Chapter XIII. The Laodicean State, Continued

p. 34933. The Sign of the Beast

“And he caused all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the enslaved, that a sign should be given to them upon their right hand, and upon their foreheads.”—Ver. 16.

There was no class of European society unsubjected to the authority of the Lamb-Horned, or episcopal constituent of the Beast of the Earth; hence, what Ecclesiastical Power did with the concurrence of “the Secular Arm,” the beast is said to do. “He causes” is therefore to be understood of the Lamb-Horned Beast, or Daniel’s Little Horn with Eyes and Mouth. No general imposition of a χαραγμα, impressed sign, stamp, or mark, was enjoined upon Europeans by the authority of any of the Ten Horns. Their subjects received it; but it was in obedience to the decrees of a foreign ecclesiastical power. This charagma was a characteristic sign; so that wherever it was observed, it would be known that the bearer was claimed by the beast as his vassal. The charagma is styled in ch. xix. 20, το χαραγμα του θηριου, the beast’s sign or mark; because it was characteristically employed by the Latin Hierarchy before the Image was set up as an independent monarchy.

At the time the Apocalypse was given, and long both before and after, it was a common practice for slaves, soldiers, and devotees, to bear the imprint of those who claimed, or were supposed to claim, absolute control over them. The impression was generally on the forehead or the hand, in token of servitude. Speaking of the custom for slaves, an old author says, “literarum notis inuri,” branded with marks of letters; so that the slave was styled “literatus,” or “lettered.” Ambrose says, “charactere domini inscribuntur servuli.” “slaves are inscribed with the mark of the master:” and Petronius notes the “forehead” as the place of the sign. Soldiers were marked in “the hand” by the name of the emperor. In Lev. xix. 28, the Israelites were forbidden to imprint any marks upon themselves; for it was an idolatrous practice: and continued to the present time by the Hindoos, who mark themselves on the forehead with the “charagma,” or characteristic emblem, of the god they are devoted to.

Now, the Spirit, in allusion to this ancient custom and practice, predicted, that the Beast of the Earth would distinguish itself by a certain character, sign, or mark, as the symbol of its faith and power; which it would impose, under the severest pains and penalties upon all recusants, upon every soul without exception under its dominion. What the characteristic symbol would be is not revealed. It was to be a sign of its own selection; and for the universal adoption of which, it was to be terrifically zealous. Commentators have thought, p. 350 that this emblematic mark consists of the three Greek letters, χξς, of the last verse of this chapter, which stands for 666; and that the phrase, in verse 17, “the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name,” is equivalent to the intimation, that the mark, name, and number, are all the same.. I have no objection to the idea, that the triliteral sign χξς, is a representative number symbolical of “the name of the beast,” and of the numerals contained in the name; but I do object to the notion, that this triliteral is emblematic of “the sign” imposed by the legislative enactments of the beast upon all its subjects without exception. The sign of the beast is not apocalyptically signified; but is simply styled το χαραγμα, the sign or mark, and is left to history and public notoriety for its identification.

