient to observe, that, even if the Papacy were the beast of the sea which to me seems utterly impossible, it would still be altogether irreconcileable with the plain language of the prophecy. None were either to buy or sell but those that bore the name of the beast, and together with it the number of bis name; a number moreover, that is the number of a man. How is all this fulfilled, if 666 be merely a term of years? How can a term of years be the number of the beast's name? How can it be shewn, that none were allowed to buy or sell except those that bore this term of years as included in the name of the beast?

There is a most curious treatise by Mr. Potter on the number 666; in which he goes on the principle of extracting the square root, and of applying it when so extracted to a wonderful variety of matters connected with Popery. He supposes indeed the ten-horned beast to be the Papacy; but his system, if it be tenable, will apply with nearly equal force to the secular papal Roman empire. I can promise the reader entertainment of a very singular nature from this work; though, like myself, he may possibly rise from the perusal of it unconvinced. It is one of the most ingenious productions that I ever met with; but it strikes me nevertheless as being too elaborate and far-fetched, independent of various objections that might be urged against it. I think it right to mention, that Mr. Potter will not allow the number to be the number of a name, and that he thence denies the propriety of discovering it by numerical letters in the name Latinus or in other similar names. In this point he is certainly mistaken; for St. John most unequivocally declares, that the number of the beast is "the number of his name." (Ver. 17.) Mr. Mede bestows a very high and a very well deserved encomium on this work of Mr. Potter.

The modes in which the Romanists have computed this number, are sufficiently whimsical. Feuardentius discovers it in the word Moametis, for so he thinks proper to spell the name of Mohammed. He likewise finds it in Martin Lauter, which he says was the original way of spelling Luther's name. (Lowman's Paraph. in loc.) This last idea is considerably enlarged by Lindanus and Bellarmine. Martin Lauter produces the number in Saxon; David Chitraus and Beza antitheus, in Greek; and John Calvin, in Hebrew. (Cornel. a Lap. Comment. in Apoc. in loc.) They refrain however very judiciously from specifying the seven beads and ten horns either of Mohammed, Luther, Chitraus, Beza, or Calvin.

Ashur, Mizraim, and Ottoman, bear triple significations: hence he informs us, that the name, to which he alludes, should not only bear this triple signification, but should likewise contain in its numerical letters the precise sum of 666.

Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, who lived not very long after St. John himself, has been much more happy in pitching upon the name of the beast, than in assigning the proper reasons why that particular appellative ought to be pitched upon in preference to all others. "The name Lateinos," says he, " contains the number 666;" "and it is very likely that this may be the name, because the last kingdom is so called, for they are Latins who now reign but in this we will not glory.' Bp. Newton has adopted the opinion of Ireneus, which I believe to be perfectly just; yet, what is something remarkable, neither has he assigned the real cause, why Latinus, or, according to its ancient orthography both Latin and Greek, Lateinos is the very name of the beast intended by the Apostle. I shall endeavour therefore, agreeably to the deductions made from the apocalyptic description of it, to point out why Latinus, and Latinus alone, is the name of which we are in quest.

The ten-horned beast, whose name is declared to contain the number 666, is certainly the temporal Roman empire. Of this Empire the second founder indeed was Romulus; but its first real or fictitious founder was Latinus, the ancient king of Latium. Latinus therefore is the name of a man. It is likewise the peculiar name of the Western or divided Roman empire, and the distinguishing appellation of every individual in that Empire. Here it is observable, that the Gentile name of Latinus or a Latin was, in the victorious days of the republic and empire, almost lost in the more favourite gentile name of Romanus or a Roman. Preserved however it carefully was, though not so frequently used as the other; inso

*Iren. Lib. 5. Cap. 30. p. 449. cited by Bp. Newton.