The Name Mark and Number of the Beast, Chapter 5 · Part 22 – Part 23
Answer.
The Character of the mixture of Marriages drawn from that collation between chap. 2. vers. 43. and chap. 11. vers 6. This, of all others, seemeth to be the grand Argument. But to say the truth, and that upon tryal, I here find that Interpreters do usually build upon Three notable False Principles.
First, They take the Fourth Kingdom as divided in all time; and therefore they look after the interchangable marriages of the Seleucidae and Lagidae to make up the Union. But in this they erre: For the Fourth Kingdom, as long as it is in the Iron-Legs, it is not di…ided at all: It is one intire Dominion, and therefore needeth no Uniting by mixture of marriages. The Division beginneth not till you come to the Feet, part of Iron, and part of Clay. But let us hear the words themselves▪ A…d the Fourth Kingdom shall be strong as Iron, forasmuch as Iron breaket… in p…eces, and subdueth all things; and as Iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. So then, the Fourth Kingdom, so long as it is in the Iron-Legs, is more strong than any going before. There arose first a Kingdom of Gold, in all fulness of power… an… then afterwords, a Kingdom of Silver: and a third … Brass, that should rule over all: and then last of all, a Kingdom of Iron, which should break in pieces and su…due all the former Metals. But how is this verified in the Fourth Kingdom? The strength and power of the Kingdom was chiefly in the Iron-Legs: when it came to the Feet and Toes, it then became divided; and was partly strong, and … broken. If we look narrowly to the words, there is a description of the Fourth Kingdom in the … …ate thereof. First, It i… described as one intire Kingdom ru…ing over all the Earth; and so it was in the first times when it was in the Iron▪Legs. Secondly, It is described as a divided Kingdom into many parts; and so it was in its last times in the Feet, part of Iron, and part of Clay: If this be so, How far doth Piscator, and other Interpreters of his way, depart from the Truth?
First, They make the Fourth, the mightiest Kingdom, to consist meerly of the Fragments and broken pieces of Alexander's Dominion. Secondly, That which is more, They make it a Kingdom broken and divided in all its times; when it became divided in its last times only. Thirdly, They plead the mixture of Marriages between the Seleuc…dae and the Lagidae, in the Iron-Legs of the Image: and yet it standeth them upon to prove, That the Fourth Kingdom was divided, when it was in the Iron-Legs. The Scripture saith no such thing, but rather the contrary: as long as it was in the Iron-Legs, it was an absolute, intire, and undivided Kingdom. And therefore where there is no division into pieces, what need is there of mingling to make an Union?
Secondly, They usually take it for granted, That the Fourth Kingdom is divided into two parts; and therefore they mainly insist upon the division between the Seleucidae and the Lagidae. We yield that there is a division in the Feet and Toes of the Image: but how is it proved, That this is a division into Two parts only, and no more? The words of the text are these: The Legs were of Iron, and the Feet part of Iron, and part of Clay. The Chaldee hath it, Out of those parts that w…e of Iron, and those parts that were of Clay. The materials of the Feet were Iron and Clay; of these the several parts of the Fourth Kingdom were tempered. But how is it proved, That the Kingdom was divided into Two parts only, and no more? They that build upon this, as upon an undoubted Principle, should first make it appear, That it is so. For, where doth Daniel in his Exposition make mention of any such bipartite State? How can this be proved from his words? For thus it is in the text; Whereas thou sawest the Feet and Toes, part of Potters Clay, and part of Iron; the Kingdom shall be divided: or, (as Iunius rendreth it) R…gna erunt divers…, There shall be diverse Kingdoms. But how is it proved, That the Kingdom is divided only into Two parts, and that the diverse Kingdoms are only two and no more? Let us refer that matter to that other description, chap. 7. And is there any thing there spoken, to prove the bipartite State of the Fourth Kingdom? For if we must suppose, That the Seleucidae and the Lagidae, are the Two Iron-Legs, or divisions of the Fourth Empire, why is not this repeated again, or somthing to this purpose, in the seventh Chapter? All agree in it, That there is a description of one and the same Kingdom in both texts. Now then, in the seventh Chapter there is no mention made of this division, only there it is said, That Ten Kings or Kingdoms shall arise, and another shall arise up after them. Here it is plainly said, what that Number of Kingdoms is, into which the Fourth Empire shall be divided, scil. into Ten inferiour Realms. These then are the parts of the Fourth Empire that shall mingle themselves with the seed of men in the latter times of that Dominion. There is nothing spoken in the text con…erning the bipartite State, nothing concerning the Seleucidae and the Lagidae; but that multiplicity of lesser States in the Feet and Toes of the Image, are here defined and declared to be Ten in Number, the proper Character and print-mark of the Roman Dominion, Rev. 17.
Object. You will say, That the two Legs of the Image do signifie the double state of the Fourth Kingdom; and these are the Seleucidae and the Lagidae.
