The Name Mark and Number of the Beast, Chapter 5 · Part 42

The Name Mark and Number of the Beast · Chapter 5 · Part 42

p. 93Answer.

I can see no Reason but the Fourth Beast with Ten … in the Prophecie of Daniel, is one and the same in substance with the Ten-Horned Beast in the Revelation. They are …et out by one and the same Character, with the same circumstances, and both Prophecies do pitch upon one and the same Roman Kingdom. And what Mr Hayne doth Alledge to … contrary, in my Apprehension is not of such great moment. For, what if it happeneth many times, That the … mystical terms in the Revelation, having reference to … in the Old Testament, express some New matter … the Old, yet not the same with the Old? What if this be true in many particulars, as in those aforenamed? yet it d…th not follow, That it is true in every particular. We can shew many Instances to the contrary, That the same truth is literally and historically mentioned in both Prophecies. First, The Kingdom of Christ is described to be an everlasting Kingdom that shall not pass away, Dan. 2. And is not this one and the same Numerical Kingdom with that which is mentioned in the Book of the Revelation, concerning the Dominion of Christ, that he is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Lord Almighty? Secondly, Mu…h is spoken i… the Old Prophets concerning the future Glory of the Church of the Jews, that shall be at the Call of that Nation; and are not the same things Numerically and in terms repeated by Paul in Romans 11, and by Iohn in the Revelation?

But now let us come more particularly to enquire concerning the Ten-Horned Beast, whether he be one and the same in both Prophecies: for if Mr Hayne, or other Interpreters of his way, can make it appear, That this Beast is the Seleucian Kingdom, and the Ten Horns are the Ten Kings in a lineal Succession, we will willingly yield the truth of that which he Affirms. But on the contrary, if we can make it appear, and that by true Demonstration, That the Roman is the Fourth Kingdom; then we may conclude, That one Kingdom is p. 94Identically, Literally, and Historically spoken of in both prophecies▪ and that Iohn doth but more fully declare those things which were more fully decyphered in the prophecie of Daniel. This is that which we shoot at, to make it appear that both Daniel and Iohn do describe one and the same time of the Roman Kingdom, under the Type of a Beast with Ten Horns. This being once explained, the Doctrine of the Number 666, and other Apocalyptical Mysteries, will begin to be made clear. But seeing that Dr Willet in his Commentary upon Daniel, and in his Appendix against Grasserus, is somthing more copious in this matter, we will therefore more diligently enquire, Whether the Fourth Beast in Daniel be the Seleucian or the Roman Kingdom? The Queries are of Three sorts: The First, From the Nature of the Fourth Beast; The Second, From the Ten Horns; The Third, From the description of the little Horn.

The Queries, from the Nature of the Fourth Beast, are these:

Querie 1. How can the Seleucidae be the Fourth Kingdom upon the Earth under the Type of the Fourth Beast, seeing they are one of the Four Heads of the Third Beast going before? chap. 7. vers. 6. chap. 8. vers. 8, 22. If they make one of the Four Heads with the rest of the Successors of Alexander, they cannot be the Fourth Kingdom. The Fourth Beast must necessarily be the Roman, seeing the Third with Four Heads is the Graecian going before. But Dr Willet thus replieth:

Alexander's Four Captains were at the first Regents under him, and his Successor Aridaeus; but they became the Fourth Beast, when they erected the Kingdom to themselves.

If we put Alexander and his Successors together, we can give a cleer Reason why the Third Beast may be said to have Four Heads, because in the times of the Monarchy of the People of Greece, that Nation became divided into Four Kingdoms; as appeareth Dan. 8. 8, 22. But if we take Alexander and his Successor Aridaeus asunder from the Four Successors, I cannot see possibly how the Kingdom of Alexander p. 95in that abstract consideration may be said to have Four Heads, or that it may be decyphered properly by such a character. The Four Heads do signifie the Four Divisions of the Greek Monarchy; and can this be a Character of Alexander's Kingdom, which in it self considered had no Heads, Parts, or Divisions at all? The Scriptures speak plainly, That the Graecian was one intire Kingdom in him; and after his eradication, the Dominion began to be divided into Four parts. Therefore his Successors, quatenus Heads, had no being at all in all the times of his Dominion: Much less could they be the Characters of his Kingdom, at whose only extirpation they were to begin as Heads of the Graecian State. Besides, it would be a great work, to prove out of the Stories, That the Kingdom of Alexander was Governed by Four principal Regents in his time. And further, If it could be made appear, still this would be a great Question, Whether in the Description of the Monarchies, the Scripture would look to such inferiour Administrations? Darius the King set over the Mede-Persian Kingdom 120 Princes, Dan. 6. 1, 2, 3. and yet we do not reade that this Number of Regents is set forth as the special Character of that Monarchy. We have a clear Reason in the Scriptures wherefore the Graecian State is figured by the Type of Four Heads, scil. in relation to the quadri-partite Division of Alexander's Kingdom… after his death. Therefore the Notion of the Four Regents of Alexander, during his life time, I take rather to be an evasion, than a just Truth grounded upon the Prophecie, or the civil Stories.

