xviii. 37, 38), and as the apostles proposed to do on the Samaritans

(Lu. ix. 54), _as if_ fire were called down on them from heaven. The phrase “in the sight of men” implies that this would be done publicly, and is such language as would be used of pretended miracles designed for purposes of ostentation. Amidst the multitudes of pretended miracles of the Papacy, it would probably not be difficult to find instances in which the very thing here described was attempted, in which various devices of pyrotechnics were shown off as miracles. For an illustration of the wonders produced in the dark ages in reference to fire, having all the appearance of miracles, and regarded _as_ miracles by the masses of men, the reader is referred to Dr. Brewster’s _Letters on Natural Magic_, particularly Letter xii.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by _the means of_ those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the [419]wound by a sword, and did live.

14. _And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by |the means of| those miracles._ Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the Papacy than this. It has been kept up by deception and delusion, and its pretended miracles have been, and are to this day, the means by which this is done. Anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the pretended miracles practised at Rome, will see the propriety of this description as applied to the Papacy. The main fact here stated, that the Papacy would endeavour to sustain itself by pretended miracles, is confirmed by an incidental remark of Mr. Gibbon, when speaking of the pontificate of Gregory the Great; he says: “The credulity or the prudence of Gregory was always disposed to confirm the truths of religion by the evidence of ghosts, _miracles_, and resurrections” (_Decline and Fall_, iii. 210). Even within a month of the time that I am writing (October 5, 1850), intelligence has been received in this country of extraordinary privileges conferred on some city in Italy, because the eyes of a picture of the Virgin in that city have miraculously moved――greatly to the “confirmation of the faithful.” Such things are constantly occurring; and it is by these that the supremacy of the Papacy has been and is sustained. The _Breviary_ teems with examples of miracles wrought by the saints. For instance: St. Francis Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh to save the lives of five hundred travellers who were dying of thirst, enough being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world, where it wrought astonishing cures. St. Raymond de Pennafort laid his cloak on the sea, and sailed from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of a hundred and {329} sixty miles, in six hours. St. Juliana lay on her death-bed; her stomach rejected all solid food, and in consequence she was prevented from receiving the Eucharist. In compliance with her earnest solicitations, the consecrated wafer was laid on her breast; the priest prayed; the wafer vanished, and Juliana expired. Many pages might be filled with accounts of modern miracles of the most ridiculous description, yet believed by Roman Catholics――the undoubted means by which Papal Rome “deceives the world,” and keeps up its ascendency in this age. See Forsyth’s _Italy_, ii. pp. 154‒157; _Rome in the Nineteenth Century_, i. p. 40, 86, ii. p. 356, iii. pp. 193‒201; Lady Morgan’s _Italy_, ii. p. 306, iii. p. 189; Graham’s _Three Months’ Residence_, &c. p. 241. ¶ _Saying to them that dwell on the earth._ That is, as far as its influence would extend. This implies that there would be _authority_, and that this authority would be exercised to secure this object. ¶ _That they should make an image to the beast._ That is, something that would _represent_ the beast, and that might be an object of worship. The word rendered _image_――εἰκών――means properly, (a) an image, effigy, figure, as an _idol_, image, or figure; (b) a likeness, resemblance, similitude. Here the meaning would seem to be, that, in order to secure the acknowledgment of the beast, and the homage to be rendered to him, there was something like a statue made, or that John saw in vision such a representation――that is, that a state of things existed _as if_ such a statue were made, and men were constrained to acknowledge this. All that is stated here would be fulfilled if the old Roman civil power should become to a large extent dead, or cease to exert its influence over men, and if then the Papal spiritual power should cause a form of domination to exist, _strongly resembling_ the former in its general character and extent, and if it should secure this result――that the world would acknowledge its sway or render it homage as it did to the old Roman government. This would receive its fulfilment if it be supposed that the first “beast” represented the ancient Roman civil power as such; that this died away――as if the head had received a fatal wound; that it was again revived under the influence of the Papacy; and that, under that influence, a civil government, _strongly resembling_ the old Roman dominion, was caused to exist, depending for its vital energy on the Papacy, and, in its turn, lending its aid to support the Papacy. All this _in fact_ occurred in the decline of the Roman power after the time of Constantine, and its final apparent extinction, as if “wounded to death,” in the exile of the last of the emperors, the son of Orestes, who assumed the names of Romulus and Augustus, names which were corrupted, the former by the Greeks into _Momyllus_, and the latter by the Latins “into the contemptible diminutive _Augustulus_.” See Gibbon ii. 381. Under him the empire ceased, until it was revived in the days of Charlemagne. In the empire which then sprung up, and which owed much of its influence to the sustaining aid of the Papacy, we discern the “image” of the former Roman power; the prolongation of the Roman ascendency over the world. On the exile of the feeble son of Orestes (A.D. 476), the government passed into the hands of Odoacer, “the first barbarian who reigned in Italy” (Gibbon); and then the authority was divided among the sovereignties which sprang up after the conquests of the barbarians, until the “empire” was again restored in the time and the person of Charlemagne. See Gibbon, iii. 344, seq. ¶ _Which had the wound by a sword, and did live._ Which had a wound that was naturally fatal, but whose fatal consequences were prevented by the intervention of another power. See Notes on ver. 3. That is, according to the explanation given above, the Roman imperial power was “wounded with a fatal wound” by the invasions of the northern hordes――the sword of the conquerors. Its power, however, was restored by the Papacy, giving life to that which _resembled_ essentially the Roman civil jurisdiction――the “image” of the former beast; and that power, thus restored, asserted its dominion again, as the prolonged Roman dominion――the fourth kingdom of Daniel (see Notes on Dan. vii. 19, seq.)――over the world.

