The Name Mark and Number of the Beast, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Concerning the Number of the Name of the Beast; where it is shewed, That the Name or Universal Headship began publickly to be Established under the Emperor Phocas, 666 years from the beginning of the Roman, as the F…th Metal Kingdome.
FOr the carrying on of this Complicate Proposition, we are to make Two things clear: First, That the Name, or Sovereign Dominion of the Beast, began precisely at that time of the Universal Headship under the Emperor Phocas. Secondly, That there is a C…in of 666 years from the begining of the Roman, as the Fourth Metal Kingdom, to the Name, or Universal Headship afcre…aid.
First, Concerning the E…sion of the two-horned Beast out of the Earth, I find a great consent in the Commentaries, Controversies, and Stories of the Church, That the Two-Horned Beast began in the Universal Headship under the Emperor Phocas. Crackan…orp, in his Treatise against Spala…, calleth it the C… one of the Building. And in very deed, though many Authors do stiffly maintain, That the Name is the word Lateinos, and that the Number is made out of the Numeral Letters of that Name: yet if you put them upon it to state the Original of the Beast's Kingdom, they do generally in a manner pitch upon the year aforesaid. But we will not depend upon Authority. Therefore to the right computing of …he true Apocalyptical time, we will Observe these ensuing Principles.
Principle 1. There must be some particular instant of time when the Antichristian state, Typed by the Beast with Two Horns, had its first visible rising out of the Earth. This is proved from the words of the Text: And I beheld another Beast coming out of the Earth, and he had Two Horns like the Lamb, and he spake as the Dragon, Rev. 13. 11. And therefore, as there was a certain and determinate time, when the Babylonian Lyon, and the Persian Bear came up out of the Sea; that is, As there was a certain time when the Babylolonian and Persian Monarchies began: so there must be a particular and certain term of time, when the Antichristian Monarchy must come up out of the Earth also. If this be well observed, it will cut off a multitude of super…luous Di…putes concerning the Infancy, Childhood, Middle age, and other degrees of the Antichristian state. In these points every man may abound in his own Fancy; but sure I am, according to the true Apocalyptical process, there is mention made but of one visible and remarkable beginning of the Two-Horned Beast: And this is at the time of his rising ou… of the Earth.
Princ. 2. Secondly, The time of the rising of this Beast must be after the dissipation of the old Empire, and the beginning of the Ten Kings, Typed and Figured by the rising of the Ten-Horned Beast out of the Sea.
There are Two Branches in this Principle.
The First is this, That the time of the beginning of the Two-Horned Beast must needs be placed after the Fall of the Empire. This is clearly proved from the Scope of the 13 and 17 Chapters of the Revelation. Both these Scriptures do pitch upon this, that there must be a taking away of the Imperial Majesty, and a kinde of Chasm, or Intercision of that sovereignty, before the Roman Dominion in the last, the re…aired and Antichristian state thereof. In the 13 Chapter it is said, That the Ten-Horned Beast had a wound in one of his heads, vers. 3. What is this wound, but an intercision or cessation of all Roman Majesty in the world, at the rising of the Ten Kings? The Two-Horned beast by his De…es did cure the wound, vers. 14, 15. What is this cure, but the renovation of the same Sovereignty in the Popes, which was formerly lost in the Caesars? So in the 17 Chapter it is said, That all the world worshipped the Beast; When they beheld the Beast that was, is not, and yet is, v. 8. What is meant here, by the Beast that is not? This noteth the total cessation & abrogation of the Roman Majesty at the Fall of the Empire. And, by the Beast that is; This …eth the re…ing of the Roman Majesty from the Dead, when it was formerly lost in the Caesars. Both Scriptures then do plainly shew, and so doth S. Paul in the Thessalonians, That the Empire must first Fall, before the Antichristian times can begin. They therefore that set the beginning of the Beast's Kingdom at the time of Victor, or at Constantines removing the seat of the Empire to Constantinople; or at the Reign of the Emperor Iul…an, or at any other time before the Fall of the Empire: To my understanding they do anticipate the true beginning of the Beast's Kingdom, and do go against the Grounds and Foundations of all true Apocalyptical learning.