Querie 2. How can the Kingdom of the Seleucidae be the Fourth Kingdom upon the Earth, that shall be different from the former, and shall devour the whole Earth, and tread it down, and break it in pieces? chap. 7. vers. 23. How can this be applied to them? The Seleucidae were far inferiour to the Kingdom of Alexander. Four Kings or Kingdoms did arise out of him, but not foreign—in his Strength, chap. 8. vers. 22. Further, The Seleucians were far inferiour to the former Monarchies of Babel and Persia, in greatness of Power, and largeness of Dominion. On the contrary, If we apply the Fourth p. 96Beast to the Roman, all the properties of that Beast will be verified i… him. First, The admirable condition of the Fourth Beast above the former. Secondly, His multi-form, and various shape. Thirdly, The greatness of terrour. Fourthly, The highest degree of strength. Fifthly, His Iron-Teeth and Brazen-Nayles. Sixthly, His Actions to devour, and to break in pieces. Seventhly, The object of his Victory, to subdue the whole Earth. Eighthly, The time of the continuance. And so the Earth hath longer continued under the Dominion of the Romans, than under any, nay, under a…l the Metal-Kingdoms. All these properties agree to the Roman; and I cannot possibly see how they may be applicable to the Seleucian Kingdom.

But Dr Willet replieth, That the Kingdom of the Seleucidae make the Fourth Beast, not so much in respect of greater strength, as in respect of greater cruelty and hardness of disposition against the People of God, the Iews. And therefore when it is said of this Kingdom, That it did devour the whole Earth; this is not simply the whole Earth, but the whole Earth about the Confines of the Iewish Church.

If we should grant this Principle of cruel Disposition against the People of the Jews, this would strongly prove the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom. For the Jews suffered much from the Babylonians, much from the Persians, more from the Graecians, yet most of all from the Romans: They were under the Roman Tyranny for the space of 130 years together; and then last of all, the Nation and Church was destroyed by their means. The Sufferings of the Jews under Antiochus were great, but they were not to be compared with the last and fatal destruction of Ierusalem. Our Saviour himself doth testifie as much, when he speaketh concerning the great calamity that should come by the Romans, Luk. 21. vers. 20, 21, 22, 23. And this also is well observed by a certain nameless Writer, in a Tract concerning Antichrist and the Four Monarchies. For, (saith he) Quamvis Antiochus graviter afflixit Iu…aeos, tamen ea afflictio ad tempus tantum duravit, & cum illa … quae a Romanis facta est nequaquam conferenda. p. 97Therefore, if the greatest degree of Cruelty against the People of the Jews doth give denomination to the Fourth Beast, the greatest Sufferings of the Jews have been under the Romans.

Secondly, In the case of the Monarchies, in the Chaldee Visions I see no reason why the Jews should be called, The only People of God. In Dan. 2. there is mention made of the beginning of the Kingdom of Christ, and how that Kingdom should break the Metal-Kingdoms. Now is this verified in the Nation of the Jews? Do they only make the Kingdom of Christ? Or have they been only used as Instruments to the Dissolution of the Fourth Kingdom? Again, It is mentioned, That the little Horn did wear out the Saints of the most High, till the Saints took the Kingdom: Now, what warrant is there to take them only for the Saints of the Jewish Church? True indeed, in the Hebrew Visions there is some mention made of the People of God: but then commonly you shall see some circumstances in the text, to decypher the People of the Jews only. As for ensample: You shall read somthing spoken of the Tsebi, or the pleasant Land; of the daily Sacrifice; of the Sanctuary; of Daniel's People, and the like: But in the Chaldee Visions there is no such thing mentioned; which maketh me to think, That the Saints there mentioned, are of a more general Nature, and concern the People of God both Jews and Gentiles. Indeed it is often spoken concerning the Saints of the most High, That the little Horn did wear them out and consume them; and that at the time appointed they shall take the Kingdom. But yet it is not specified in Daniel, what these Saints are, Whether they be the Saints of the Jews, or the Gentiles, or both. Dr Willet seemeth to me to give a good Reason why they should be called, The Saints of the most High, scil. in reference to their most High Prince, the Lord Christ. The words of the text are fair for this Interpretation: And the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the People of the Saints. And then in the words immediately following, His Kingdom foreign is an everlasting Kingdom, and all Dominions p. 98shall obey him, vers. 27. The Kingdom is given to the Son of man, as to the Head; and by him it is communicated to his People and Subjects after their Sufferings. By all that hath been spoken, we may conclude, That the Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ, the Members of his Mystical Body, are the Objects of the Tyranny of the Fourth Beast.

Thirdly, The great Power and Cruelty of this Beast is not only against the Saints, but against all the former Metal-Kingdoms; for, as Iron it shall break them all in pieces, vers. 40. Therefore this Kingdom is said to be more Mighty than any going before, in respect of the exercise and imployment of strength upon the former Kingdoms, and not only in respect of the particular exercise of cruelty against the People of the Jews. If this be so, we cannot say, That the Seleucian was such: but to the Roman all things agree.

