A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 10
Ghapt. 10. Of Antichrists proper name.
THE fourth cheif point comprehendeth two diſputations; one of Antichriſts proper name; another of his mark. His proper name, by all mens joint conſent, is gathered from that number chap. 13.18. And his number is 666. And this we have shewed in handling that place to be no other than Latinos, it being plainly confirmed by uſe, and the agreement of al things. And ſurely Irenaeus manie ages agoe, (whither led by conjecture, or that he had ſo received from others, the auditors perhaps of the Apoſtles,) wrote that it was verie like to be this name. His words hereof are theſe; But the name Latinos alſo hath the number of 666. and it is very likely, becauſe the moſt true Kingdome hath this title. For the Latines are they that now reign, but of this we wil not boaſt. Thus writeth he. I confeſſe Irenaeus reſteth not in this name, but ſuppoſeth Titan to be more worthy of credit: yet his conjecture of the Latin Kingdome, came neerer the mark thā he weened. And becauſe you feel your ſelfe preſſed with his authoritie as with a great preiudice; you thought it beſt firſt to weaken that; and therfore his coniecture, you ſay, is at this day nothing, becauſe the Latines doo not ſo much reign, as the Turks, Spaniards, Frenchmen. I anſwer, this your inſtance is altogither nothing. For it is not needful that the Kingdome of which Antichriſt should ſpring, should alwayes be moſt mightie: but it is ynough if it have been ſo ſome long time; as the Latine was after Irenaeus for many ages. Antichriſts Kingdome shalbe weakned by litle and litle, before the abſolute and laſt waſting, until at length it be utterly ruinate. Wee have heard that Jezabel ſhould be caſt into a bed of languiſhment, chap. 2.22. And have yow not read afterwards that Babylon is fallen, is fallen: chap. 14.8. That the worſhipers of the Beaſt were made botchie; his throne darkned, that Antichriſt him ſelfe with his, ſhould gnaw their tongues for rage: chap. 16.2.10. Finall, that the Kings ſhould forſake the whore, make her naked, eat her fleſh, and at laſt burn her with fyre, chap. 17.16. Have you not, I ſay, read theſe things; and doo you require notwithſtanding that Antichriſts Kingdom should flouriſh unto the laſt moment of time, even as it did in former ages? Certainlie you take for defenſe, that which moſt of al killeth your cauſe. For unleſſe the Roman Kingdome were fallen at laſt from the higheſt top unto this ſo low a ſtep, it ſhould not be Antichriſtian.
Secondly you obiect, that Latinos, for to ſignifie the Roman, is not written by a diphtong ei, but by ſimple i, & then it makes not that number. I anſwer: Irenaeꝰ doubtleſſe knew the orthographie of the word, as wel as Bellarmine. He would never hav ſaid it was very likely, if ſo be the iuſt writing of it had diſagreed frō the iuſt accoūt. And he that ſo exactly warneth of the name Teitā ſaying that the firſt ſyllable is writtē by the 2 greek vowels e & i: could he not ſee what Latinos needed for the true orthographie? And wheras Latinos is at this day writtē by ſingle i? you need not, I trow, betaught that lōg i amōg the Romās was wōt to be pronoūced lik the diphtōg ei, & had litle e included. So Cic. wrote Bini in latine, for the greek binei, lib. 9. Epiſt. unto Papyrius Paet., in the Ep. which beginneth thus, amo verecūdiā. And we at this day both pronounce and write Celeberrimi, Vis, primus, Captiv.: which yet are found in ancient Inſcriptions, Celeberrimei, Ʋeis, preimus, Cap…vi. Although therfore we now write Latinos, yet is it not to be doubted but of old it was written by a diphtong, as Irenaeus hath it without anie ſtammering. So the ancient Greeks doo indifferently expreſſe the Hebrues great Chirik or I, ſometime by ſingle i, ſometime by ei: wherupō in th…t complaint of Chriſt Eli, Eli, &c. ſome write it Elei, Elei, as Iohn Druſius hath obſerved. This therfor which yow object about the writing, is leight, and of no moment al al.