15 And he had power to give life[420] unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not [421]worship the image of the beast should be killed.

{330} 15. _And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast._ That is, that image of the beast would be naturally powerless, or would have no life in itself. The second beast, however, had power to impart life to it, so that it would be invested with authority, and would exercise that authority in the manner specified. If this refers, as is supposed, to the Roman civil power――the power of the empire restored――it would find a fulfilment in some act of the Papacy by which the empire that resembled in the extent of its jurisdiction, and in its general character, the former Roman empire, received some vivifying impulse, or was invested with new power. That is, it would have power conferred on it through the Papacy which it would not have in itself, and which would confirm its jurisdiction. How far events actually occurred corresponding with this, will be considered in the Notes at the close of this verse. ¶ _That the image of the beast should both speak._ Should give signs of life; should issue authoritative commands. The _speaking_ here referred to pertains to that which is immediately specified, in issuing a command that they who “would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” ¶ _And cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast._ Would not honour it, or acknowledge its authority. The “worship” here referred to is _civil_, not _religious_ homage. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning is, that what is here called the “image of the beast” had power given it, by its connection with the second “beast,” to set up its jurisdiction over men, and to secure their allegiance on pain of death. The power by which this was done was derived from the second beast; the obedience and homage demanded was of the most entire and submissive character; the nature of the government was in a high degree arbitrary; and the penalty enforced for refusing this homage was death. The _facts_ that we are to look for in the fulfilment of this are, (1) that the Roman imperial power was about to expire――as if wounded to death by the sword; (2) that this was revived in the form of what is here called the “image of the beast”――that is, in a form closely resembling the former power; (3) that this was done by the agency of the Papal power, represented by the second beast; (4) that the effect of this was to set up over men a wide-extended secular jurisdiction, of a most arbitrary and absolute kind, where the penalty of disobedience to its laws was death, and where the infliction of this was, in fact, to be traced to the influence of the second beast――that is, the Papal spiritual power. The question now is, whether _facts_ occurred that corresponded with this emblematic representation. Now, as to the leading fact, the decline of the Roman imperial power――the fatal wound inflicted on that by the “sword”――there can be no doubt. In the time of “Augustulus,” as above stated, it had become practically extinct――“wounded as it were to death,” and _so_ wounded that it would never have been revived again had it not been for some foreign influence. It is true also, that, when the Papacy arose, the necessity was felt of allying itself with some wide-extended civil or secular dominion, that might be under its own control, and that would maintain its spiritual authority. It is true, also, that the empire was revived――the very “image” or copy, so far as it could be, of the former Roman power, in the time of Charlemagne, and that the power which was wielded in what was called the “empire,” was that which was, in a great measure, derived from the Papacy, and was designed to sustain the Papacy, and was actually employed for that purpose. These are the main facts, I suppose, which are here referred to, and a few extracts from Mr. Gibbon will show with what propriety and accuracy the symbols were employed were used, on the supposition that this was the designed reference. (a) The rise, or restoration of this imperial power in the time and the person of Charlemagne. Mr. Gibbon says (iii. 342), “It was after the Nicene synod, and under the reign of the pious Irene, that the popes consummated the separation of Rome and Italy [from the Eastern empire] _by the translation of the empire_ to the less orthodox Charlemagne. They were compelled to choose between the rival nations; religion was not the sole motive of their choice; and while they dissembled the failings of their friends, they beheld with reluctance and suspicion the Catholic virtues of their foes. The difference of language and manners had perpetuated the enmity of the two capitals [Rome and Constantinople]; and they were alienated from each other by the hostile opposition of seventy {331} years. In that schism the Romans had tasted of freedom, and the popes of sovereignty; their submission would have exposed them to the revenge of a jealous tyrant, and the revolution of Italy had betrayed the impotence as well as the tyranny of the Byzantine court.” Mr. Gibbon then proceeds to state reasons why _Charlemagne_ was selected as the one who was to be placed at the head of the revived imperial power, and then adds (p. 343), “The title of patrician was below the merit and greatness of Charlemagne; and _it was only by reviving the Western empire_ that they could pay their obligations, or secure their establishment. By this decisive measure they would finally eradicate the claims of the Greeks; from the debasement of a provincial town the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis; _and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors of St. Peter. The Roman church would acquire a zealous and respectable advocate_; and under the shadow of the Carlovingian power, the bishop might exercise, with honour and safety, the government of the city.” All this seems as if it were a _designed_ commentary on such expressions as these: “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed,” “saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live; and he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,” &c. (b) Its extent. It is said (ver. 12), “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” Comp. ver. 14, 15. That is, the _extent_ of the