Fourthly, I do yield also, that this Expression is used specially for that part of the earth about the Confines of the Church of the Jews; yet it is not the whole meaning of the text. When the Lord gave Nebuchadnezzar (the Head of the Image) a Kingdom, Power, Strength, and Glory; And wheresoever the Children of men dwelt, he gave them all into his hands; we cannot say, That he made him Ruler over all in Iudea only, but he made him Ruler over all the Eastern Countries, far and near, round about the Confines of that Church and Nation. In like manner, when the Fourth Kingdom arose and brought the Earth into a more absolute subjection, we must not only confine this to the Countries of Iudea, but we must also expound the whole Earth by some Analogie to the former Metal-Kingdoms. According to this sense, when the Fourth Kingdom cometh to the times of its Monarchical Dominion, it will be the most potent Kingdom that ever was about the Confines of the Church, and it will bring the former Kingdoms into the greatest subjection. If you apply this to the Kingdom of the Seleucidae, there will be no correspondence at all; but to the Roman all things do agree. For that Kingdom was absolutely the most mighty, and the most powerful that ever was about the Church of the p. 99Jews. And, as the People of Rome had Iudea under their Obedience; so they had the greatest Empire about Iudea, from East to West, that ever was.

All these Reasons laid together, shew plainly, That the Fourth Beast is the Roman Kingdom; and so consequently the Ten-Horned Beast in Daniel and the Revelation is all one. It is not only one and the same in Analogie and similitude of Expression, but it is Literally and Historically one and the same. The Roman Kingdom is described in both Prophecies by the same Emblems and similitudes.

And thus much concerning the Queries of the Fourth Beast in the more general Nature thereof. We will now descend more particularly to the Ten Horns. And here we will shew that they cannot be the Ten Kings lineally succeeding in the Seleucian race; but they are so many inferiour Realms of the Roman Empire.

Querie 1. If the Ten Horns be Ten Seleucian Kings, there will be Eleven Horns in all: and how can Ten Horns be the Character of the Beast? If in the whole succession the Number of Kings be Eleven in all, the Beast is more properly called, Unde…em Cornupeta, the Beast with Eleven Horns. The words are plain: The ten Horns are ten Kings that shall arise, and another shall arise up after them, that shall be diverse from the first, vers. 24. Therefore if in the whole succession there be Eleven Kings; first Ten, and then another that came up after them; why is the Beast set forth by the special Character of Ten Horns? The little Horn must needs be the more cruel, and more eminent, according to the text: And yet by this rule, that which is more principal, shall be excluded from the denomination. But Doctor Willet hath this evasion; to wit, That the little Horn did not come up after the ten, but it came up as the last of them. And so Piscator rendreth the words: Et Cornua decem ex illo Regno, nempe decem Reges exsurgent, & postremus resurget post illos, & is diversus erit à prioribus. And in his Scholia upon the 8 verse, he thus speaketh: Vox Chaldaica foreign—quae versu sexto & septimo significat alium, hic valet ultimum seu postremum. Nam Antiochus Epiphanes, qui p. 100per Cornu illud figurabatur, fuit ultimus inter decem illos Reges qui hîc per decem Cornua figurantur. But let it be supposed that the Chaldee word may indefinitely be taken, yet it is to our purpose to consider what the scope of the text will admit. In the former verses, when the description of the Babylonian-Lyon was ended, it is there mentioned, I beheld foreign—another Beast like a Bear, not a latter Beast that came up out of the Sea. For the scope of the Spirit is to shew the rising of Four several Monarchies, each one diverse from other. So in the present case, after the description of the Ten Horns, the little Horn is said to be another that came up after them, to shew the notable diversity between it and the Horns that came up before. And so this is the meaning of the text, That another Horn, much differing from the former Ten in Nature and Condition, came up after them in order of time. Secondly, Suppose we should let this Translation pass, Postremum exsurget post illa, a latter shall arise after them: Here I ask, What, and who are they after whom the little Horn shall arise? Are they not the Ten Kings, signified by the Ten Horns? and is not then the litle Horn the Eleventh in the same succession? Mr Mede in his Apost. pag. 74. thinketh that the words do best run in this sense, Out of this Kingdom ten Kings shall arise, and another shall arise foreign behind them, as the 70 translate foreign. This plainly sheweth the rising of Ten Horns, and the little Horn rose behind them in the order of time. Thirdly, Let us go to the scope of the words going before; For Daniel would know the truth of the Fourth Beast, and of the Ten Horns, and of the little Horn that came up after them: And the Angel's Answer is sutable to the Question: The ten Horns are ten Kings that shall arise, and another shall arise up after them, and shall be diverse from the first, vers. 24. Now is not here a plain Antithesis, or Opposition betwixt the Ten Horns and the little Horn that came up after? Upon these grounds we may conclude, That there are Eleven Horns mentioned in the text. Now if these be Eleven Kings lineally succeeding, why is the Beast called and set forth by the Character of Ten Horns? Why is the p. 101most Tyrannical Prince left out of the Number? But on the contrary, If you take the Fourth Beast for the Roman Kingdom, and the Ten Horns for the Ten Kings that shall arise in a famous change of State, all things will agree: For though the little Horn be more Tyrannical than any of the Ten, yet it is not of that Edition of Horns from whence the Beast fetcheth his proper denomination. In the Goat of Graeciae, chap. 8. there are Six Horns in all. First, Alexander, the great Horn: Secondly, His Successors, Four notable Horns: And then Thirdly, Out of one of them Antiochus Epiphanes, a little Horn. Yet we do not say, That Six Horns, but Four Heads and Four Horns are the proper Characters of the Graecian Kingdom. For in a famous mutation of State, that Monarchy became Divided into Four Realms. So likewise, though the little Horn, scil. the Papacie, was more terrible than any of the Ten going before; yet the Ten Horns give the denomination to the Beast, because the Roman in a famous alteration of Government was par…ed into Ten inferiour Dominions. There is a delineation of the Roman by the same Character, in the Book of the Revelation, chap. 17. vers. 12. Now whereas Dr Willet maketh the Question, How ten Kings may arise out of one Kingdom at one time? I Answer, As well as Four Kings or Realms may arise out of one Graecian Kingdom at one time. The Four Horns are Four Kings or Kingdoms which shall stand up foreign out of that Nation, chap. 8. vers. 22. So the Ten Horns are Ten Kings that shall arise foreign—ex Regno, out of that Fourth or Roman Kingdom, chap. 7. vers. 24.

