The Name Mark and Number of the Beast, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. That the Name of the Beast is not the word Lateinos, or any other Grammatical word; but the name is, The Universal Power and Headship of the Beast, immediately opposed to the Power, Dominion, and Headship of the Lamb.
FOr the carrying on of the whole Work, we will divide the Matter into Two Parts; into that which is Doctrinal, which concerns the Truth of the thing; and into that which is Practical, which is for Use.
For the Doctrinal Part, We will First handle the Substance of the Interpretation. Secondly, We will prove it by sundry places of Scripture, and by the Harmony of the Prophecie.
For the Truth of the Interpretation, We will First shew what is meant by the Name: Secondly, What is meant by the Number of the Name.
For the Name, It is most necessary that we should begin with the Exposition, what it signifieth: For the right Stating of the Name doth much conduce to the Knowledge of the Number. It is the Number of the Name; and therefore unless we shew what the Name is, we cannot finde out the Number. All true Learning sheweth, That in every Demonstration we are to begin with a right Exposition of the Subject.
And whereas, in a manner, all the Learned, down from the times of Irenaeus, have taken Lateinos for the Name, and the Numeral Letters for the Number of the Name; Herein they have been greatly deceived, as we can prove by many solid Reasons. And some of our own Interpreters also have suspected the vanity of this way. These are the words of Iunius, in his Notes upon the Revelation, Chap. 13. vers. 18.
I am not ignorant (saith he) that men bring other Interpretations of the place; but by their leave, I also have brought my Interpretation to be compared, and that for this reason, specially because to me it seemeth not probable, nor like, That the Number of the Beast, or the Name of the Beast ought so to be taken as the common strain of Interpretors will have it. For (saith he) this Number of the Beast, he (scil. the Beast) teacheth, giveth, and imprinteth, as the publick Note of his own; which Note he highly rateth above others, as the Note of his beloved Ones. Now these Interpretations seem to be so far wide from the Propriety and Condition of this Number, whether we respect the Name Latinus, or Titan, or any such like. For these the Beast doth not teach, give, nor imprint; but with the greatest care forbiddeth them to be taught, and boldly denieth them. He doth not allow, but disallow them; and those which do so esteem of this Number, he doth persecute with a direful hatred. So far Iunius. Let us now adde the words of Chamier, in his Panstratia, Tom. 2. lib. 17. cap. 8. sect. 5, 6. Truly (saith he) this way of Interpretation (that I may speak freely what I think) seemeth to be far wide from the manner of the Spirit, and to come too neer to the dreams of the Cabalists. Whereas we read in the Sybils Verses, That Iesus is described by 888, this is a bable, and not from the Spirit of God. Secondly, This cannot be the proper Name of one Man, seeing we have formerly shewed the Error of them who will have Antichrist to be one Individual Person. Therefore of necessity it must be either a Name common, or a Name proper to some State: But by what right may the Name of the Beast be called common? and for a Name proper to some particular State, no man hath brought that to Light. Thirdly, It is not said that it is the Number of the Name only, but here is a prohibition to men, That they shall not buy nor sell, that have not the Number of the Name. How this may be understood of that Cabalistical supputation of the Letters, I cannot discern: Neither can I discern how other men may have the Number of the Name. Farther, What is the way of Computing? Is it Hebrew, Greek, or Latin? But it is not the manner of the Latines to count by Letters; therefore it must be a Greek or an Hebrew Name. But how can Antichrist assume such a Name to himself, that is only peculiarly known in the Schools? So far Chamier. I might here recite the words of Danaeus, Mr Forbes, and others; but these Testimonies shall suffice to take away prejudice from me, because I do forsake the ordinary stream of Interpreters, and do look after such a Name of the Beast which is more true. The Work which I have more specially to perform, is positively to prove, That the Name of the Beast is the Universal Headship of the Bishop of Rome; and by the same Reasons, by, and through which I will disprove Lateinos, I will prove the Universal Headship to be the Name of the Beast. And the Reasons are as followeth:
First, I argue from the main Scope of the Text concerning the Beast as he is a Monarchical King: and here I say, his Name must necessarily be his Sovereign Power and Headship. The Rabbins have a good Observation, What God himself is, that his Name is. So I may say, What the Beast himself is, that his Name is. The Beast, not only in this Text, but all the Prophecie throughout, is described as a Monarchical King; therefore the Name of the Beast must be his Universal Power and Headship.