jurisdiction of the revived power, or the restored empire, would be as great as it was before the wound was inflicted. Of the _extent_ of the restored empire under Charlemagne, Mr. Gibbon has given a full account, iii. pp. 546‒549. The passage is too long to be copied here in full, and a summary of it only can be given. He says, “The empire was not unworthy of its title; and some of the fairest kingdoms of Europe were the patrimony or conquest of a prince who reigned at the same time in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary. I. The Roman province of Gaul had been transformed into the name and monarchy of FRANCE, &c. II. The Saracens had been expelled from France by the grandfather and father of Charlemagne, but they still possessed the greatest part of Spain, from the rock of Gibraltar to the Pyrenees. Amidst their civil divisions, an Arabian emir of Saragossa implored his protection in the diet of Paderborn. Charlemagne undertook the expedition, restored the emir, and, without distinction of faith, impartially crushed the resistance of the Christians, and rewarded the obedience and service of the Mohammedans. In his absence he instituted the _Spanish March_, which extended from the Pyrenees to the river Ebro: Barcelona was the residence of the French governor; he possessed the counties of _Rousillon_ and _Catalonia_; and the infant kingdoms of _Navarre_ and _Aragon_ were subject to his jurisdiction. III. As king of the Lombards, and patrician of Rome, he reigned over the greatest part of ITALY, a tract of a thousand miles from the Alps to the borders of Calabria, &c. IV. Charlemagne was the first who united GERMANY under the same sceptre, &c. V. He retaliated on the Avars, or Huns of Pannonia, the same calamities which they had inflicted on the nations: the royal residence of the Chagan was left desolate and unknown; and the treasures, the rapine of two hundred and fifty years, enriched the victorious troops, or decorated the churches of Italy and Gaul.” “If we retrace the outlines of the geographical picture,” continues Mr. Gibbon, “it will be seen that the empire of the Franks extended, between east and west, from the Ebro to the Elbe or Vistula; between the north and south, from the duchy of Beneventum to the river Eyder, the perpetual boundary of Germany and Denmark. Two-thirds of the Western empire of Rome were subject to Charlemagne, and the deficiency was amply supplied by his command of the inaccessible or invincible nations of Germany.” (c) The dependence of this civil or revived secular power on the Papacy. “His deadly wound was healed.” “And caused the earth to worship the first beast.” “Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast.” “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast.” Thus Mr. Gibbon {332} (iii. 343) says, “From the debasement of a provincial town, the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis; _and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors of St. Peter_.” And again (iii. 344) he says, “On the festival of Christmas, the last year of the eighth century, Charlemagne appeared in the church of St. Peter; and, to gratify the vanity of Rome, he had exchanged the simple dress of his country for the habit of a patrician. After the celebration of the holy mysteries, Leo _suddenly placed a precious crown on his head_, and the dome resounded with the acclamations of the people, ‘Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, _crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans_!’ The head and body of Charlemagne were consecrated by the royal unction; his coronation oath represents a promise to maintain the faith and privileges of the church; and the first-fruits are paid in rich offerings to the shrine of the apostle. In his familiar conversation the emperor protested his ignorance of the intentions of Leo, which he would have disappointed by his absence on that memorable day. But the preparations of the ceremony must have disclosed the secret; and the journey of Charlemagne reveals his knowledge and expectation; he had acknowledged that the imperial title was the object of his ambition, and a Roman senate had pronounced that it was the only adequate reward of his merit and services.” So again (iii. 350), Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Otho (A.D. 962), and of his victorious march over the Alps, and his subjugation of Italy, says, “From that memorable era, two maxims of public jurisprudence were introduced by force and ratified by time. I. That the prince who was elected in the German diet, acquired from that instant the subject kingdoms of Italy and Rome. II. But that he might not legally assume the titles of emperor and Augustus, _till he had received the crown from the hands of the Roman Pontiff_.” In connection with these quotations from Mr. Gibbon, we may add, from Sigonius, the oath which the emperor took on the occasion of his coronation: “I, the Emperor, do engage and promise, in the name of Christ, before God and the blessed apostle Peter, that I will be a protector and defender of this holy church of Rome, in all things wherein I can be useful to it, so far as divine assistance shall enable me, and so far as my knowledge and power can reach” (quoted by Professor Bush, _Hieroph._ Nov. 1842, p. 141). We learn, also, from the biographers of Charlemagne that a commemorative coin was struck at Rome under his reign, bearing this inscription: “Renovatio Imperii Romani”――“_Revival of the Roman Empire_” (_Ibid._). These quotations, whose authority will not be questioned, and whose authors will not be suspected of having had any design to illustrate these passages in the Apocalypse, will serve to confirm what is said in the Notes of the decline and restoration of the Roman secular power; of its dependence on the Papacy to give it life and vigour; and of the fact that it was designed to sustain the Papacy, and to perpetuate the power of Rome. It needs only to be added, that down to the time of Charles the Fifth――the period of the Reformation――nothing was more remarkable in history than the readiness of this restored secular power to sustain the Papacy and to carry out its designs; or than the readiness of the Papacy to sustain an absolute civil despotism, and to make the world subject to it by suppressing all attempts in favour of civil liberty.