Thirdly, you ſay, Antichriſts name ſhould be proper unto him, and moſt uſual: for it muſt be ſhewed for a ſign of al that buy or ſell And no Pope was ever caled by this proper name Latinus, neither doo they commonly cal themſelves Latines, but onelyonly Biſhops or Popes. I anſwer, Experience in deede dooth very wel ſatiſfy this argument. But, ſay you, Latinos is not the proper name of any Pope. Wel then, let ſome Frenchman or Spaniard, or German, or any other, take to himſelfe the name and authoritie, eyther of the Latine Pope, or Latine Bishop, or Latine Patriarche; (for Latine is not a nown ſubſtantive, as they ſay, but an adiective, to which ſome thing muſt needs be ioyned;) the Bishop of Rome, I trow, wil be nothing angrie, who looſeth nothing by a common name. Or rather wil not the Antipapal warr be renewed: the Romā curſing the mā with al execrations, who shal challenge that which properly perteineth unto his ſeate? So farre therfore is it, that this name is not proper to anie Pope, as it is proper to al, for the time they hold the chaire: ſeing Antichriſt is a ſucceſsion of Bishops, not a ſingular perſon, as is shewed before. Neyther are Forenames & Surnames onelyonly proper; but whatſoever noteth out a thing plainly, diſtinctly, certainly, and truly, is to be counted a proper name. Vnleſſe perhaps you onelyonly can not tell who is the Greek or Syrian or Aegyptian Patriarch, becauſe none was ever caled by theſe proper names? Againe, the ſame uſe may teach, how this name is shewed of al for a ſign. For let ther be ſome one of us, with yow Papiſts, and let him openly declare himſelfe to be an enemie of the Latine name, religion, Empire; shal he ſel anie thing among you, unleſſe it be his head? Or shal he buy anie other thing then a ſure gibbet? The Greeks are for a proof, of how great moment this name is; which could receive no comfort from theſe of the weſt, before they acknowledged this name, and ſubjected themſelves to the Latine Pope: as we shewed before, chap. 13.
Fourthly, you ſay, there are innumerable names which make this number. I anſwer, this name is not onelie to be iudged by the number, but alſo by al properties ioyned togither, which the Spirit hath fixed as railes, to deſcribe the greatnes of it. For ther muſt be ſuch a number of 666, as ſhould make a numerable and famous name, at that time whē this Propheſie was given to Iohn: which notwithſtanding for the Churches good was not then openly to be divulged, leaſt it should procure unneceſſarie peril: and finally, by which men which take the marke therof, are received unto mutual traffique. That this is the true and natural deſcription of this name, we have learned from Apoc. 13.18. as upon that place we shewed: & now if al theſe properties doo agree to innumerable or manie names, let them be al of like account. But ſeing neither Teitan, nor Arnoumai, nor Lampetes or other of like ſort; nor Martin Luther, nor Luther, nor Dabhidh Cithraiu David Chitraeus, nor Saxoneios, or anie other like fiction can be fitly applyed unto that purpoſe: needs muſt Latinos, not onelyonly for the convenience of the number, but for the agreement alſo of al the properties, be counted the onelyonly and true name of Antichriſt.
The laſt refuge and inſoluble argumēt is, that men doo yet ſtrive with great controverſie about this name: for if, ſay you, Antiehriſt were come, and the Biſhop of Rome were he: his name would be certainly known: for al Propheſies whē they are fulfilled, are made moſt certayn. Chriſts name noted of Siby lla by the number 888. was hidd from al, before his coming: but after he was come, al controverſie was taken away, and al men plainly know that he is caled Jeſus. I anſwer, that is falſe which you ſimply & abſolutely doo avouch of the clearnes of Propheſies after they be fulfilled. The Propheſies in deed are clear, when they have their event, but unto them whom they concern, and whoſe eyes God openeth: as for the unbeleevers and the other wicked multitude, they continue darke and obſcure unto them, no leſſe when they are fulfilled, than before. For why doo the Iewes deney Chriſt to be yet come, when ſo many ages ſithens, the thing hath been performed? Why did they not acknowledge Elias in the perſon of the Baptiſt: whē as that of Malachie, pointed at him evidently with the finger? Ther is no doubt, but that abomination of deſolation which Daniel foretold, and Chriſt biddeth ſo diligently to be conſidered: was fulfilled in the deſtruction of Ieruſalem. But doo all even Chriſtians agree, what this abomination was? As for Sibyll, her Acroſtik verſes might have taught, what this name should be. Yet the Iewes doo neither beleev Sibyll, neither wil they have the name Ieſus fitlie to agree unto that number. They ſtrive about the orthographie, (as you erewhile did for yours;) they take away the laſt letter, writing the name unperfect and maymed Jeſſu: or if they grant the letter Ain should be joyned therto, yet they ask by what reaſō the Greek Sigma is put in the place therof; ſeing otherwhere it is wont to be expreſſed by A or by N. Doo you ſee then how vayn & frivolous this argumēt is? Doo you, for to prov that Antichriſt is not yet come, afford help to the Iewes; that withal you may evince, that Chriſt is not come neither? But it ſuteth wel, that Chriſt should be oppugned, & Antichriſt defended, with the ſame arguments. You cannot, Bellarmine, whiles you ar environned with the thick ſmoke of the pit, behold with pure eyes the Angel of the bottomleſſe pit. You muſt goe forth into the wildernes with Iohn, from out of the vapour of the infernal cave: & then wil al things appear unto you clearly.