Querie 2. If the Ten Horns be Ten Kings in a lineal succession, and the little Horn is one in the same row or order, why doth the Spirit put such a difference between the one and the other? According to the text, there is a great distance between them: they were of a former Edition, this of a latter: They came up together, and were of the same kind; this after some pause or interval of time came up after them, was diverse from them, before whom Three of the former were plucked up by the roots. If you apply this to the row p. 102of Seleucian Kings, I cannot see how this can be true, either in the general, or in the particular accommodation. In the general it is not true; for the Seleucian Kings Reigning one after another, make but one Dynastie. For though some of the Kings were more mighty than others, and some more cruel against the Saints of the Jewish Church; yet all make but one succession of Kings in the same Kingdom. Now, if you look to the text, there is mention made of a double change or form of State: the first is when the Ten Kings arose; the second, when the little Horn arose up after them, which was diverse from them, and subdued three of the former Kings, and so became Great. The scope of this Scripture is concerning the Division of the Fourth Kingdom into Ten Regencies or Divisions at one time: and after some space of time, it sheweth how the little Horn arose and subdued three of the former Realms. We cannot see how this can be spoken so properly of Kings Reigning one after another in the same Policie or Government. Neither is it true in the particular Accommodation: for they that will have Antiochus Epiphanes to be the little Horn, they have not yet cleared the Point, First, How Antiochus Epiphanes was the tenth Seleucian King: Secondly, How he was more Potent than his Father Antiochus Magnus, or Seleuc… Nicanor: Thirdly, How he did pluck up three of the former Seleucian Kings by the roots: Fourthly, How he did wear out the Saints of the most High, till the Saints did take the Kingdom which should be for ever and ever. Fifthly, How he did continue his Dominion and Persecution so long till the Beast was destroyed, and his Body given to the burning fire. All these Particulars have not yet▪ been cleared in Antiochus Epiphanes. Somthing hath been spoken in the Commentaries, which I take rather to be Evasions, than just Answers. On the contrary, if you take the Roman for the Fourth Kingdom, all things will agree. For in a famous Revolution of Empire, that Monarchy became divided into ten inferiour Realms, as it is set forth by the rising of the Ten▪ Horned Beast our of the Sea, Rev. 13. 1. After this, another rose out of the Earth. This in Daniel is called p. 103the little Horn, which is the Emblem and Type of the Papal Government. Now to this last Edition of Roman State, all the aforementioned particulars do agree. First, it is evident, That this was more dreadful than any of the Horns going before. Secondly, That it did eradicate some of the former, to have elbow-room in Italy. Thirdly, That it did wear out the Saints a time, and times, and half a time. Fourthly, That the wearing out of the Saints was till the Body of the Beast was cast into the burning fire, and the Saints of the most High did begin to Reign with Christ, chap. 19. vers. 20. and chap. 20. vers. 4.

Querie 3. If the Ten Horns be Ten Kings, and the little Horn the last King, why is it said, I considered the Horns, and behold there came up amongst them another little Horn? vers. 8. If these be so many Kings in a lineal succession, how could the little Horn that came last of all, be said to come up, foreign—inter ea, among them, to have Being and Existence with them? We do willingly yield, That Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the Seleucian Kings, and reigned in the same row with Antiochus Magnus, and Antiochus Theos. Yet we cannot say that he came to reign with them; for when he began, they had no Being at all. This is true in all successions; when he that cometh after beginneth to Reign, then they that go before cease to be. But it is otherwise spoken of the little Horn, he came up among them, to wit, among the Ten Horns; he broke three of them in pieces; and for the residue, they had their Existence and Being together at one and the same time. You will say, That this is but a similitude, and similitudes are not to be pressed in every particular. I Answer, That Types and Similitudes used by the Holy Ghost, ought to be pressed so far as he intendeth. If therefore by ten Horns he did intend a lineal succession of Kings, why did he not keep the same method which he used to do in the description of such Successions? In the former verses he speaketh of the rising of Four Beasts out of the Sea; the first like a Lyon, the second like a Bear, the third like a Leopard, the fourth was diverse from the former. All these are said to come up p. 104out of the Sea one after another: by which it is clear, That there are so many successions of Monarchy. But when he cometh to describe the Ten Horns, there is nothing to prove such a subalternation, or succession of one Horn after another, but rather the contrary. The Ten Horns are Ten Kings that shall arise, and after them a little Horn shall arise; and so all shall exist together: But when the Babylonian-Lyon rose up out of the Sea, and after that the Persian-Bear, and Graecian-Pard; it is no where said, That these Beasts did arise up inter se invicem, and that they had an existence at one and the same time. For, this were to confound that order, succession, and subalternation of the Four Monarchies, which the holy Spirit intendeth.