Object. Seeing the Name of a thing, person, or State, is of so doubtful a meaning; what warrant is there to take the Name of the Beast for his Sovereign Power and Headship?
Answ. I confess, That the Name of a thing, person, or State, is ambiguously taken. But yet for all this, it is not so Obscure, if we will take the right course to understand the Scripture.
Inst. You will say, The great Question lieth in finding the right course.
Rep. The right course lieth in this, By looking to the main sense in each text respectively; and the main sense will guide the Interpretation.
Let us come to give some Instances out of the Scripture, but more specially out of the Book of the Revelation.
For Instances out of the Scripture; VVe often read of calling upon the Name of the Lord; of trusting in the Name of the Lord. Now is not the calling upon the Name of the Lord, the calling upon God himself? the trusting in the Name of the Lord, the trusting upon the Lord himself? This doth make good that former rule, What the Name of God is, that God himself is. And so by way of Opposition, what the Name of the Beast is, that is the Beast himself. If he be described as a Mighty King, we have cause to take his Name for his Monarchical Power and sovereignty.
Secondly, We often reade in the New Testament of believing in the Name of the Son of God, &c. we do not then look to the Name Jesus, or the Name Christ, as though there were any Vertue or Efficacy in the Letters and Syllables of these Names; but in this case, the sense of each Scripture must govern. And therefore when the Apostles do Exhort us to believe on the Name of the Son of God, in their sense we are exhorted to believe on the Lord Christ, for pardon of sin, for help in temptation, and for supply in all our wants. We must not look to Letters and syllables, but to the main sense of each Scripture. In like manner, when we reade of the Name of the Beast, and the Saints overcoming his Name, Mark, and the Number of the Name, we are not here to look to the word Lateinos, or any such Grammatical Name; but, according to the sense of the Prophecie, the Name must be taken for the Potency of the Beast, as he is Opposed to the Lamb.
But let us come more largely to shew some particular Instances out of the Book of the Revelation, where the Name of a thing, person, or state is to be expounded, according to the Analogie of the text.
We read that there were with the Lamb 144000, and that they had their Fathers Name written in their Forehead, chap. 14. vers. 1. Now these 144000 are set in direct Opposition to the followers of the Beast; and their Father's Name written in their forehead, is contradistinct to the Mark of the Beast in the forehead, and the right Hand. Now here, s…th there is mention made of the Name of the Father, and of his Name written in the forehead of all the followers of the Lamb, shall we think therefore that it is made out of the Alphabet, or that it is a literal Name? Not so: we must look here to the main scope of the text, and accordingly we must render the meaning of the words. They that have their Father's Name written in their forehead, are such who in all the times of Antichrist had consecrated, dedicated, and given themselves up to God the Father, to live in subjection to his Commandements, and to take him as their sovereign Lord; this was the Badge of their outward Profession. By the rule of Opposition, they that had the Name of the Beast were such as did resign their Obedience to him, as to their sovereign Lord: And the submission to this Lordship, was the Badge and Livery of their outward Profession: this is clear from the scope of the text.
Further, We read chap. 2. vers. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white Stone, and in the Stone a new Name written, that none can read but he that hath it. Now what is here meant by the Name written? shall we say that it is a Name consisting of Letters and syllables? If we so affirm, we shall have as good foundation for such a Position as they who take Lateinos to be the Name of the Beast. But this is to trifle in a serious matter. Therefore we must have recourse to the forementioned Principle, to wit, The scope of the text. When the Lord Christ promiseth to give to him that overcometh a white stone, and in the stone a Name written; this is nothing else but the inward testimony of the Spirit, by, and through which he sealeth extraordinary Consolations to his Martyrs and Witnesses, in the middest of their sufferings, under the tyrannical States and Governments of the world. Many worthy Expositors take this for the seal of the Spirit that followeth Justification, as may be seen in several late Treatises. But I take it, That the Promise in the text, and so commonly through the whole Prophecie, is immediately made to him that overcometh in the times of Persecution: And therefore these things do more immediately concern the Martyrs; the in-coming of Christ into their hearts, and the divine Consolations which they feel in the Name written, which none can read but they that have it.
