The Name Mark and Number of the Beast, Chapter 5 · Part 2 – Part 17
Answer.
If we observe the Rules laid down by Dr Willet, 1. That the Kingdoms here described, are Monarchical Kingdoms. 2. Monarchical Kingdoms about the Borders of the Church. 3. Such Monarchical Kingdoms where the latter do build themselves upon the ruine of the former. If we observe these Rules, it will be no difficult matter to define the Monarchies what they are, where they begin, and where they make an end. There need be no variety of Opinion in a matter of such common Experience. And in particular, the same Experience sheweth, That the Roman must be the fourth particular Kingdom. As for those Interpreters who will have this Kingdom to expire at the coming of Christ, they do not erre in taking the Roman for the Fourth Kingdom, nor in joyning the Free-State and the Empire in one: but they erre in this, That they end that Monarchy at the Coming of Christ. For this is contrary to Experience, and the Testimony of the Scriptures. For, what shall be the Ten Horns, or the Ten Kings? What shall be the little Horn? What shall be all the other Properties of the Fourth Beast, chap. 7.▪ How shall all these be attributed to the Roman Kingdom, if it End at the Coming of Christ?
For the former Expositors, it is true that all Antiquity in a manner have followed this way, To take the Roman for the Fourth Kingdom. To which I may adde, Many of the Interpreters of these times, and some eminent in the Knowledge of the Prophetical Scriptures; as Brightman, Grasserus, Mede, and others. But that this should be the principal Ground that moved them to take the Roman for the Fourth Kingdom, because the Lord shewed to Nebuchadnezzar what should come to pass in the last times; this I cannot take to be the prime foundation on which those Expositors do build: To my understanding, this phrase in the latter dayes, or as it is in the Original, foreign in the extremity of dayes; or as Piscator, Polanus, and others will have it, temporibus consequentibus, in the times following: This expression nakedly considered, inforceth nothing at all. Whereas Iacob assembled his Sons together to tell them what should happen to them in the latter dayes: I do in this matter agree with Dr Willet, That he did not assemble them together to tell what should befall them in the end of the world, but in the times immediately following. Yet this Expression is sometimes used to foretel what shall be done in the end of the world. And therefore the Prophet Hosea saith, That the Children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter dayes: or, as it is in the Original, in the extremity of dayes. There is no doubt to be made but that the Prophet speaketh of the future Call of the Iews that shall be, and of their living under the Reign of Christ; which things are to be finished in …e end of the world. And I see no reason but that the Lord might reveal the same things to Daniel, at least the whole order of them, he living after the times of Hosea, being also a man specially chosen of God to be acquainted with the greatest Mysteries concerning the times of the Church. To let pass the ambiguity of the phrase, let us seriously ponder the circumstances of the text. The Lord did reveal to Nebuchadnezzar things that should come to pass in the latter times. But the great Question is in specie, What latter times are here intended? It is confessed by all, That the Monarchical Kingdoms were to continue to the Coming of Christ; and the words of the text are clear, that the Kingdom of Christ shall begin in the times of these Kingdoms. Now our Saviour was born, his Gospel was preached, and his Kingdom began, when the Earth, and particularly that part of the Earth, was under the Sovereign Dominion of the Romans. To me therefore it is an infallible Reason, That the Roman must be one of the Monarchical Kingdoms, and the Fourth in particular, because the Kingdom of Christ did then begin, when the Earth was under the Authority and Dominion of that People. But let us go on.
Junius.
They which follow the latter Opinion, do well to end Daniel's Prophecie at Christ. But this they ought to consider, that the Lord doth not declare the State of the world universally, but only so far as it concerneth the Iewes and the People of God. And therefore in our judgement we cannot approve it, that the Roman is the Fourth Kingdom.
Answer.
For the Maxime, That the Four Monarchies are described only in relation to the Iewes; I do yield it to be a truth, so far as the Jewes were the only people of God. But when the Gentiles also became his people, the Monarchies are described in relation to them. So then the Metal-Kingdoms are not related to the Jewes only, nor to the Gentiles only, but to the People of God both of Jewes and Gentiles. Among many, this one Argument may be sufficient to clear the Truth of that which we affirm. At the end of these Kingdoms it is mentioned, That the Kingdom, and the Dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the Saints of the most High, chap. 7. vers. 27. Who are they that are the People of the Saints of the most High? Shall we say, That they are only the People of the Jewes? Then it will follow, That the People of the Jewes only shall Constitute and make up the Kingdom of Christ and his Saints. And how contrary is this to all colour and shew of truth?