But Dr Willet doth make this Reply: The Beast in the Revelation is called a Beast with seven Heads, which signifie so many forms of Government in a lineal Succession. So the Beast may be called a Beast with ten Horns, to wit, so many Kings succeeding one another.

Answer. If he could shew as good Reason wherefore the ten Horns are ten Kings in a lineal succession, as the seven Heads of the Beast are so many successive forms of Roman Government, we would yield up the Cause. For it is expresly said, There are Seven Kings, five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come, chap. 17. vers. 10. Now there is not the least iota, word, or apex in Dan. 7. to prove such a succession, but rather the contrary. To me therefore it is very strange, That the holy Spirit should depart from his usual method in Typical and Periodical Prophecies; that he should speak of ten Kings lineally succeeding, and yet leave no Character or Mark in the text to know the succession. I may say, It is not ordinary with him so to do. Now, take the ten Horns for the ten Kings of the Roman Empire, it is clear, That these had Existence with the Papacie, or little Horn. The Angel thus speaketh concerning the ten Horns, These have no Kingdom as yet, but receive a Kingdom one hour with the Beast, vers. 12. Both Scriptures plainly shew, That the ten Kings are of one and the same time, though in order of succession the little Horn came up after the ten.

p. 105Querie 4. If the ten Horns be ten Kings, and the little Horn be the tenth, why is it said, That only three of the former were plucked up by the roots? This implyeth, That there was no eradication of the residue of Horns, but they had some being with the little Horn. You will say, That only three were plucked up by the roots, because the little Horn did actually subdue and humble three, as the word foreign doth signifie. Well, be it so, still the Question is, which three of the former ten were they that the little Horn did eradicate? Dr Willet, and other Interpreters of his way, take it for a granted truth, That he did pluck up Three Kings that Reigned immediately before. But now do they prove this from the text? The words are without any restriction or limitation, He shall subdue three Kings, vers. 24. Before whom three of the first Horns were plucked up by the roots, ver. 8. Therefore to my understanding, when the Scripture saith, That the little Horn came up among the Ten, and did subdue Three only, this is to me an Argument, That the residue of Horns were not brought in subjection, but had an existence as Kings in the times of the little Horn. Secondly, It is said of the little Horn, that he shall be diverse from the first, and shall subdue three Kings. If you take the Three Kings for Three lineally Reigning, how could the taking away of such a Number of Kings make the little Horn more powerful than the former? In the corrupted State of the Ten Tribes, we read somtimes, That he that came after did take away the life of the Prince that went before; yet this was never judged as a cause of greater power and strength to come to the Kingdom by such Usurpation, 2 King. 9. 3. Hos. 1. 4. On the contrary, If you take the Ten Horns for Ten States or Realms into which the Fourth Monarchy became divided, here will be a clear Reason why the little Horn became unlike to any of the former, because he brought Three Kingdoms under his Dominion. We read that Alexander's Dominion was plucked up by the roots; and this was the cause of the greatness of the King of the South, and the King of the North, Dan. 11. 4, 5, 6. So in the present case, the eradication of Three States or p. 106Dynasties before the little Horn, is the cause of the greatness of his Dominion. Thirdly, Let us come to particulars: what Three Kings were they whom Antiochus did subdue? They say, Ptolomaeus Philopater the King of Egypt, Seleucus the Brother of Antiochus, and Demetrius. But it is mentioned D…n. 11. 21. that he shall come peaceably into the Province. Now what peaceable coming is this, when he shall begin with the extirpation of Three Kings? Again, how can Ptolomaeus Philopater be one of the Ten Kings of the Seleucian line? No Historian did ever reckon Ptolomaeus Philopater among the Seleucians. And for his over-running of Syria, this doth no more make him one of that Succession, than Tamerlains over-running the Turkish Empire doth make him one of the Ottoman line. Now on the contrary, let us take the little Horn in that sense as the text naturally requireth, all these difficulties will be avoided. The Beast with Ten Horns is the Roman, as divided into Ten lesser Kingdoms. The little Horn is the Papacie. Now to give elbow-room to this in Italy, Three of the Ten Kings, lately raised out of the Ruines of the Empire, were all plucked up by the roots. By the conquering of which Three, and by the voluntary resignation of the rest, the little Horn became more stout than his fellows, being made greater than they in a triple proportion.

Object. But you will say, Which are the three Kingdoms that the little Horn did subdue? and how do you prove the truth of this out of the Stories?

