this and similar ways that the false-prophet has terrified the Latin world, and kept it in subjection to the secular and spiritual powers. Those interdicted by the two-horned Beast from all offices of civil life, are such as have not "the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” * Bishop Newton supposes that, the name of the Beast, and the number of his name, mean the same thing; but this opinion is totally irreconcileable with Rev. xv. 2. where St. John informs us that he "saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name, stand upon the sea of glass, having the harps of God." In this passage it is evident that the

*The disjunctive particle," or," between rò xápaɣμa, "the mark," and rò ovoua rou Inpie," the name of the beast," is omitted in many excellent manuscripts, which has induced some to suppose that the meaning of the passage is, that the mark consists in the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. "And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, [to wit,] the name of the beast, or the number of his name." But that this cannot be the meaning is evident from the context; for the name of the Beast is the Latin empire; therefore, if the mark be the same with the name of the Beast, the mark must be the Latin empire, a supposition which the whole tenor of the prophecy shews to be absurd. Therefore the mark is not the same with the name of the Beast; though it refers to the name, as is evident from Rev. xiv. 11. where we read οἱ τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, “ the mark of his name,” as has been already shewn.

+ The common reading of the passage is as follows: Tous κῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρία καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ χαράγματ

Beast, his image, and the number of his name, are perfectly distinct; and, therefore, no two of them can mean the same thing. Hence what is meant by the name of the Beast is entirely different from that intended by the number of his name. But how can this be, when it is expressly declared in the following verse that the number of the Beast is 666; which number is declared to be that of his name?

τος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ; « them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name." In the above passage in Tov xaрáyμaтos aúтou, “over his mark," is certainly an interpolation; for it does not exist in many of the best Greek manuscripts, among which are the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Monachorum Sancti Basilii, and the Codex Ephrem. The reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, and nearly thirty others, ἐς τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρία καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ του ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, “ them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name." A great number of the ancient versions also omit the clause respecting the mark; among which are the Syriac, the Æthiopic, the Coptic, all the Arabic, and the Vulgate: the reading of the last of which is, eos qui vicerunt bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et numerum nominis ejus; "them that had conquered the beast, and his image, and the number of his name." It is from the foregoing among other reasons that Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach, consider ἐκ τοῦ χαράγματος αὐτοῦ, a reading of very little authority, all of whom have marked it out of the text in their editions of the Greek Testament. It is very likely that ἐκ τοῦ χαράγματος αὐτοῦ was originally a marginal reference made by some person who, from a mistaken view of Rev. xiii. 17. took the mark of the Beast to be the same with the number of his name; and that in process of time it crept into the text through the carelessness of transcribers.

The solution of the whole mystery is as follows: Both Beasts have the same appellation; that is to say, the name of the first and second Beast is equally 'H Aarin Barineia, The Latin kingdom; therefore, by the name of the Beast" is meant The Latin kingdom; and by the "number of his name” is also meant The Latin kingdom. And as it has been already proved that the name of the Beast is perfectly distinct from the number of his name, it necessarily follows that one of the Beasts is designated by the name of the Beast, and that the other is distinguished from it by the number of his name; hence only one of the Beasts is numbered; that which is not numbered is termed "the name of the beast," and the numbered Latin empire is denominated the number of his name;" i. e. as both Beasts have the same name, 666, the number contained in the name of the Beast not counted, stands for the Latin kingdom which is numbered, exactly agreeable to an ancient practice of representing names by the numbers contained in them, many examples of which have been already given in the second chapter of this work. Therefore, the meaning of the whole passage is, that those whom the false-prophet does not excommunicate, or put out of the pale of his church, have "the mark" of the Beast, that is, are genuine Papists, or such as are actively or passively obedient to his Latin idolatry. Those also escape his ecclesiastical interdicts which have the name of the beast, or the number of his name." By a person having the name of the

Beast is evidently meant, his being in subjection to the Latin empire, and, consequently, an individual of the Latin world; therefore those that have the name of the Beast, or the number of his name, are those that are subjects of the Latin empire, or of the numbered Latin empire, that is to say, who are in subjection to the Latin empire secular or spiritual. All that were in subjection to the secular or spiritual power were not Papists in heart; hence the propriety of distinguishing those which have the mark, from those which have the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. But which of the two Beasts it is which God has numbered has been not a little contested. That it is the first Beast which is numbered has, I believe,, been the prevailing opinion. On this side are Lord Napeir, Whiston, Bishop Newton, Faber, * and others. Among those that have supposed the second Beast to be the one which is numbered are Dr. Henry More, Pyle, Kershaw, Galloway, Bicheno, &c. Dr, Gill and Reader assert, that both Beasts have the same number, and that the name is Aareivos. The reason of these different opinions arises from its not being directly expressed in the following words, which is the numbered Beast: Here is wisdom:

66

It is rather singular that Mr. Faber should assert so positively that the number is that of the name of the first Beast, when he himself says in his contents to the second volume of his Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 17, that "the two apocalyptic Beasts are the two contemporary Latin empires secular and spiritual."t of

let him that hath a mind count the number of the beast:" for if these words be taken by themselves without any reference to other passages in the Apocalypse, they may allude to either of the two Beasts; and, at the same time, it is evident that only one can be numbered, though both equally contain 666, because both are called by precisely the same name; for it is said "Let him that hath à mind count the number of the beast," not of the Beasts; consequently, though it is certain that the numbered Beast is the Latin empire; it is impossible from the mere name to say whether it is the Latin empire secular or spiritual. Hence the ne cessity of determining which of the two Beasts God has computed. That it is the second Beast which is numbered is evident from three different passages in the Apocalypse. The first is in Rev. xiii. 17. where it is said "that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Here the name of the Beast is mentioned before the number of his name, which is a presumptive evidence that the name of the Beast refers to the first Beast, and the number of his name to the second. The second passage is in Rev. xv. 2. where mention is made of "them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name." That, here styled The Beast, is evidently the secular Latin empire; for it was to this that the two-horned Beast made an image; consequently, there can be no doubt that "the number of his name," or the