16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to [422]receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

16. _And he caused all._ He claims jurisdiction, in the matters here referred to, over all classes of persons, and compels them to do his will. This is the second beast, and, according to the interpretation given above, it relates to the Papal power, and to its claim of universal jurisdiction. ¶ _Both small and great._ All these expressions are designed to denote _universality_――referring to various divisions into which the human family may be regarded as divided. One of those divisions is into “small and great;” that is, into young and old; those small in stature and those large in stature; those of humble, and those of elevated rank. ¶ _Rich and poor._ Another way of dividing the human race, and denoting here, as in the former case, _all_――for it is a common {333} method, in speaking of mankind, to describe them as “the rich and poor.” ¶ _Free and bond._ Another method still of dividing the human race, embracing _all_――for all the dwellers upon the earth are either free or bond. These various forms of expression, therefore, are designed merely to denote, in an emphatic manner, _universality_. The idea is, that, in the matter referred to, none were exempt, either on account of their exalted rank, or on account of their humble condition; either because they were so mighty as to be beyond control, or so mean and humble as to be beneath notice. And if this refers to the Papacy, every one will see the propriety of the description. The jurisdiction set up by that power has been as absolute over kings as over the feeble and the poor; over masters and their slaves; alike over those in the humblest and in the most elevated walks of life. ¶ _To receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads._ The word here rendered _mark_――χάραγμα――occurs only in one place in the New Testament except in the book of Revelation (Ac. xvii. 29), where it is rendered _graven_. In all the other places where it is found (Re. xiii. 16, 17; xiv. 9, 11; xv. 2; xvi. 2; xix. 20; xx. 4), it is rendered _mark_, and is applied to the same thing――the “mark of the beast.” The word properly means something graven or sculptured; hence, (a) a graving, sculpture, sculptured work, as images or idols; (b) a mark cut in or stamped――as the stamp on coin. Applied to men, it was used to denote some stamp or mark on the hand or elsewhere――as in the case of a servant on whose hand or arm the name of the master was impressed; or of a soldier on whom some mark was impressed denoting the company or phalanx to which he belonged. It was no uncommon thing to mark slaves or soldiers in this way; and the design was either to denote their ownership or rank, or to prevent their escaping so as not to be detected.[423] Most of us have seen such marks made on the hands or arms of sailors, in which, by a voluntary _tattooing_, their names, or the names of their vessels, were written, or the figure of an anchor, or some other device, was indelibly made by punctures in the skin, and by inserting some kind of colouring matter. The thing which it is here said was engraven on the hand or the forehead was the “name” of the beast, or the “number” of his name, ver. 17. That is, the “name” or the “number” was so indelibly inscribed either on the hand or the forehead, as to show that he who bare it appertained to the “beast,” and was subject to his authority――as a slave is to his master, or a soldier to his commander. Applied to the Papacy, the meaning is, that there would be some mark of distinction; some indelible sign; something which would designate, with entire certainty, those persons who belonged to it, and who were subject to it. It is hardly necessary to say that, in point of fact, this has eminently characterized the Papacy. All possible care has been taken to designate with accuracy those who belong to that communion, and, all over the world, it is easy to distinguish those who render allegiance to the Papal power. Comp. Notes on ch. vii. 3.