Sol. The First is, The Kingdom of the Goths in Italy. For the Bishops of Rome were under the Dominion of these Kings, they were sent as their Ambassadors, and lived under the fear of continual Persecution; and there was nothing in the Old Empire to keep back the Papal power in the growth and the increase thereof, but there was the same impediment from these Gothish Kings. Now it is clear in the Stories, That this Government was wholly extinguished by the valiant Narses, in the time of the Emperor Iustinian. And for the means to procure it, we may easily believe, That the Bishop of Rome had some hand in the extirpation of these Kings, that he might be freed from fear.

p. 107Secondly, After the Ruine of the Gothish Kings, the Exarchs of Ravenna had some Dominion in Italy. Now when the Controversie grew hot, between the Bishops of Rome and the Emperors of Constantinople, about the matter of Images (as Mornay well obser…eth in his History of the Papacie, Progress. 27.) the Popes then called in the Lombards against the Exarchs, to the ruine of both Estates. And for the Dukedom of Rome (for so we must now call it) the People of that City upon the Difference concerning Images in Churches, being engaged with the Popes in Rebellion, wholly shook off the yoke of the Emperor, and took an Oath to be subject to the Pope in all Points. And here (saith Baronius, An. 726) was an end of those Dukes and Governors which the Emperors were wont to send to Command in Rome, and the Places adjoyning. Sigonius also speaketh much to the same purpose, That the Dukedom of Rome was translated from the Graecians to the Pope of Rome, by reason of their wicked Heresie and Impiety. But that which he calls Heresie, is no other but Iconomachia, or a standing against Image-worship.

Thirdly, The Kingdom of the Lombards growing very Mi…hty, by the Conquests over the Exarchs; these also the Bishop of Rome did subdue, humble, and eradicate by a Forreign power: For, he brought in the French into Italy, which did willingly hearken to the Motion. By these several passages it is clear, That the Papacy did destroy Three new-Erected States; by means whereof, the Temporal Dominion of that Church in Italy was much established. And so, according to the Story, it is made clear, That the little Horn did humble and subdue Three of the former Horns, and did pluck them up by the roots.

Querie 5. If the Ten Horns signifie Ten Kings in a lineal Succession, Why is it that in Daniel and the Revelation, the Beasts, their Heads, and Horns, usually signifie Realms and Dominions, and not Persons individually Reigning? The Mede-Persian Monarchy is Typed by a Ram, and the two Horns are not two particular Kings, but the two Kingdoms of Media and Persia, Dan. 8. vers. 24. So the Goat is the p. 108Graecian Monarchy, and the Four Horns are Four Kingdoms that shall arise out of that Nation, vers. 22. Also, the Ten Horns of the Beast in the Revelation do not signifie Ten particular Kings, but so many Realms and Dominions of the Roman Kingdom. Further, The Beast which came out of the Earth with Two Horns, Rev. 13. 11, signifieth the Papacie; and the Two Horns his bi-partite Jurisdiction; to wit, His Spiritual and his Temporal Dominion. There is good Reason to be rendred for this, because Persons do change, Governments do abide. And it is the manner of the Spirit, when he doth describe the Tyrannical Kingdoms of this world by Beasts, to decypher them by that which is Permanent and Characteristical, and not by that which is fluent and changable at every turn. To me therefore this is a good Reason (considering the Analogie of both Prophecies) that the Fourth Beast should be set forth by the Character of Ten Horns, and that these Horns should signifie so many Realms and Dominions of the Fourth Kingdom.

Object. But it will be objected, in the description of the Graecian State under the similitude of an He-goat, That Alexander is the Great Horn that came up, and Antiochus Epiphanes is the little Horn. Therefore the Beasts and their Horns in Daniel and the Revelation, do not alwayes signifie Tyrannical Empires, Dynasties, and Governments; but somtimes denote particular Persons that Reign.

Sol. One Exception must not prejudice a general Rule. He that can, let him give another Example. Our Position is built upon the general use of both Prophecies. But Dr Willet, and the Interpreter… of that way, do build only upon one particular Instance, exempt from the ordinary Method. Secondly, We grant, That in the description of the He-goat, the first Horn is Alexander the Great, and the little Horn is Antiochus Epiphanes; yet in the Case we speak, neither of these are any way to be ranked in the Number of Horns, that do Characteristically and specifically distinguish the Graecian from the other Three Monarchies. It is expresly said, That a Third Beast c…me out of the Earth with Four Heads. Now these are not p. 109such a Number of particular Kings, but they are so many Realms, States, and Dominions that shall stand up …ut of that Nation, as we have above proved, and are the special Notes of that Kingdom. If therefore the Ten Horns be the Characters and Badges of the Fourth Beast, they are so many Realms, Divisions, and Regencies of the Fourth Empire. The course of the Spirit, is to set forth different Empires under different Types, and to distinguish Kings or Kingdoms of one and the same time, from those that come after one another in a lineal Descent. Now they that hold the Ten Horns to be so many Kings in the Seleucian line, what Letter or Syllable is in the text to prove such a succession?