Let us go to the meaning of that Promise, Rev. 3. 12. He that overcometh will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the Name of my God, and the Name of the City of my God, which is the new Ierusalem, which cometh down from Heaven; and I will write upon him my new Name. In these words, when the Lord Christ promiseth to him that overcometh, That he will write upon him the Name of his God; doth he intend here a writing by Letters and syllables? This cannot be. But, according to the scope of the place, this is the meaning of Christ, That they that overcome, shall have this peculiar testimony given into their hearts, That the Lord is theirs, and that they are his.
Further, Whereas it is said, I will write upon them the Name of the City of my God: By this he doth mean The true Catholick Church, represented Rev. chap. 21. The scope of the words is this, That he will inroll them into the Number of Citizens, and count them as Members of the true Church, his Mystical Body. And for the truth of the Interpretation, we do chiefly build upon the scope of the text.
But now let us go to other Scriptures, where usually the Name of a thing is taken according to the Analogie of the text. It is said concerning the Church of Sardis, Thou hast a few Names which have not defiled their Garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy, Rev. 3. 4. Here then, when it is said, Thou hast a few Names; shall we understand this to be meant of Grammatical Names? This cannot be. The drift of the text is concerning the persons of men and women which did not defile themselves in the times of general Pollution. And so at the destruction of Rome Antichristian, there was a great Earthquake, and there were slain of the Names of men 7000, chap. 11. vers. 13. Now for the Names of men, shall we understand Names consisting of Letters and syllables? What a kind of slaughter would this be? According to the scope of the text, and the manner of the Hebrew expression, we may say, That such a Number of persons were slain in the Earthquake. Adde moreover to this, That the Beast which did carry the Whore was full of the Names of Blasphemy, chap. 17. There is none so void of understanding to imagine, That the Spirit speaketh of such Names that do consist of Letters and syllables. We must here go to the sense of the text which speaketh of his Blasphemy against God. And so the matter is expounded, Rev. 13. He opened his mouth in Blasphemies against God, to Blaspheme his Name, his Tabernacle, and them that dwell in Heaven. These, and the like places laid together, do plainly shew, that the scope of the text must circumscribe and limit the signification of the phrase so often used in this Prophecie. Now if it be so, according to this tenor, we may say, That the Name of the Beast must be expounded according to the Analogie of the text. His Name then can be no other but his Universal Headship, as a Counter-Christ, emulous of the Dignity of Christ.
But to go to further Instances, we do reade that the deluded Kings were all gathered together into a place called in the Hebrew Harmageddon, Rev. 16. 16. Much ado is made by Expositors about the meaning of the word. Some take it for the Mountain of Delights. Some, for the Hill of the Gospel. Some think there is an Allusion to the slaughter of Iosiah in the valley of Megiddo. And there is a great Difference among them. But for my part, I do believe there can be no other meaning but this, to wit, The destruction of a Troope, or Company: and my Reasons are these; First, It is expresly said, That the Name of the place in the Hebrew is called Harmageddon; that is, The destruction of a Troope: and this Exposition is given by Grasserus, and others. Secondly, That which moveth me so to think, is the subject matter of the text; For the unclean Spirits like Frogs did gather the deluded Kings to Battel, and they brought them into a place called Harmageddon, which in the event proved the place of their destruction. It is well known, That it is the manner of the Hebrews to give Names to several places, in testimony of some famous Actions that have been done in them. And it is as evident, that the Spirit in this Prophecie doth perpetually follow the Hebrew stile. As in the times of the fifth Trumpet, when the Locusts came out of the bottomless pit, they had a King over them, whose Name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon; and in the Greek is Apollyon, chap. 9. Now this Trumper, Mr Brightman, and Mr Mede, do rightly apply to the times of the Sarazens. And because they did in great multitudes everywhere overspread the Territories of the Church, they are therefore compared to Locusts. Now for the Name of their King in the Greek or Hebrew tongues, we are not here so much to look to Letters and syllables, as to the sense of the figurative expression. Mr Mede then, in his Commentary upon the Revelation, doth seem to me to be too Cabalistical, when he doth descant upon the Names of some Kings formerly amongst the Arabians. We are not to trouble our selves with Letters and syllables. Mahomet is the Head, or King of these Locusts, or rather the Devil acting in, and by him. And too sad experience doth shew that his Name is called in the Hebrew Abaddon, and in the Greek Apollyox. For what is Mahometism, but the waster and destroyer of the Christian Faith? The Name doth answer the nature. In the times of the third Trumpet, we reade, That a great star fell into the third part of the Rivers, and the Name of the star is called Wormwood. Interpreters upon the place do not look so much to a literal star, but it is so called Effectivè, from the Effect, or Operation. By these, and many other places, it is evident, when the Spirit speaketh of a Name, Thing, Person, or State, he doth not aim so much at the bare formality of Letters and syllables, as at the scope of the text. Upon these grounds, if the Beast be a King, or Potentate, his Name is not a Grammatical Name; but, according to the scope of the place, it must necessarily denote his Kingly Power, and Headship.