Sol: This is but a Fancy, as I have formerly proved; for if you look to the Exposition of the text in Daniel's own words, The Fourth Kingdom was so far from being bipartite, that it was not at all partite or divided, as long as it was in the Legs; the division beginning only in the Feet and Toes. But if any stand upon the Analogie and similitude, That therefore the Kingdom must be divided into Two parts, because there are two Legs in the Body of man; I would here know also, by the same method of Interpretation, what is meant by the Knees, the Ancles, and other parts of the Legs? Must we finde out a signification for all these? The Kingdom of Babel is compared to an Head of Gold; must we look then what is signified by the Eyes, the Nose, the Mouth, the Beard, the Lips, and other parts of the Head; and so apply several significations to the Babylonian Kingdom? This were to trifle in a serious matter. It is a good observation of Dr Willets, That the Image is no Natural, but a voluntary sign; and therefore we are not to seek for a signification beyond the intent of the Type. The intent of the Type, by the Legs of the Image, as by the lowest region and part of the Body of Man, is to set forth the Fourth and last Monarchical Kingdom, and the Fourth and last period of time. We can prove no more by the simili…ude, than it will signifie: and here it is plain, That the Two Legs do signifie no more than the Two Thighs, the Two Sides; and these do not signifie the bipartite State of the Third Kingdom.
Thirdly, They take it for a granted Truth, That the twodivided State is the proper Character of the Graecian Kingdom; and therefore they look to the Seleucidae, or Lagidae, as the immediate parts and divisions of that Empire. But herein also they are greatly deceived: For it is plain from chap. 8. That the Graecian is quadri-partite. In a famous change of State, that Empire became divided into Four Kingdoms. The Goat is the Kingdom of Graecia; the Four Horns are Four Kingdoms that shall arise foreign out of that Nation, vers. 22. And this is the reason wherefore the Third Beast is said to have Four Heads, because of the quadri-partite Estate of that Empire. From whence we collect, That Piscator, and other Interpreters that follow his judgement, do erre from the Truth, when they would have the Seleucidae and the Lag…dae to be the two parts of the Greek Empire. To speak properly, Neither the Graecian, nor the Roman, can be set forth by this Character, sith the Graecian is described in the Scripture in the nature of a Tetrarchy, or a Kingdom divided into Four parts; and the Roman in the nature of a Decarchy, or a Kingdom divided into ten inferiour Realms. These are the Three False Principles on which Interpreters do usually build, and therefore the interpretation cannot be good that standeth upon such a sandy foundation.
For the mixture of Marriages, which Piscator calleth Evidentem collationem, an evident collation; I do acknowledge that the mixture of Marriages mentioned chap. 2. is again repeated chap. 11. In the one text it is said, That they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: And in the other, That there is an interchangeable Marriage, one or two, betwixt the Seleucidae and the Lagidae. But what of all this? They that are like in some things, are not altogether the same. If that general rule, Omne simile non est idem, were observed in the Exposition of Daniel and the Revelation, we should have a cleerer sense of some Visions then now we have. But this great Fallacy hath imposed upon Interpreters; they have taken that for the same, which is parallel in some things only. There are some that have gone so far in these times, as that they have taken the little Horn for some late Princes; some, for Mahomet, and some for this, and some for that. Here I confess there may be a similitude in some particulars, and the Allusion may hold in some few Circumstances: But if you go to the whole Body of the notes of the little Horn, and to the scope of the text, here it will be very hard to make good the Assertion. There is a resemblance only between the Marriages, mentioned chap. 2. and chap. 11. But if we go to the main scope, the whole carriage of the text doth plainly shew That the Roman is the Fourth Kingdom; and so conseque… ly, the mixture of Marriages, and the mingling … the seed of men, must necessarily be in the Roman Kingdom.
And yet further, To satisfie the doubt, They who do look more diligently into the sense of the Prophecie, they find many things in the Graecian, which are but as Types and Figures of some notable events in the Roman Kingdom. Let us take for Instance, the little Horn mentioned in the Eighth of Daniel. Now here all do agree, That Antiochus Epiphanes is the little Horn meant in this Chapter: yet whosoever he is that diligently readeth the words of St. Paul, in 2 Thess. 2. he shall find that the Apostle doth apply many things to the Roman Antichrist, and so doth Iohn in the Revelation, that are here ascribed to Antiochus Epiphanes. To salve the matter, Interpreters tell us, That Antiochus is the Figure of the Antichrist to come. We may proceed in the same Method, and so we may say, That the interchangeable Marriages between the Seleuc…dae and the Lagidae, are but Figures of the future mingling with the seed of men, and of all other means that shall be used to the keeping up of the Roman Kingdom in the last and Antichristian State thereof. But, let us proceed.
Piscator.
The same thing also may be cleerly demonstrated from the words, vers. 34, 35. where Daniel, among many other things, doth speak unto the King; Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the Image upon the Feet that were part of Iron, and part of Clay, and brake them to pieces: And the stone which smote the Image, became a great Mountain, and filled the whole Earth. This Stone Daniel doth expound, vers. 44. to be the Kingdom that never shall be destroyed, and is the Kingdom of Christ: for the Kingdom of Christ began then to fill the whole Earth by the preaching of the Gospel, after the overthrow of those Four Kingdoms, as it is evident from the text. And truly, about the beginning of the Roman Empire, Christ was Born, when Augustus did bear Rule, &c. In the 35 year from his Birth, he sent the holy Spirit from Heaven into the Apostles, with whose Power they being endued, did Preach the Gospel first at Ierusalem to the Iews, and then afterward everywhere in the whole world to the Gentiles, as the Book of the Acts doth testifie. Therefore, sith at the Rising of the Kingdom of Christ, and at his filling the whole Earth, the Fourth Kingdom, prefigured by this Image, was already destroyed: and seeing also that the Roman Empire did continue at that time; it doth necessarily follow, That that Fourth Kingdom cannot any way be understood of the Empire of the Romans.