Querie 6. Sixthly, If the Ten Horns of the Fourth Beast be Ten Kings succeeding one another, rather than one and the same Empire divided into Ten inferiour Realms; why should the holy Spirit in the Iron-Metal, chap. 2. speak so much of the Division of this Kingdom, That in the Feet and Toes of the Image it should be divided into a plurality of States, that these should mingle themselves with the seed of men, to preserve an Union? All this sheweth, That the Fourth Kingdom toward the latter times should be divided into many lesser Dominions. And if we may interpret one Scripture by another, both speaking of one and the same matter, the particular Number of Realms is represented by the Ten Horns. Now, they that will have Ten Horns to be Ten Kings lineally Reigning, cannot infer from hence any Division of the Fourth Kingdom; nor consequently the need of any mixture of State. Kings Successively Reigning, need no mingling one with another to preserve the Union of a Kingdom. On the contrary, if we take the Ten Horns for Ten Kings or Kingdoms at one and the same time, there is nothing more ordinary than to establish Leagues and Confederacies betwixt Kingdoms and States that are contemporary each with other. For that which they Alledge concerning the Division betwixt the Seleucidae and the Lagidae, we have spoken thereof already, and therefore we will not repeate the same things again.

p. 110Let us now in the last place come to those Queries concerning the Collation of the little Horn mentioned Dan. 7. and that little Horn spoken of chap. 8. For they that differ from us, stand much upon this, That Antiochus Epiphanes is signified in both Scriptures under the same Emblem.

Here we agree with them in Two Points: First, That the Prophecie of Daniel doth repeat one and the same thing, for the better understanding of the Visions. But then there must be some good evidence from the text, to prove the things repeated to be the same, though the Expression is divers. Now what good proof is there to make it appear that the little Horn, chap. 7. and that little Horn, chap. 8. are one and the same? Secondly, We agree, That Antiochus Epiphanes, the Graecian Antichrist, doth resemble the Roman Antichrist in many things; and that the one is the express Image and Type of the other. In these particulars then they do agree, and are parallel.

In these several Particulars it is manifest, That the little Horn mentioned chap. 7. and chap. 8. do both agree. But yet whosoever he is that diligently considers the Scriptures, he shall finde them to differ in the most remarkable circumstances.

p. 111First, They differ in the State or Government where they arose; the little Horn, chap. 8. rose out of one of the Four Divisions of the Graecian State; but the little Horn, chap. 7. arose out of the Kingdom Typed by the Fourth Beast, which all our Arguments asorementioned, prove to be the Roman Kingdom.

Secondly, They differ in the preparation and moulding of the State before the rising of either of them. For the little Horn, chap. 8. arose out of one of the Four Divisions of the Greek Empire: But the little Horn, chap. 7. arose after the Division of the Roman Empire into Ten inferiour Realms.

Thirdly, They differ in their Actions. For the little Horn, chap. 8. is only said to rise out of one of the Four Kingdoms of the Graecian Empire; but the little Horn, chap. 7. is said to arise after the Ten Kingdoms of the Roman Empire: And that he did pluck up Three of the former Kingdoms by the roots. This is cleer from the scope of the text.

Fourthly, They differ in the object of their Tyranny. For though the little Horn, chap. 8. is said to destroy the Holy People, vers. 24. yet the whole scope of the text sheweth that only the People of the Jews are here intended. Now for the little Horn, chap. 7. he is said to wear out the Saints of the Most High, but there is no circumstance in the text to prove that these are the People of the Jews. There is not one word of taking away the daily Sacrifice, or of the setting up of the Abomination of Desolation, or of Daniel's People, or the pleasant Land, or any such passages which the Prophet useth when he speaketh of the Jews. All that can be said, is this, That he shall change Laws and times: But from hence we cannot infer, That these must be the Laws and Times of the Jewish Church. For the Apostle, when he speaketh of the Great Antichrist, doth use such an expression, He shall sit in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. 2. And yet he doth not mean the literal Temple in Ierusalem.

Fifthly, They differ in the time of the Continuance of p. 112their Tyranny. The little Horn, chap. 8. shall prevail, and the Sanctuary shall be troden down unto Evenings, Mornings 2300, vers. 14. Now for the little Horn, chap. 7. he shall wear out the Saints a time, and times, and half a time, till the Saints themselves take the Kingdom. How this time, and times, and half a time, should be all one with the 2300 Evenings, Mornings, I cannot discern. If you apply this to the Roman Antichrist, a time, and times, and half a time, is the full sum of the Antichristian Tyranny, Rev. 12. 14.