Secondly, Admit it should be granted that in the description of the Metal-Kingdoms, the Lord should only have respect to the People of the Jewes; this doth not exclude the Roman from being one of the Four Kingdoms. For as the Jewes were somtimes under the Babylonians, somtimes under the Persians, somtimes under the Graecians; so sixty years before the Birth of our Lord, they came under the Dominion of the People of Rome, who were the particular Nation and State of whom the Prophet speaketh: The people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the City and Sanctuary, Dan. 9. 26. If you Number the times from that instant when the Dominion of the Romans began, you shall finde that there were 130 years to the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus and Vespasian. So long the Jewish Church and Nation were under the Roman Obedience. So then we Conclude, If the Monarchies be Numbred only in relation to the Jewes, the Roman may be one of the Four, as well as the Babylonian, Persian, o… Graecian: what should hinder?
Junius.
They that so Number, must of necessity confound the popular State, with the Sovereign Command of one, which is here only mentioned. Neither did the Romans any wayes afflict the Iewes till the times of Cleopatra, or Herod.
Answer.
This is most true, That the Jewes came under the Dominion of the Romans in the times of their Free-State: And therefore in these times we begin the Roman as the Fourth Kingdom. Now whereas it is alledged, that in so doing we do confound the Popular State and the Government by One: To this I Answer, We are not here so much to look after the several forms of Roman Dominion, as upon one whole Roman Kingdom opposed to one Babylonian, to one Persian, to one Graecian going before. The Scripture looketh to Four kinds of People, who in their respective Seasons and Successions, should have absolute Dominion over the Earth, and specially about the Confines of the Church: according to this Difference we ought to distinguish each Monarchy as the Dominion pass'd from one people to another, and not by the particular forms of Government observed by one people. Therefore it doth fully Answer our purpose, That the Church of the Jewes came under the Dominion and Lordship of the people of Rome 60 years before the Birth of the Lord. Now, what Form of Dominion the Romans then had, is not to our purpose.
Further, Whereas it is said, That the Romans did not afflict the Church of the Jewes till the times of Herod; Give me leave to Argue after the same manner. Cyrus did not afflict the People of the Jewes; Therefore the Persian tyranny did not then begin: Alexander the Great did not persecute the Jewes; Therefore the Graecian Monarchy did not begin in his times. This way of Reasoning is contrary to Scripture and Experience. For, to speak positively, Though Cyrus did not afflict the Church of the Jewes, yet he brought that Church and People within the Verge of the Persian Dominion, which in all its times was a Tyrannical State. So Alexander the Great did not persecute the Church, yet he was the Founder of the Graecian Empire, which in the whole time thereof did more or less afflict the Saints of the Jewish Church. The like may be said of the Romans: though there was no eminent Persecution in the time of their Free-State, yet then the Church was brought within the compass of that Kingdom▪ in which, under which, and by which there were the sorest Persecutions that ever were; as appeareth by the Stories of the Evangel…sts, the Acts of the Apostles, and the whole Book of the Revelation. Now let us Consider what is spoken by Mr Broughton.
Mr Broughton.
The Book of Daniel handleth principal points of the Iewes thraldom in Babylon for 70 years, and seven times that space unto Christ's Ascention, and the destruction of the City and Temple: So that Ierusalem surprized by the Chald…an, and razed by the Roman, is the limit of the Story.
Answer.
If it could be proved, That Ierusalem seized by the Chaldaean, and razed by the Roman, that this is the limit of some of Daniel's Visions, and namely of the 70 weeks, it doth not follow that this is the boundary of all his Visions, and particularly of all the Four Kingdoms typed in the Metals of the Image. I shall endeavour in the process of this Discourse to make it appear that these Kingdoms do continue to the time of the glorious Kingdom of the Saints, Rev. 20. But let us go on.
Mr Broughton.
The Kingdom of Babel is figured by a Tree, touching in height the Heavens, and in breadth the corners of the Earth. Likewise the other Kingdoms a…e semblanced to a Ram, and to a Goat, Buck, and both in sundry Horns. And now all the Nations be named that be therein contained.
Answer.
First, For the great Tree, it is not so much a figure of the Babylonian Kingdom, as of the King Nebuchadnezzar in his own personal greatness. For when the Tree was cut down, and Nebuchadnezzar fell, the Babylonian Empire stood. Fo… the Kingdoms of Persia and Greece, it is not needful that these two should be all the Nations which Daniel doth Number after the Babylonians. First, How doth this distinguish the Monarchies after the Scripture-difference? The Scripture distinguisheth them according to the change from People to People, chap. 2. vers. 44. chap. 7. vers. 27. If therefore the Babylonians, Persians, Graecians, be all the People, how shall we make Four Monarchies of Three People? Secondly, That of Persia and Greece are again repeated, chap. 8. because they were more summarily described in the former Chapter. For if we look narrowly to the matter, the Seventh Chapter is for the most part taken up in the descrption of the Fourth Kingdom.
Mr Broughton.
The Legs of the Image, are the Successors of Alexander in the mightiest Kingdoms, Syria and Egypt.
Answer.
Piscator doth build much upon this Reason; and therefore to avoid repetition, we will defer the Examination thereof till we come to him.