Let us come to a place mentioned in the Old Testament, which hath been greatly mistaken by the Jewish Rabbins, and by some others; the words are these: The Lord said to Moses, I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty; but by the Name Iehovah I was not known unto them. Exod. 6. 3. Here great ado is made by the Rabbins aforementioned: they speak much of nomen Tetragrammatum, of the word of four Letters, of the difficulty to pronounce that Name, and of bables more than too many. And what is the reason of all this? they look superficially upon the outward Letter, and neglect the main sense and scope of the place. The main sense is this, That God appeared to Moses, by the Name Iehovah, by, and through which, he did give Existence and Being to his Promises. And yet we are not to take it absolutely, as though the Lord did no way appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob by that Name. This cannot be. We are therefore to take the words in a restrictive meaning, in respect to that particular Promise, that he would give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed for a Possession, G…n. 15. 13, 14. Now in this particular sense, God did not appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, by the Name Iehovah; they never lived so long to see the performance of this promise. They did not see the end of the 400 years Bondage, not the Deliverance out of Egypt, as Moses did. The Lord only did appear to them by the Name of God Alsufficient; they might believe that he was able to perform what he promised. In special relation then to this particular Promise, the Lord saith to Moses, By my Name Iehovah was I not made known to them. If this be so, what a wild race have they run, who have looked only after a Name consisting of Letters and syllables, and have not observed the Truth of God in the performance of his Word? What is this, but to make a Fable of the most important and comfortable Promises that be; to neglect the substance, and to catch at a shadow? And the ground of all this is chiefly from hence; they look to the out-side and shell of a figurative expression, and neglect the natural sense of the text, which in this case should principally rule. In like manner, they who are for the word Lateinos, or for any such like Name, must needs digress as much from the Truth. For it is not to be imagined, that the Name of the Beast is meerly a Name consisting of Letters and syllables; neither can the Mark of the Beast be the Mark of such a Name, according to the sense of the text, and the Analogie of the Prophecie. The Name of the Beast therefore, must be his Universal Power and Headship; and the Mark of the Name, must be the publick Profession of subjection, allegeance, and devotion to that Name, or Headship. And this is clear from the several Instances fore-alledged, where the Name of a person, of a state, of a thing, is alwayes taken with correspondence to the text. But if it be alledged, That it may be so taken in this place for Power and Headship, but it is not absolutely necessary that we should build upon such a sense: I Answer; The Name of the Beast must necessarily be construed and taken for his Power and Headship; because, as a Potentate, he doth confront the Lord Jesus Christ, the true Head of the Church: this is the scope of the Prophecie, and therefore the Name of the Beast cannot rationally and fairly be taken in any other sense. Paraeus, in his Commentary upon the Romans, doth open the meaning of these words; As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God, Rom. 14. 11. From the misunderstanding of this place, he telleth us, That the superstitious bowing at the Name of Jesus had its first original. And he doth shew the irrationality of that practice: For why (saith he) should men be uncovered? and why should they bow their knee at the Name of Iesus, rather than at the Name of Christ, or at the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Further, He doth insist upon the greatness of their superstition, when men give worship to Letters and syllables, rather than to the Person himself. And therefore he cometh positively to define what is meant by the Name of Jesus. And so he saith, Nomen Iesu non est vox d…ssyllaba, scripta, picta, aut pronunciata; sed persona, Majestas, & imperium Serv…toris, cui omnes subjectionem debent. The Name of Iesus is not a word of two Syllables, written, painted, or pronounced; but it is the Person, Majesty, and Dominion of