The “charagma,” then, is to be considered as something apart, and distinct from the name and number of the name of the beast. History and public notoriety show, that all the worshipers of the Clerical Hierarchy are impressed with a sign emblematic of their spiritual profession and operation, as soldiers to their emperor, slaves to their master, and devotees to their god. The fulfillment of this stands out palpably in the ecclesiastical institutions of the west. Boniface VIII., who ascended the throne of the Pontifical Image, A. D. 1294, declared in the decree “Unam Sanctam,” that “it is essential to the salvation of every human being that he be ‘subject’ to the Roman Pontiff;” and prefixing thereto the words, “whosoever obeys not as the scripture declares, let him die the death.” In accordance with this, both the secular priests and those of the monastic orders, took on themselves the vow of obedience, and received the Romish Sign upon their hands, in public token thereof. This is evident from the “Pontificale Romanum” p. 49, (A. D. 1627) on the Ordination of Priests. “Tum Pontifex cum oleo catechumenorum inungit unicuique ambas manus, simul junctas, in formam crucis;” that is, then the Bishop anoints both the hands of each of the catechumens, joined together “in the form of a cross:” and before handing them the cup and paten, or plate, “Producit manu dextrâ signum crucis super manus illius quem ordinat;” that is, he makes with the right hand “the sign of the cross upon the hand” of him whom he ordains. The soldiers of the papacy enrolled for the murder and extermination of “Heretics,” were to wear upon their vesture the Papal Cross, from which sign they acquired the name of “crusaders.” In the words of the fourth Lateran Council, “crucis assumpto charactere,” the mark of the cross being assumed, the Pontiff-king, through his anointed priests, imposed the sign of his order upon all other classes of his subjects. All these without exception p. 351 were compelled to receive it through episcopal confirmation and the clerical ordinance of infant sprinkling, or “rhantism,” which the worshipers of the beast, absurdly enough, term “baptism!”—in which ordinances of the Apostasy, the sign of the cross is impressed upon the “forehead.” This was to be the “charagma” imposed according to Canon 9, Sess. 7, of the Council of Trent, entitled “De Charactere;” that is, “Concerning the Mark;” which states the doctrine thus: “Si quis dixerit in tribus Sacramentis, baptismo, scilicet, confirmatione, et ordine, non imprimi ‘characterem’ in animâ, hoc est signum quoddam spirituale et indelebile unde ea iterari non possunt, anathema sit:” that is, if any one shall speak against the three sacraments, to wit, baptism, confirmation, and ordination, that the “Mark” should not be impressed upon a soul (this is a certain spiritual and indelible sign, whence they cannot be repeated) let him be accursed.” “Character,” in ecclesiastical Latin, is the equivalent of “charagma” in the text. On this Canon, Chemnitz, in his Ex. Dec. Conc. Trid., observes, “And perhaps God permits that they should contend so pertinaciously in defending the opinion of ‘the mark’ in confirmation and orders (he ought to have added ‘in baptismo’) that it may be manifested among whom that mark may be, and is found, of which much may be said.” “Their chrism,” says Junius, “by which in the sacrament of confirmation (as they call it,) they make servile unto themselves the persons and doings of men, ‘signing them in their foreheads and hands:’ and as for the sign left by Christ, and of the holy sacrament of baptism, ‘they make it void.’ For whom Christ joined to himself by ‘baptism,’ this Beast maketh challenge unto them by her greasy chrism; which he doubteth not to prefer before baptism both in authority and efficacy.”

Besides the reception of the charagma from the clergy, there was to be a repetition of the Sign of the Cross by the people themselves, as appears from Bellarmine’s “Dottrina Christiana Breve,” in which a master asks his disciple, “In che consiste principalmente la Fede di Christo?” that is, In what principally consists the faith of Christ? To which he is made to reply, “In due misteri principali, che sono rinchiuisi nel Segno della Santa Cro†ce;” that is, In two principal mysteries, which are included in the Sign of the Holy Cross,” adding, “Il segno della Santa Croce si fa mettendo primo la mano destra al capo, dicendo, in nome del Padre; poi sotto al petto, dicendo, e del Figliuolo: finalmente alla spada sinistra, ed alla destra, dicendo e dallo Spirito Santo;” that is, The Sign of the Holy Cross is made by putting first, the right hand to the head, saying, “In the name of the Father;” then under the heart, saying, “and of the Son;” finally on the left shoulder, and on the right, saying, “and of the Holy Spirit.”

p. 352 In this way the devotees of the superstition were to sign themselves with the Beast’s Sign in token of their bondage to him. These slaves of sin have great confidence in the efficacy of this sign as a defense against all sorts of invisible demoniacal influences. The sign of the cross, with the hand dipped in “holy water,” is a great terror to the Devil, who is said to hate it exceedingly! They call it “the Sign of the Holy Cross;” as if that which brought the course of the law upon Jesus for hanging upon it, could be holy. It would be as reasonable to say Holy Gallows, on which murderers are hanged, as Holy Cross. There is nothing holy pertaining to the beast. Hence, its sign is like itself accursed, and significant of the perdition that awaits all who glory in it.

But the Ecclesiastical Power was not satisfied with imposing its “sign” and “character” upon its willing devotees, as a spritual and indelible impression imparting holiness to the crossed; it used the mark as a token of disgrace to heretics who had renounced their convictions to save their lives. It obliged them to wear upon their breasts two crosses of a different color from their clothes, to quit places suspected of heresy, and to establish themselves in cities zealous for their Romish idolatry, where the eyes of all would be fixed upon them by the cruciferous costume they were condemned to wear.