The Second Branch of this Principle is this also, That the time of the beginning of the Beast with Two Horns, must be after the rising of the Ten Kings, or the Ten-Horned Beast out of the Sea, chap. 13. vers. 1. For, though the antient Commentators take the first Beast to be the Old Empire, yet the latter Interpreters, (such as Brightman, Peraeus, Mede, and others) do more rightly understand this to be the rising of the Ten Kings out of the ruines of the Empire. And in very deed, if we consider the time of the Beginning of this Beast, it was presently and immediately after the Dragons Flood, scil. after the Inundation of the Barbarous Nations. Secondly, The Manner of the Rising. The Beast had Ten Crowns upon his Horns at the time of his Rising out of the Sea, which noteth the Division of the Roman into Ten inferiour Kingdoms, in that notable change of State. Thirdly, The time of his Continuance. He was to continue 42 Months; and this is the exact time of the Sufferings of the Church under the Antichristian Persecution. These, and many such-like Reasons, do strongly prove, That the Beast with Ten Horns, and his rising out of the Sea, doth Note and decypher, The standing up of the Ten Kings out of the Ruines of the Empire. And here then, The beginning of the 42 Months, the time of the Reign of this Beast, is set forth by a true Demonstrative Character; and we may not doubt of the certainty thereof.
Further then, If we look to the scope of the Text, the rising of the Beast with Two Horns must needs be after the rising of the Ten-Horned Beast; and so consequently after the standing up of the Ten Kings out of the Ruines of the Empire. And so the Visions will be rightly applyed to their true times. I know nothing of moment which doth contradict this Assertion, but only that which is spoken by Mr Mede in his Apocalyptical Key, Synchronism the second: Where he endeavoureth to shew, That the Ten-horned Beast, and the Beast with Two Horns, are exact Contemporaries in all their times. These are his words; A se invic…nt neque ortu suo, neque interitu separantur: quinetiam altera alterius potestatem foreign, hoc est in praesentia ipsius administrat. And then he concludes, Quis non vidit illas omni aevo suo necessariò contemporare? But saving the great respect I bear to this Author, I cannot see, first, how this can agree with the scope of the Scripture: Secondly, With the event of things: Thirdly, With the Tenor of his own Doctrine, as he delivereth it elsewhere: Fourthly, With the Body of the best Protestant Expositors, who have spoken most Pro…atively concerning the beginning of the Beast's Kingdom.
First, I cannot see how he agreeth with the Scripture. For Iohn saw first a Beast come out of the Sea with seven Heads and ten Horns, and ten Crowns upon his Horns; and after that he saw another second Beast which came out of the Earth with Two Horns. From whence we may easily collect, That the rising of the one, is in order of time before the rising of the other: and therefore they no not ad amussim contemporare ortu suo, they do not exactly agree in the time of their Original.
Secondly, I cannot see how he agrees with the event of things. For at that time, when the Ten Kings arose out of the ruines of the Empire, there was no Roman Sovereignty in the whole world. For, as we have formerly mentioned, The Beast had a wound in one of his Heads; and therefore there was an intercision and a cessation of that Potency for a time. We yield that the Two-Horned Beast is the Restorer of the Ten-Horned Beast; he cured the wound, and made the Image to speak, and live. It is true, that he revived the Roman Sovereignty from Death to Life: but this reviving was not assoon as the Ten Kings rose out of the Ruines of the Empire.
Thirdly, I cannot see how this agreeth with Mr Mede's own Doctrine: For he saith, Apost. pag. 83. That the Fourth Beast is the Roman Kingdom; the Ten Horns are the Ten Kings that arise out of the dissipation of the Empire; and the little Horn he saith expresly that it must arise after them, pag. 74. For so he will have the Chaldee word to be all one with foreign of the 70; to wit, That the little Horn must arise behind the Ten Horns. Now then, if the Papacie must arise after, and behind the Ten Kings, it is plain, That he doth contemporate with them ortu suo, in his beginning; and that according to Mr Mede's own Principles.
Fourthly, I cannot see how he can agree with the Body of the best Protestant Expositors, who have demonstratively written of the beginning of the Beast's Kingdom. For, as many almost who have spoken of the rising of the Two-Horned Beast out of the Earth, have applied this beginning to the Bishop of Rome, in the times after the Fall of the Empire, when the Decree went forth, That he should be Head over all the Churches.
All the Circumstances of the Text laid together, prove the truth of this Interpetation. We come now to the Third Principle.
Princ. 3. The time of the rising of the second Beast must be so stated, That all the circumstances of the Text may agree to such a beginning. We must not leave the times of the Fall of the Old Empire behind, and so going forward, apply the rising of the Two-Horned Beast to what times we please. No: There is some particular instant of time when the Beast rose up out of the Earth, when his Name or Universal Headship began. And thi… must needs be at the Decree under the Emperor Phocas, when it was determined, That the Bishop of Rome should be Head over all Churches.