our Saviour, to which all do owe Subjection. So I may say in the present case, That the Name of the Beast, and the Number thereof, is his sovereign Power and Authority, to which all his V…stals do yield their subjection; and they have departed from the true meaning of the Spirit, who have looked to the Name Lateinos, and the Numeral Letters of that Name: For the Name is not a word of one, two, three, or four syllables, written, painted, or pronounced; but the Name of the B…ast is his Power and Headship, standing in immediate Opposition to the Name or Headship of the Lamb. But if you ask, What certainty there is of this Interpretation? The ground I build upon is the rule of Opposition, and the whole scope of the Prophecie. If we take the Name for a Grammatical Name, what certainty can there be, and who can particularly define what the Name is? Doctor Mayer upon the place, having rejected several Names, and their Calculation by Numeral Letters, doth thus determine; As long (saith he) as we go this way to work, we shall never be able to Convince the Adversary, there being so many Names that do contain the Number. And for my part, I do believe, That if men will peruse the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, they shall find many words, which either severally, or joyntly, will make 666, by the calculation of the Numeral Letters. Now, what certainty is in all this? On the contrary, If we take the Name of the Beast for his Universal Power, this doth agree with the Circumstances of the text, with the Analogie of the Prophecie; and there can be no good exception to the contrary.
Now to gather up all into one Sum: Though the Name of a Thing, the Name of a Person, the Name of a Place, the Name of a State, or any such-like, may be ambiguors; yet we may finde out from the scope of the text, that which will determine the ambiguity. If any shall say, That the Name of the Beast may be taken for any thing else as well as for his sovereign power; I yield that it may be so: but if we look to Analogie in the Scripture, it must needs be taken for his sovereignty. As therefore in the like cases, when the Scriptures speak of believing in the Name of the Lord, of the writing of the Name of the new Ierusalem, of the Name of the Lamb, of the Name Abaddon, Apollyon, Harmageddon; of the Name of the Father in the foreheads of the 144000; of the Lords making himself known to Moses by the Name Iehovah; of the Fathers giving to the Son a Name above every Name, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow: As in these several Scriptures we are not to look after Names consisting of Letters and syllables, but to judge of the Truth according to the scope of the text; So, in the present case, we are not to look after such a Name of the Beast that is meerly literal, but after such a Name that will hold correspondency with the subject matter of the text, and with the nature of the thing it self. If this be so, it is easie to conclude, That the Name of the Beast is no other but his Potency or Headship.
Secondly, We argue from the Condition and Quality of the Mark. For as à priori we may come to the knowledge of the Mark by the right stating and defining of the Name: So à posteriori, by the knowledge of the Mark we may come to understand what is meant by the Name; seeing that it is called the Mark of the Name: They shall be tormented day and night that receive foreign, the Mark of the Name, Rev. 14. 11. I finde that many approved Commentators, who do much differ from the Truth of our interpretation, do willingly agree, That the profession of a Roman Catholick is the Mark of the Name. Now, upon their own grounds, do they not affirm also in sense and substance, That the Universal Headship of the Bishop of Rome is foreign, that Name of the Beast? For what is the profession of a Roman Catholick? Is he not such a one that doth believe, receive, and profess the Universal Headship of the Bishop of Rome? Take away the Catholicism of the Roman Bishop, the Faith and Profession of a Roman Catholick will be a meer non-ens, or nullity. So then, if this Profession be the Mark of the Name, (as Grasserus, Brightman, Piscator, and other Expositors will have it) I say, upon their own grounds, the Universal Headship must be the Name it self, seeing the profession of a Roman Catholick is foreign, the Mark of the Name. And so our Conclusion is proved à posteriori. From the Condition and Quality of the Mark, we may know the nature of the Name.