Mr Broughton.
Daniel, chap. 7. vers. 13. One like to the Son of man, &c. The Iewes grant Christ here to be meant: and if we had not deceived them by forging a general Fourth Monarchy, by refusing the plainness of Daniel, they would have come to the Faith long ago.
Answer.
This is a good Caution in the general, and Christian men ought to take heed how they turn all into nice Disputes: Atheistical and gainsaying people will soon take Advantage: Yet for all this, we have sufficient matter to convince the Jew that their Messiah is come, that he is cut off, that the …0 weeks of Daniel are at an end, because Ierusalem hath been destroyed long ago; and the 70 weeks do lead us to that fatal destruction.
For our Interpretation that the Roman is the Fourth Monarchy, it is not this that keepeth the Jew in his blindness and unbelief; but rather, it would be a greater stumblingblock in his way, to take the Seleucian for the Fourth Monarchy. Mr Broughton who affirmeth this to be a Fourth Monarchy, how can he make it good, That the Kingdom of Christ was set up in the times of the Seleucian? Suppose a Jew should read in the Gospel written by Saint Matthew, that our Saviour was Born in Bethlem in the times of the Romans; and as the other Evangelists do expresly say, in the times of Augustus Caesar, who caused all the world to be taxed, &c. Here then, if a Jew should be of the judgement of these Learned men That the Roman is none of the Four Monarchies, and that there was a total dissolution of the Four Metal-Kingdoms before the coming of Christ, and the beginning of the Roman: In this method and way of Interpretation, how can they possibly make good that Scripture forementioned? In the dayes of these Kingdoms shall the God of Heaven raise up a Kingdom that shall never be destroyed, Dan. 2. 44. If the Lord will raise up the Kingdom of Christ in the dayes of the Four Metal-Kingdoms, and the Evangelists all with one mouth do say, That the Kingdom was raised up in that time when all was under the power of the Romans, we may safely Conclude, That the Roman must needs be one of the Four Kingdoms; and in particular, the Fourth and the last Kingdom.
And whereas it is alledged, One like the Son of Man came in the clouds of Heaven, vers. 13. We do willingly yield, when the Roman Kingdom, in the last and Antichristian state thereof, shall be brought to a final destruction, then in those times the Kingdom of the Saints shall be set up upon the Earth in the last dayes; and there shall be a Union betwixt Jewes and Gentiles under Christ their King, according to the Scriptures. And though we do not press the strictness of the Letter for a Personal and visible Reign of Christ (as many have done, and many now do) yet I trust that the Jew and the Gentile shall find it true, That both People shall come under the Reign of Christ, when his Gospel shall be the regent Law in the latter dayes. But of this matter somthing more largely afterwards.
Mr Broughton.
I will shew thee what shall be in the latter end of wrath, chap. 8. vers. 21. This place strongly overthroweth their Error, that seign the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom, meant by the Legs of the Image, seeing the Greeks are the Dealers in the latter end of wrath. And it had been a strange thing that this last vision repeating the former, should neglect the Romans, if they had been spoken of before.
Answer.
We have shewed how the former Kingdoms … repeated in the latter Vision: we yield that there is a repetiti…n of the Monarchical Kingdoms, but not a repetition of them in the full Number. For what a way of Reasoning were this▪ The Babylonian is not reckoned chap. 8. therefore he is none of the Four great Empires mentioned in the Chapter going …efore? Let us come to the main Reason which Mr Brought… saith, strongly overthroweth their Error who feign the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom. His Argument is drawn from that Expression, I will shew thee what shall be in the last end of indignation. …ll that may be gathered from hence, is this, That the Greeks may be Dealers in the latter end of wrath, if we compare them with the times of Daniel: yet according to this sense, the Romans may be latter than they. Secondly, If we look to the true translation of the word (as Iunius and Piscator have it) the Interpretation must run thus: I will make known to thee what shall be in the extremity foreign of that indignation, when Antiochus shall afflict the Church. And therefore the Angel doth expound what is meant by these words, In the latter end of their Kingdom, when transgressors are come to a full end, a King of fierce countenance shall stand up, vers. 23. So then, according to the true sense, the Greeks are not so much the Dealers in the latter end of wrath, as Antiochus in particular is a Dealer against the Saints in the latter end of the Graecian tyranny. Here then is a plain fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simplicitur.
Mr Broughton.
Chap. 12. vers. 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up that standeth for the Children of thy people. When Antiochus, going to War against Parthia, left Lysias behind him to have rooted out the Iews; then Michael stood up. Here the terms of Daniel's People must needs mean the Iewes, and not the troubles of the Christian Church. Now it is evident, That the Holy Iewish Nation was never troubled in their whole State, but in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes: And therefore it is clear that the Angel speaketh of those dayes. And this one speech might have kept Daniel in his true meaning, that we should not draw him beyond Christ.