The Sign of the Cross is the universal character of the Apostasy, both in its Romish and Protestant manifestations. It is erected upon their temples, or spiritual bazaars, and upon the flags of protestant, and papal nations, as well as upon the hands and foreheads of individuals. The papists impress the sign on these with water and “greasy chrism” in rhantism, confirmation, and orders, as already shown; while protestants, or anti-papal rebels, still retaining the character, less frequently parade the sign in the practice of their superstition. They pertinaciously hold on to their institutions of the sign, rhantism, confirmation, and orders; though they do not sketch the character, charagma or mark, upon the hands or forehead in the observance of each. Millions of them think that, if the Sign received from their Roman Mother is impressed on the forehead rhantismally, it need not be repeated in confirmation or ordination; because none are admitted to these papistical ordinances who have not been previously signed with the Sign of the Cross in what they call “baptism,” but which is no baptism at all. The correctness of this statement may be verified by reference to the Mass Book of the “Harlots” of Britain and the United States, styled “The Book of Common Prayer.” Thus, when the priest pours, or sprinkles, water upon the upturned face of an infant, he falsely affirms that he baptizes it in the name of the Father, etc., and then proceeds to say, “We receive p. 353 this child into the congregation of Christ’s flock, and do Sign him with the Sign of the Cross.” In the book authorized by the Protestant Episcopal Harlot of America, is a marginal appendix to this, saying, “Here the minister shall make a Cross upon the child’s forehead.” I do not know if the Maternal Harlot of England, “as by law established,” would permit the sign of the cross to be omitted in rhantism on any consideration; if she would not, then we are bound to admit, that her American Daughter is more accommodating than she: or as politicians would say, “more liberal;” for she has inserted a note to the effect that, “if those who present the infant shall desire the. Sign of the Cross to be omitted, although the Church knows no worthy cause of scruple concerning the same, yet; in that case, the minister may omit that part.” The omission then of the betokening charagma does not impair the supposed efficacy of the sprinkling or pouring. The sprinkling and Signing of the Cross are two actions pertaining to one and the same ecclesiastical ordinance. The old Roman Mother will not permit either action to be omitted. Her disobedient granddaughter in America thinks the sign might in some cases be dispensed with, seeing that the thing signified may be obtained by the sprinkling alone. She thinks it, however, safer to hold on to the sanctifying use of both actions; she therefore orders this “charagma” of the beast be observed.

But, certain of the Babylonian Harlot’s progeny, born after her British Daughter, and styled apocalyptically, “Names of Blasphemy and the Abominations of the Earth;” but, historically and currently, “Protestant Dissenters”—do not see why the Sign of the Cross may not be permanently omitted in rhantism, as their Episcopalian relations have dispensed with it in Confirmation and Ordination without their supposed virtue being impaired. Hence, therefore, the more to spite their Babylonian Mother, they have suppressed the cross-signing, and retain the sprinkling “as its equivalent.” This, however, does not alter their spiritual relations to the beast; for though they omit a constituent of the outward sign, they pertinaciously adhere to the “sign-ordinance” invented for them, and delivered to them by their acknowledged mother, the Babylonian Harlot; of whose golden wine cup they have imbibed copious and intoxicating draughts. The Nonconformist Sign-ordinance is the Romish “baptism,” undecorated by the movement of the operator’s finger crosswise upon the forehead. Dissenting “sorcery” contents itself with applying “holy water” to the forehead of an unconscious babe in the form of drops, and leaving them to assume what shape, or charagma, regenerating, sanctifying, or dedicating, grace, may give them! It is the “grace” in aqueous suspension that produces the magical effects attributed to p. 354 the rhantismal ordinance of the beast by his worshipers. Some of them style it “subvenient,” others “prevenient,” and perhaps others again may regard it as postvenient, and some not venient at all. Upon this matter they are not agreed. They are all, however pretty well agreed that the “grace” is what they call “Holy Ghost,” or an invisible regenerating and sanctifying afflation from the object of their adoration, which they say is “without body or parts,” dwelling beyond the bounds of space!” This spiritual essence, it is pretended, “sanctifies the water to the mystical washing away of sin;” that is, makes the water holy; so that, in whatever form applied to the new born Hindoo, Mohammedan, Greek, Latin, Protestant, or Jewish, babe, the grace in aqueous solution, or suspension, “spiritually,” or mystically, “regenerates” it; so that it is “born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation,” and “released from sin!” This is the theory of “subvenient grace,” as taught by the Romish and Protestant Episcopal Churches of England and America, to which also Episcopal Methodism claims relation as mother and sister; and which all rhantist names and denominations recognize as christians, though not of such an advanced type as themselves. In 1848, or thereabouts, an heretical oppposition to this theory was started within the pale of the English Harlot by a Mr. Gorham. He was shocked at the conclusion to which this theory led. Christ said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God;” which was equivalent to saying, he cannot be saved. The idea that water in any form was essential to salvation was intolerable to this episcopal priest. He had no objection to admit that “grace” was essential; but he could not brook the notion that it was conveyed to a babe only through the sanctified water. But, if not, why make the water holy by the imfusion of “grace?” He contended that the “mystical washing” or “spiritual regeneration,” ensued through the “grace” operating or coming upon the babe before the water in the drops and sign of the cross were impressed upon the forehead. Hence, the term prevenient, a coming before. The ridiculous issue between subvenient and prevenient grace greatly agitated the whole protestant kingdom. Though the courts and council of the nation were appealed to, nothing could be determined in solution of the difficulty. If grace came before, it might also come after, the use of water; so that “saved by grace,” in the mouth of the beast’s worshipers, might supersede the beast’s rhantism, miscalled by them “baptism,” altogether. And at this conclusion the quakers have long since arrived. They make no use of water in any form; but pretend that they have been mystically washed and regenerated by grace, styled by them “the light p. 355 within!” “If the light within you be darkness,” said Christ, “how great is that darkness?” This great darkness is common to them and all baby-sprinklers; for the operation of their traditions is to leave them all without grace and salvation in verity and truth.