So then, if we lay these Three Principles together; First, That the Beast had a determinate Beginning of his Kingdom. Secondly, That this determinate Beginning was after the Fall of the Empire. Thirdly, That it was after the Fall of the Empire in such times when the Name or Universal Headship of the Bishop of Rome began first publickly and solemnly to be established. If we put all these Three together, we shall inevitably pi…ch upon that time when the Decree went forth, That the Bishop of Rome should be the Head over all Churches. For if we look to the Stories, we shall find, that presently after the Fall of the Empire, the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal Priviledges with the Bishop of Rome, by the Decree of the Council of Calcedon. Nay further, The Bishop of Constantinople was in a fairer possibility for the Universal Headship than was he of Rome. Only then in the time under the Emperor Phocas the Decree was Enacted, That the Bishop of Rome should be the Head of all Churches. And from that time downward, this hath been a Priviledge perpetually annexed to that Chair. And so then we have the true beginning of the rising of the Two-Horned Beast out of the Earth. And it is rightly and Apocalyptically applied …o the times, by the Position of the Three Principles aforenamed.
But here Bellarmine and Baronius deny, That the Universal Headship began in the time of the Emperor Phocas. For, saith Bellarmine, Phocas did not Ordain this by way of a new Institution, but only by way of Declaration of a thing ever before Acknowledged in the Church. In Answer to this, Mornay in his History of the Papacie telleth us, That all Historians down from that time, as Paulus Diaconus, Freculphus, Rhegino, Anastasius, Sabelli…us, Blondus, Pomponius Laetus, and others, agree in this beginning. Progress. 22. pag. 118. And for Baronius, he saith, An. 606. Therefore what did Phocas bestow upon the Roman Church? Nothing truly: Only he did Declare by his Sentence, That the Name of the Oecumenical Bishop was unlawfully Usurped by the Bishop of Constantinople, when it was due, Romanae tantum Ecclesiae, only to the Roman Church. I cannot but admire at the boldness of this great Annalist, that he should go so palpably against the Stories of the Church, and against some chief Records of their own. For if we look a little before, in the times of Gregory the Great, we shall finde that there was a sharp contest betwixt him and the Bishop of Constantinople about the Primacy. For Iohn the Fourth, sirnamed the Easter, Bishop of Constantinople, did begin to assume the Title of Universal Bishop about the year of the Lord 580, 26 years before the matter was determined for the Bishop of Rome. He was the more imboldened to do this, because he saw the Seat of the Empire established at Constantinople, and the City of Rome besieged by the Lombards: And consequently the Bishop of that City brought to a low ebb. Now these attempts of the Bishops of Constantinople, they of Rome did most strongly oppose, but none more than Gregory the Great, as may appear by sundry passages in his Epistles at this very day. In them we find everywhere, that he doth strongly Dispute against the Name and Title of Universal Bishop; and doth say in effect, That it is the Name of the Beast. He doth again and again inculcate, That the Title is new, prophane, contrary to the scope of the Gospel, and the Use of the Church. And whereas Bellarmine and Baronius have this creep-hole, that he did only inveigh against the encroachments of the Bishop of Constantinople; he doth again and again repeat, That none of his Predecessours did ever use such a prophane Title: Nullus decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consuevit, lib. 4. Epist. 80. But that which is most to our purpo…e, he doth everywhere place the formality of Antichristianism in the Universal Headship. And they that affect so to be called, he doth expresly term them the praecursors and fore-runners of Antichrist. To let pass all others, we will recite those words of his, as they are in his sixth Book and thirtieth Epistle to the Emperor Mauritius; Consider (saith he) that when Antichrist shall call himself God, the matter it self is but small and frivolous, yet most pernitious: If you look to the quality of the word, it consisteth only of two Syllables; but if you regard the weight of iniquity, the matter is very great. For I may boldly say, That whosoever calleth himself, or desireth to be called by others, The Universal Priest, or Bishop, is in his elation of minde, the forerunner of Antichrist. In elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit. Because in like pride he preferreth himself before others. And in his Fourth Book, Epist. 34. he writeth to Constantia the Empress: Be it far (saith he) that your times should thus be defiled with the Exaltation of one man: and then addeth, In hâc ejus superbiâ quid aliud nisi propinqua ja… Antichristi esse tempora designatur? By this Arrogancy what else is portended, but that the time of Antichrist is now at hand? And more fully to Iohn himself, he useth these words, lib. 4. Epist. 38. Tu quid Christo, Universalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti, in extremi judicii dicturus es examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Universalis appellatione supponere? What wilt thou answer to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the tryal of the Day of Iudgement, seeing that by this Name Universal thou seekest to inthral the Members of his Bodie to thy self? And that which maketh more to our purpose; he telleth him, That the times concerning the coming of Antichrist begin to be fulfilled, and that there is …ow a performance of the Prophecies. Omnia enim quae praedicta sunt fiunt: Rex superbiae prope est, & (quod dici nefas est) sacerdotum est praeparatus exercitus. All Prophecies begin now to be fulfilled, and (that which I dread to speak) the King of Pride is at hand, and an Army of Priests do attend him.