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or [424]the number of his name.

17. _And that no man might buy or sell._ That is, this mighty power would claim jurisdiction over the traffic of the world, and endeavour to make it tributary to its own purposes. Comp. ch. xviii. 11‒13, 17‒19. This is represented by saying that no one might “buy or sell” except by its permission; and it is clear that where this power exists of determining who may “buy and sell,” there is absolute control over the wealth of the world. ¶ _Save he that had the mark._ To keep it all among its own friends; among those who showed allegiance to this power. ¶ _Or the name of the beast._ That is, the “mark” referred to was _either_ the name of the beast, _or_ the number of his name. The meaning is, that he had something branded on him that showed that he {334} belonged to the beast――as a slave had the name of his master; in other words, there was something that certainly showed that he was subject to its authority. ¶ _Or the number of his name._ In regard to what is denoted by the _number_ of the beast, see Notes on ver. 18. The idea here is, that that “number,” whatever it was, was so marked on him as to show to whom he belonged. According to the interpretation here proposed, the meaning of this passage is, that the Papacy would claim jurisdiction over traffic and commerce; or would endeavour to bring it under its control, and make it subservient to its own ends. Traffic or commerce is one of the principal means by which property is acquired, and he who has the control of this has, to a great degree, the control of the wealth of a nation; and the question now is, whether any such jurisdiction has been set up, or whether any such control has in fact been exercised, so that the wealth of the world has been subject to Papal Rome? For a more full illustration of this I may refer to the Notes on ch. xviii. 11‒13, 16, 17; but at present it may be sufficient to remark, that the manifest aim of the Papacy, in all its history, has been to control the world, and to get dominion over its wealth, in order that it might accomplish its own purposes. But, besides this, there have been numerous specified acts more particularly designed to control the business of “buying and selling.” It has been common in Rome to prohibit, by express law, all traffic with heretics. Thus a canon of the Lateran council, under Pope Alexander III., commanded that no man should entertain or cherish them in his house or land, or _traffic_ with them (Hard. vi., ii. 1684). The synod of Tours, under the same Pope Alexander, passed the law that no man should presume to receive or assist the heretics, no, not so much as to exercise commerce with them in _selling_ or _buying_. And so, too, the Constance council, as expressed in Pope Martin’s bull (Elliott, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221).

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number _is_ six hundred threescore _and_ six.