The third Argument is drawn from the Image, which is Homogeneal and answerable to the Name, in the nature and essence thereof. For the Image of the Beast, I might take it as a thing already sufficiently declared in the Commentaries of the Protestant Writers. In them, it is nothing else but that Expression of the ancient Splendor and Glory of the Roman Majesty, anciently decayed in Rome Imperial, and in the latter times repaired and revived in Rome Papal. The scope of the text sheweth that this is the meaning, and that the Image was made to the Beast which was wounded in one of its Heads, &c. Now then let us say, That the Roman Majesty revived again from the dead, that this is the Image, how shall the Name Lateinos, or any other such like Name consisting meerly of Letters and syllables, be answerable to such an Image as this? What Equipage or Correspondence can there be between quid nominis, & quid rei? Shall we once imagine that the repair of the Roman Majesty in these latter times is only of a Name that consisteth of Letters and syllables, and such like elements of the Greek and Hebrew Alphabet? Away with such a conceit. But if you take the Name for the Universal Headship, you shall have a Name truly correspondent to the Image and to the Mark. For when the Decree went forth, that the Bishop of Rome should be Universal Head of the Church, then was the ancient Roman Sovereignty repaired in the Popes, which was formerly lost in the Caesars. Here both the Name and the Image are equivalent each to other, and do differ only in a certain consideration. And the Mark also agreeth with both the former, seeing it is but the publick profession of subjection to that Name or Power.
The Fourth Argument is drawn from the Antithesis or Contraposition of the Name of the Lamb to the Name of the Beast. By the description of one Opposite, we may finde out the Nature of the other. For the Name of the Lamb, it is described, Revelation, chap. 19. vers. 16. He hath on his vesture, and on his thigh, a Name written; King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Here then, in this Scripture, we do not look after a literal Name, but after his Power or Sovereignty, as he is Lord or Head of the Church. We reade also, Phil. 2. 9. Because he humbled himself to the Death of the Cross, God highly exalted him, and gave him a Name above every Name, that at the Name of Iesus every k…ee should bow, &c. Here many in darker times have taken this for a literal Name; and therefore it hath been a great use to bow the knee when the Name of Jesus was mentioned. But the ground of the mistake is this; They have not looked to the main scope of the text, and the Nature of the Expression. For the Name in the text is not the word Jesus, consisting of Letters and syllables; but the sublime Power, Authority, Headship, Dominion, and Sovereign rule, that God the Father did give to his Son after the suffering of Death. And this is so expounded by the Apostle himself in another place; Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places; far above all Principalities, and Powers, and Might, and Dominion, and every Name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the Church, Eph. 1. 20, 21, 22. Therefore the Name is no other but the Sovereign Power that God the Father did give to his Son the Lord Jesus, as Head of the Church. By the rule of contraries then, the Name of the Beast must needs be his Universal Power and Headship, seeing in all respects he is emulous of the Dignity of the Lamb. By the Nature of the one, we may understand the Nature of the other contrary. If the Name of the Lamb be his Sovereign Dominion, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; the Name of the Beast, ex adverso, on the other part, must be his Universal Headship over all Lords, and Kings, and earthly Dominions.
The Fifth Argument is drawn from the parallel and resemblance with the Name of the Whore. It is a good Observation of some Modern Interpreters, That the State or Government described chap. 13. under the Type and Similitude of a Beast with two Horns, is again more largely repeated under the resemblance of a Woman, riding upon a Scarlet-coloured Beast, R…v. 17. Now seeing there is such a parallel between the descriptions in both Chapters, as to the substance of the matter, let us then more diligently consider what is meant by the Name of the Woman: Upon her Forehead was a Name written, Mysterie, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and the Abominations of the Earth, vers. 5. Here, I think, none will be so void of Judgement as to look after a literal Name, and a literal Inscription in the forehead of the Woman. The Name is no other but that Universal Maternity, or Motherhood (as I may so say) of her that professeth herself the Head, or Mother-Church of all the Christian world, but is indeed, and in truth, the Mother of all the Abominations and Idolatries of the Earth. In like manner, when we reade of the Name of the Beast, we are not to look after a literal Name, (as Lateinos, and the like) but his Nam… must be his Universal Paternity, Fatherhood, Power, and Dominion. By the Analogie of one Expression, we may …e out the meaning of the other. If the Name of the Great Whore be not a literal and syllabical Name, but in the figure doth only denote her general Motherhood; so proportionably, the N… o… the Beast is not a literal Name, but in the Trope i… …oth only signifie his Universal Dominion, and Authority.