Now for these, and such-like passages between Gregory and Iohn of Constantinople, I cannot think otherwise of them, but that they did happen by the singular Providence of God, to excite the world to look after the Revelation of the man of sin. For, as when our Lord Christ was born at Bethlehem, there was a hurly-burly in Iudaea; the star appeared, the wise men came to Ierusalem, and the whole City was troubled; What was the end of God in all this, but to stir them up to attention, to look after the Messiah, of whom so much was sooken in the Prophecies? So in the like case, many things being foretold in the writings of the Apostles concerning the coming of Antichrist, when that time should begin to draw near, the Lord was pleased to suffer such a dust to be raised between Constantinople and Rome, to rouze up the spirits of men to examine those things which were foretold in the Scriptures.
In the Book of the Revelation, there is much spoken concerning the Name of the Beast, and the Mark of the Name: Now when this Name or Headship was come to the beginning thereof, Gregory did plainly declare, That the formality of Antichristianism did consist in this Title, and that the Man of sin was then at the doors. And I wish one day his sayings do not strongly witness against all his Successors, who with one joynt consent, down from the year of our Lord 606, have appropriated this Title to themselves, to the great dishonour of Christ, the true Head of the Church.
But if they alledge, That the Bishop of Rome is only a Ministerial head, as Christ's Vicar;
To this I Answer, However they may evade by subtilty of words, indeed and in truth, they have taken for many Ages together the Dignity of Christ, and have made him only the titular Head of the Church. For is it not clear by the Stories, That all doth depend upon the Authority of the Romane See? The credit of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, the making of Laws, the abrogation of divine Laws, and all things in a manner have depended upon the Authority of the Roman Bishop. What he would, he hath set up; what he would, he hath plucked down: And when all this is done, is he only a titular Head? Indeed and in …uth, the Headship of Christ hath been made but a cypher: and the words of Gregory have been found too true in the event. But for the passages out of him, two things are briefly to be observed:
First, If we go to the 600 years immediately after the birth of Christ, there was then no Oecumenical Bishop. For though the Man of sin had gone very far, and had made many progressions in the Mysterie of Iniquity; yet the Authority it self was not publickly established in all that time: If it were so, we may believe that Gregory would not have inveighed against that Headship, as he did.
Secondly, In the year of the Lord 606, the Decree was Enacted, That the Bishop of Rome should be Head over all Churches; which Dignity the whole Succession have enjoyed now above this 1000 years. And that which Gregory did call Antichristian in others, that all his followers have assumed to this very day. Therefore Thuanus, in his 67 Book, doth speak very pithily; Phocas Bonifacio tertio insignes Episcopi Universalis titulos, quos nuper Gregorius in Iohanne Constantinopolitano improbaverat, prolixè attribuit. Phocas did largely ascribe to Boniface the third, those eminent titles of Universal Bishop, which Gregory did lately inveigh against in Iohn of Constantinople.
Now then, to gather all into one sum, we may see how the Prophecies and the Stories of the Church do agree: First, That the two-horned Beast had a determinate time when he rose up out of the Earth. Secondly, That this time is after the rising of the ten-horned Beast, or the ten Kings, out of the ruines of the Empire. Thirdly, It is to be applied to such a time only when the Name and the Universal Headship of the Bishop of Rome began publickly to be set up. All these three laid together, do necessarily bring us to the Decree of the Headship under the Emperor Phocas. And so we do Conclude, that this is the Number of the Name of the Beast, as it is mentioned in the Prophecie.
Now by what Accompt the Number is 666, we will shew in the Two Chapters following.