18. _Here is wisdom._ That is, in what is stated respecting the name and the number of the name of the beast. The idea is, either that there would be need of peculiar sagacity in determining what the “number” of the “beast” or of his “name” was, or that peculiar “wisdom” was shown by the fact that the number could be thus expressed. The language used in the verse would lead the reader to suppose that the attempt to make out the “number” was not absolutely _hopeless_, but that the number was so far enigmatical as to require much skill in determining its meaning. It may also be implied that, for some reason, there was true “wisdom” in designating the name by this number, either because a more direct and explicit statement might expose him who made it to persecution, and it showed practical wisdom thus to guard against this danger; or because there was “wisdom” or skill shown in the fact that a number could be found which would thus correspond with the name. On either of these suppositions, peculiar wisdom would be required in deciphering its meaning. ¶ _Let him that hath understanding._ Implying (a) that it was _practicable_ to “count the number of the name;” and (b) that it would require uncommon skill to do it. It could not be successfully attempted by all; but still there were those who might do it. This is such language as would be used respecting some difficult matter, but where there was hope that, by diligent application of the mind, and by the exercise of a sound understanding, there would be a prospect of success. ¶ _Count the number of the beast._ In ver. 16 it is “the number of his name.” The word here rendered “count”――ψηφισάτω――means, properly, to count or reckon with pebbles, or counters; then to reckon, to estimate. The word here means _compute_; that is, ascertain the exact import of the number, so as to identify the beast. The “number” is that which is immediately specified, “six hundred threescore and six”――666. The phrase “the number of the beast” means, that somehow this number was so connected with the beast, or would so represent its name or character, that the “beast” would be identified by its proper application. The mention in ver. 17 of “the _name_ of the beast,” and “the _number_ of his name,” shows that this “number” was somehow connected with his proper designation, so that by {335} this he would be identified. The plain meaning is, that the number 666 would be so connected with his _name_, or with that which would properly designate him, that it could be determined who was meant by finding that number _in_ his name or in his proper designation. This is the exercise of the skill or wisdom to which the writer here refers: substantially that which is required in the solution of a riddle or a conundrum. If it should be said here that this is undignified and unworthy of an inspired book, it may be replied, (a) that there might be some important reason why the name or designation should not be more plainly made; (b) that it was important, nevertheless, that it should be so made that it would be possible to ascertain who was referred to; (c) that this should be done only in some way which would involve the principle of the enigma――“where a known thing was concealed under obscure language” (Webster’s _Dict._); (d) that the use of symbols, emblems, hieroglyphics, and riddles was common in the early periods of the world; and (e) that it was no uncommon thing in ancient times, as it is in modern, to test the capacity and skill of men by their ability to unfold the meaning of proverbs, riddles, and dark sayings. Comp. the riddle of Samson, Ju. xiv. 12, seq. See also Ps. xlix. 4; lxxviii. 2; Eze. xvii. 2‒8; Pr. i. 2‒6; Da. viii. 23. It would be a _sufficient_ vindication of the method adopted here if it was certain or probable that a direct and explicit statement of what was meant would have been attended with immediate danger, and if the object could be secured by an enigmatical form. ¶ _For it is the number of a man._ Various interpretations of this have been proposed. Clericus renders it, “The number is small, or not such as cannot be estimated by a man.” Rosenmüller, “The number indicates _a man_, or a certain race of men.” Professor Stuart, “The number is to be computed _more humano_, not _more angelico_;” “it is a man’s number.” De Wette, “It is such a number as is commonly reckoned or designated by men.” Other interpretations may be seen in Poole’s _Synopsis_. That which is proposed by Rosenmüller, however, meets all the circumstances of the case. The idea is, evidently, that the number indicates or refers to a certain man, or order of men. It does not pertain to a brute, or to angelic beings. Thus it would be understood by one merely interpreting the language, and thus the connection demands. ¶ _And his number |is| six hundred threescore |and| six._ The number of his name, ver. 17. This cannot be supposed to mean that his name would be composed of six hundred and sixty-six letters; and it must, therefore, mean that somehow the number 666 would be expressed by his name in some well-understood method of computation. The _number_ here――six hundred and sixty-six――is, in Walton’s _Polyglott_, written out in full: Ἑξακόσιοι ἑξάκοντα ἕξ. In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the common Greek text, it is expressed by the characters χξϛʹ = 666. There can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time of Irenæus, there was in some copies another reading――χιϛʹ = 616. This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against this Irenæus inveighs (Liv. v. c. 30). There can be no doubt that the number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein supposes that _both_ methods were used by John; that in the first copy of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in full. This inquiry is not of material consequence.