If we transfer Matters to Experience, we shall finde the eve… of things doth fully Answer these Characters of the Prop…ecie. It hath been a general received Maxime, in many Ages together, That out of our Holy Mother, the Church of Rome (as they call it) there is no Salvation to be had; she is the Mother of all true Catholicks, with them that are her Admirers. But in the Scripture-language she is called Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and the Abominations of the Earth. So it hath been as generally received, That all are bound to submit to the Authority of our Holy Father the Pope. But this in the Scripture-language is the Name of the Beast, and the Mark of the Name. I think it is not done without the special Wisdom and fore-knowledge of God, that these two things (in which the Christian world should erre so greatly) should be set forth with such remarkable Characters, to draw the admiration of all that read. But leaving these things for a deeper enquire, it is sufficient for my present purpose, to note, that the Name of Mystical Babylon is not a literal Name, but the general Motherhood of that City and Church. So the Name of the Beast, by way of parallel, is not a literal Name, but it is the Universal Headship of the Beast, as Lord and Potenta…e.
The Sixth Argument is drawn from the Ground and Reason of the Imperial Edict, chap. 13. vers. 16, 17. He causeth all both small and great, bond and free, to receive a Mark in their Forehead and their right hand; and that none might buy nor sell, but he that hath the Mark of the Name. Now then, if the Name be a Title or Appellation, that consisteth only of Letters and syllables, how will this redound to the benefit or perfection of the Beasts Kingdom; if men of all Degrees and Orders shall receive a Name, meerly consisting of Numeral Letters and such-like trifles? But if you take the Name for the sovereign Power and Headship, there is nothing more rational and common, than for the Kingdoms of this world to make Laws that all should live in subjection to their Power and Authority. And Experience plainly sheweth, That in all the Kingdoms of the Christian world, stricter Laws have been made for the Preservation of the Dignity of the Catholick, Apostolick, Roman See, (as they call it,) and for the maintenance of the Decrees made by that Authority; than there have been for the support and Defence of their own Communities. Among many, take this one Instance, of the Statute Ex Officio, made here in England in the times of Hen. 4. In which Statute it was provided, That all they should be Burned publickly in the sight of the People, that did maintain, teach, inform, openly or in secret, any thing contrary to the Catholick Faith, and the determination of the Holy Church. And so in the times following, by vertue of this Law, the faithful Martyrs, under the Title of Lollards, have been publickly burned for speaking, preaching, writing, and declaring against the Decrees and Superstitions established by the Authority of the Church of Rome. And it is as plain, That neither the Scripture, nor any Article of the Creed, nor any other Point of the Christian Faith is received among them, but that which is warranted by this Authority. From whence we may easily collect, what is meant by the Law and Injunction of the Beast, That none might buy nor sell, but such only that had the Mark, and the Number of the Name. We are not to take the Name Alphabetically; For, to what end should he command men to receive such a Name as this? But if you take the Name for the Universal Headship, and the Mark for the publick owning of subjection to this Headship, there is great Reason given for the making of such a Statute; and it is fully proved by the event.
The Seventh Argument is taken from the Essence of the great Antichrist, as he is set forth 2 Thess. 2. For the Pith and Marrow of the Apostle, in this description, is to express the great sublimity of Power that the man of sin should assume to himself, in and over the Church of God. These are the words of the Text; He as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, vers. 4. From these words we may gather, the Essence of the Antichristian Kingdom lieth in the affectation of a kind of godlike Dominion and Headship, in and over the Church of God. Now then, as the …on of God hath merited of his Father to be only Head, and only Lord: So must our subjection be rendered to him without communicability of such a prerogative to any other▪ For though there be gods many, and lords many, there is but one Universal Head, on whom the whole Body of the Church doth depend. In this sense, as the Son hath merited of the Father to be the Supreme Lord, and Head; there is none de jure can be, but himself only. Now then, when Paul in the Thessalonians doth describe the Essence of the Beast's Kingdom, he doth shew that it doth chiefly confist in the Headship and Dominion over the Church. And this is that which Iohn in the Revelation calls the Name of the Beast.
And so far we have gone in the Discovery of the Subject of the Number: We have shewed by many Reasons, That the Name is The Headship of the Beast.
Now we shall in the next Chapter endeavour to Calculate and Compute the Number.