Sixthly, They differ in the Event. For after the 2300 Evenings Mornings, the Temple was cleansed, vers. 14. and after that the little Horn had finished his times, he was broken without hand, vers. 25. All these things were truly fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. But if you apply the little Horn, chap. 7. to Antiochus, there can be no right accommodation. First, That little Horn did wear out the Saints till the Son of Man came in the clouds of Heaven: but so did not Antiochus Epiphanes. Secondly, The little Horn did wear out the Saints a time, and times, and half a time, till the Dominion under the whole Heaven was given to the Saints: but so did not Antiochus Epiphanes. Thirdly, The little Horn shall continue till the time of the Destruction of the Fourth Beast. But the Kingdom of the Seleucians ended not at Antiochus; many of that line succeeded afterwards in the Kingdom. And there was a good space of time from the death of Antiochus to the destruction of the Seleucian State by Pompey the Great. But Dr Willet replieth, Though the Kingdom was not utterly ruined, yet the Glory of it was much abated at Antiochus his death. By the like Reason I might argue, That there was an end of the Babylonian Kingdom at the death of Nebuchadnezzar, because the Glory of that Kingdom did afterwards abate in Evilmerodach. I might argue also, That the Graecian Kingdom ended in Alexander, because the Kings that arose after him did not arise in his strength. Others there are that do Alledge the words of the Eleventh Verse: I beheld then, because of the voyce of the great words which the little Horn spake. I beheld even till the Beast was slain, and his Body given to the p. 113burning fire. From hence they gather, That the little Horn was first broken off; and when the Beast was Hornless and harmless, then he was destroyed. Such a sense may be admitted. For we read in the Scripture, That the Davidical Kingdom should be destroyed for the sins of Manasseth King of Iudah, 2 King. 23. 26. yet the destruction was many years after his death. Though such a sense may be admitted, yet it will not stand in the present case; for in this Chapter the little Horn is said to continue till the destruction of the Fourth Kingdom. It is said in express terms in the 26 Verse, That the Iudgement shall sit, and they shall take away his Dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the time of the end. Here I demand, Whose Dominion is it that they shall take away? Is it the Dominion of the Fourth Beast, Hornless and harmless? No: This is immediately spoken of the little Horn that should wear out the Saints of the most High, and should change Laws and Times, a time, and times, and half a time. Touching this little Horn it's said, That the Judgement shall sit, and they shall take away foreign his Kingdom. They shall bereave him of his Dominion. Therefore it is clear, That the times of the little Horn shall continue to the end of the Beast's Kingdom, and to the beginning of the Kingdom of the Saints. And yet further, Daniel did desire to know the truth of the Fourth Beast, and of the Ten Horns, & of the little Horn that came up after them. I beheld, (saith he) and the same Horn made War with the Saints, and prevailed against them, until the ancient of dayes came; and judgement was given to the Saints of the most High, & the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, vers. 22. From these words also it is manifest, That the times of the little Horn do extend to the beginning of the Kingdom of the Saints. Now how this should be verified in Antiochus Epiphanes, it is not as yet made so clear to me. But if you apply this to the Papacy, all things will agree: for it is manifest, That the Two-Horned Beast in the Revelation must wear out the Saints a time, and times, and half a time, Rev. 12. 14. Rev. 11. 7, 8, 9. Now when this time is once fulfilled, the Beast and the false Prophet shall both of them be cast into the Lake of fire; and p. 114the Reign of Christ and of his Saints shall begin upon the Earth, Rev. 19. 20. Rev. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4.

But by the way, because some stand for a Personal Reign of Christ at the end of the Fourth Kingdom, because then theNote. Son of Man is said to come in the clouds of Heaven; I Answer, That they have no Reason to take that strictly, which we can prove from the Harmony of Scripture, ought to be construed with some kind of Latitude. These things are shewed to Daniel (who saw afar off) as joyned together; and yet in experience they do not meet in the same juncture of time. As for example, A man that traveleth in Wales, or some such-like hilly Country, while he is yet at a long distance, he may see the tops of two great Mountains as though they were near together: yet when he cometh to look upon them with a more distinct view, the one may be ten or twelve Miles beyond the other in the distance of place. It is well known also, That when the Apostles made mention of the coming of Antichrist, they also spake of the end of the world, 2 Thess. 2. What then? shall we argue, as many do, That the Discovery of Antichrist will not be till the end of the world? This cannot be. We that live in these times, may see more clearly, That Antichrist hath been revealed many hundred years ago; and the end of the world is not yet come. If therefore a Reason be demanded, why these two, The Revelation of Antichrist, and the End of the World, are coupled together; we may say, That the Apostles, who saw afar off, spake of these things, because they should happen in the last times; though in the particularity of time the one might be before the other. In like manner, the Prophet Daniel, who lived very remote from the Dissolution of the Fourth Kingdom, from the glorious Kingdom of the Saints, and from the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven; to him all these things in the general, and in the lump may be represented together, when in a more distinct and particular consideration, the one may be before the other. The consuming of the Kingdom of Antichrist with the word of his mouth, and the establishment of the Kingdom of the Saints, may be before the p. 115Personal appearing of the Son of Man in the Clouds of Heaven.

But now it is not to our present purpose to meddle with this Difficulty. That which we have to say, is only concerning the Fourth Beast, That either he must signifie the Seleucian or the Roman Kingdom. But, we have proved by many Arguments, against Dr Willet, and others, That the Seleucian cannot here be meant. Therefore we may safely conclude, That the Fourth Beast with Ten Horns, is the proper EmblemeNote. and Type of the Roman Kingdom. From whence also we gather, That Daniel in his Prophecie, and Iohn in the Revelation (so far as this Point is concerned) do speak of one and the same matter. And by the Interpretation of the one, we may finde out the sense of the other Prophecie. There is no Principle that can be more useful and demonstrative than this, To discover the Truth by the Harmony of the Prophecies.

Now, let us go to the beginning of the Roman, as the Fourth Metal-Kingdom, and so let us see how there is a Chain of 666 years from that beginning, to the Universal Headship of the Beast, This shall be the Subject of the Chapter following.