It need not be said that much has been written on this mysterious “number,” and that very different theories have been adopted in regard to its application. For the views which have been entertained on the subject, the reader may consult, with advantage, the article in Calmet’s _Dict._, under the word “Antichrist.” It was natural for Calmet, being a Roman Catholic, to endeavour to show that the interpretations have been so various, that there could be no certainty in the application, and especially in the common application to the Papacy. In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the passage, the following _general_ remarks may be made, as containing the result of the investigation thus far:――(a) There was some _mystery_ in the matter――some designed concealment――some reason why a more explicit statement was not adopted. The reason of this is not stated; but it may not be improper to suppose that it arose from something in the circumstances of the writer, and that the adoption of this enigmatical expression was designed to avoid some {336} peril to which he or others might be exposed if there were a more explicit statement. (b) It is implied, nevertheless, that it _could_ be understood; that is, that the meaning was not so obscure that, by proper study, the designed reference could not be ascertained without material danger of error. (c) It required _skill_ to do this; either natural sagacity, or particular skill in interpreting hieroglyphics and symbols, or uncommon spiritual discernment. (d) Some man, or order of men, is referred to that could properly be designated in this manner. (e) The method of designating persons obscurely by a reference to the numerical signification of the letters in their names was not very uncommon, and was one that was not unlikely, in the circumstances of the case, to have been resorted to by John. “Thus, among the Pagans, the Egyptian mystics spoke of Mercury, or Thouth, under the name 1218, because the Greek letters composing the word Thouth, when estimated by their numerical value, together made up that number. By others, Jupiter was invoked under the mystical number 717; because the letters of Ἡ ΑΡΧΗ――_Beginning_, or _First Origin_, which was a characteristic of the supreme deity worshipped as Jupiter, made up that number. And Apollo under the number 608, as being that of ηυς or ὑης, words expressing certain solar attributes. Again, the pseudo-Christian, or semi-Pagan Gnostics, from St. John’s time and downwards, affixed to their gems and amulets, of which multitudes remain to the present day, the mystic word αβρασαξ [_abrasax_] or αβραξας [_abraxas_], under the idea of some magic virtue attaching to its number 365, as being that of the days of the annual solar circle,” &c. See other instances referred to in Elliott, iii. 205. These facts show that John would not be unlikely to adopt some such method of expressing a sentiment which it was designed should be obscure in form, but possible to be understood. It should be added here, that this was more common among the Jews than among any other people. (f) It seems clear that some _Greek_ word is here referred to, and that the mystic number is to be found in some word of that language. The _reasons_ for this opinion are these: (1) John was writing in Greek, and it is most natural to suppose that this would be the reference; (2) he expected that his book would be read by those who understood the Greek language, and it would have been unnatural to have increased the perplexity in understanding what he referred to by introducing a word of a foreign language; (3) the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and not those of the Hebrew, are expressly selected by the Saviour to denote his eternity――“I am Alpha and Omega,” ch. i. 8, 11; and (4) the numerals by which the enigma is expressed――χξϛʹ――are Greek. It has indeed been supposed by many that the solution is to be found in the Hebrew language, but these reasons seem to me to show conclusively that we are to look for the solution in some _Greek_ word.

The question now is, whether there is any word which corresponds with these conditions, and which would naturally be referred to by John in this manner. The exposition thus far has led us to suppose that the Papacy in some form is referred to; and the inquiry now is, whether there is any word which is so certain and determinate as to make it probable that John meant to designate that. The word Λατεινος――_Lateinos, the Latin_ [Man]――actually has all the conditions supposed in the interpretation of this passage. From this word the number specified――666――is made out as follows:――

Λ Α Τ Ε Ι Ν Ο Σ

30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666

In support of the opinion that this is the word intended to be referred to, the following suggestions may be made: (a) It is a Greek word. (b) It expresses the exact number, and corresponds in this respect with the language used by John. (c) It was early suggested as the probable meaning, and by those who lived near the time of John; who were intimately acquainted with the Greek language; and who may be supposed to have been familiar with this mode of writing. Thus it was suggested by Irenæus, who says, “It seems to me very probable; for this is a name of the last of Daniel’s four kingdoms; they being _Latins_ that now reign.” It is true that he also mentions two other words as those which _may_ be meant――ευανθας, a word which had been suggested by others, but concerning which he makes no remarks, and which, of course, must have been destitute of any probability in his view; and Τειταν, which he thinks has the clearest claims {337} for admission――though he speaks of the word _Lateinos_ as having a claim of probability. (b) This word would properly denote the Roman power, or the then _Latin_ power, and would refer to that dominion as a Latin dominion――as it properly was; and if it be supposed that it was intended to refer to that, and, at the same time, that there should be some degree of obscurity about it, this would be more likely to be selected than the word _Roman_, which was better known; and (c) there was a _special_ propriety in this, on the supposition that it was intended to refer to the _Papal_ Latin power. The most _appropriate_ appellation, if it was designed to refer to Rome as a _civil_ power, would undoubtedly have been the word _Roman_; but if it was intended to refer to the _ecclesiastical_ power, or to the Papacy, this is the _very_ word to express the idea. In earlier times the more common appellation was _Roman_. This continued until the separation of the Eastern and Western empires, when the Eastern was called _Greek_, and the Western the _Latin_; or when the Eastern empire assumed the name of _Roman_, and affixed to the Western kingdoms one and all that were connected with Rome the appellation of _Latin_. This appellation, originally applied to the _language_ only, was adopted by the Western kingdoms, and came to be that by which they were best designated. It was the Latin world, the Latin kingdom, the Latin church, the Latin patriarch, the Latin clergy, the Latin councils. To use Dr. More’s words, “They _Latinize_ everything: mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls, are conceived in Latin. The Papal councils speak in Latin, women themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are read in no other language under the Papacy than Latin. In short, all things are Latin.” With what propriety, then, might John, under the influence of inspiration, speak, in this enigmatical manner, of the new power that was symbolized by the beast as _Latin_.

The only objection to this solution that has been suggested is, that the orthography of the Greek word is Λατινος――_Latinos_, and not Λατεινος――_Lateinos_, giving the number 661, and not 666; and Bellarmine asserts that this is the uniform method of spelling in Greek authors. All that is necessary in reply to this is to copy the following remark from Professor Stuart, vol. ii. p. 456: “As to the form of the Greek word Λατεινος [_Lateinos_], viz., that ει is employed for the Latin long [_ī_], it is a sufficient vindication of it to cite Σαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Αντωνεῖνος, Ατεῖλιος, Μετεῖλιος, Παπεῖριος, Ουεῖβιος, &c. Or we may refer to the custom of the more ancient Latin, as in Plautus, of writing _i_ by _ei_; _e.g._, solitei, Diveis, captivei, preimus, Lateina, &c.” See this point examined further, in Elliott, iii. 210‒213.

As a matter of historical interest, it may be observed that the solution of the difficulty has been sought in numerous other words, and the friends of the Papacy and the enemies of the Bible have endeavoured to show that such terms are so numerous that there can be no certainty in the application. Thus Calmet (_Dict._ art. “Antichrist”), after enumerating many of these terms, says: “The number 666 is found in names the most sacred, the most opposite to Antichrist. The wisest and best way is to be silent.”

We have seen that, besides the name _Lateinos_, two other words had been referred to in the time of Irenæus. Some of the words in which the mysterious number has been since supposed to be found are the following:――

נרון קסר Neron Cæsar = 50 + 200 + 6 + 50, and 100 + 60 + 200 = 666

Diocles Augustus (Dioclesian) = DCLXVI.

C. F. Julianus Cæsar Atheus (the Apostate) = DCLXVI.

Luther――לולתר‭‬ = 200 + 400 + 30 + 6 + 30 = 666

Lampetis, λαμπετις = 30 + 1 + 40 + 80 + 5 + 300 + 10 + 200 = 666

η Λατινη βασιλεια = 8 + 30 + 1 + 300 + 10 + 50 + 8 + 2 + 1 + 200 + 10 + 30 + 5 + 10 + 1 = 666

Ιταλικα εκκλησια = 10 + 300 + 1 + 30 + 10 + 20 + 1 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 30 + 8 + 200 + 10 + 1 = 666

Αποστατης (the Apostate) = 1 + 80 + 70 + 6 + 1 + 300 + 8 + 200 = 666

רומיית (Roman, sc. _Sedes_) = 200 + 6 + 40 + 10 + 10 + 400 = 666

רמענוש (Romanus, sc. _Man_) = 200 + 40 + 70 + 50 + 6 + 300 = 666

It will be admitted that many of these, and others that might be named, are fanciful, and perhaps had their origin in a determination, on the one hand, to find _Rome_ referred to somehow, or in a determination, on the other hand, equally strong, _not_ to find this; but still it is

remarkable how {338} many of the most obvious solutions refer to Rome and the Papacy. But the mind need not be distracted, nor need doubt be thrown over the subject, by the _number_ of the solutions proposed. They show the restless character of the human mind, and the ingenuity of men; but this should not be allowed to bring into doubt a solution that is simple and natural, and that meets all the circumstances of the case. Such a solution, I believe, is found in the word Λατεινος――_Lateinos_, as illustrated above; and as that, if correct, settles the case, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Those who are disposed to do so, however, may find ample illustration in Calmet, _Dict._ art. “Antichrist;” Elliott, _Horæ Apoca._ iii. 207‒221; Prof. Stuart, _Com._ vol. ii. Excursus iv.; _Bibliotheca Sacra_, i. 84‒86; Robert Fleming on the _Rise and Fall of the Papacy_, 28, seq.; De Wette, _Exegetisches Handbuch, N.T._, iii. 140‒142; Vitringa, _Com._ 625‒637, Excursus iv.; _Nov. Tes. Edi. Koppianæ_, vol. x. b, pp. 235‒265; and the Commentaries generally.