Well might Junius say, “as for the sign left by Christ and of tho holy sacrament of baptism, they make it void.” In order that the uninitiated may know what the Beast’s Hierarchy means by the word “sacrament” and the connection therewith of “sign,” or “charagma,” I will quote from the catechism of the American Episcopal Harlot. In this it is asked, “What meanest thou by this word ‘sacrament?’ Ans. I mean ‘an outward and visible sign’ of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself; as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Quest. How many parts are there in a sacrament? Ans. Two; ‘the outward visible sign,’ and the inward spiritual grace. Quest. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism? Ans. Water; wherein the person is baptized, In the name of the Father,” and so forth. This is the dogma of the Babylonian Mother, also from whom her harlot progeny receive it. The Mother and her Protestant Daughters are not all of one mind exactly concerning “the outward sign.” They all agree that the proper subject to be “charagmatized” is an unconscious babe, Hindoo, Mohammedan, Greek, Latin, Protestant, or Jew. In other words, that intelligence, belief, and repentance are unnecessary for the subject of the Sign of the Beast, or the outward part of what the Beast’s Hierarchy styles “baptism.” They all agree that the outward sign, or “charagma,” is to be made “visible” by the use of water; and that the water is to be “rhantized,” or sprinkled, on the forehead; but they do not all agree that the spiritual wizard who performs the legerdemain should figure a cross with his dripping finger. Many of them say, that the Holy Water sprinkled is “sign” or “form” enough without the cross-figuration. In this opinion they differ from their Babylonian Mother who, with tridentine indignation, pronounces them to be “accursed;” which no doubt they are. As already quoted, “if any one shall say,” said she, “that in baptism the character (or sign of the cross) should not be impressed upon a soul, let him be accursed.” This little difference excepted, they furthermore agree in the general, that this rhantismal ordinance of the beast was “ordained by Christ himself.” A greater lie was never uttered by the children of the Devil (John viii. 44). The Babylonian Mother herself denies this. The late Archbishop Hughes, in his controversy with Breckenridge, the Presbyterian, in 1833, I think it was, candidly confessed, that Infant Rhantism was not taught in the New Testament, as protestants stupidly and ignorantly p. 356 affirm; but was decreed by the authority of the Latin Church, from which all baby-sprinklers have received it. This is true. It is emphatically the beast’s outward and visible sign; which, as Junius saith, “has made void the sign left by Christ.”

If what the beast’s hierarchy teaches those that wonder after it as “the inward and spiritual grace” conveyed to the sprinkled baby be true, there can be no use for “the sign left by Christ.” The clergy teach that the babe in the work performed, in opere operato, receives the “Holy Ghost;” by which it is washed, sanctified, regenerated, released from sin, made a living member of Christ’s holy church, and an heir of everlasting salvation in the kingdom of heaven! Is not that parsonic aqueous manipulation of a baby’s forehead a wonderful piece of sorcery or conjuration? Are not the spiritual performances of those clerical jugglers well styled “sorceries” in Apoc. ix. 21; xviii. 23, and they themselves “sorcerers” in ch. xxii. 15? Yea, verily; they are those without the city “who love and invent a lie.” In view of this “inward and spiritual grace” thus magically acquired by a babe, what possible use can there be in “the Sign left by Christ?” It can do no more for believing adults of the most scriptural intelligence and Abrahamic disposition, than the Sign of the Beast is said to do for its worshipers. Even supposing a babe were a proper subject of baptism (the reader, not drunk with Babylonian Wine, will excuse the supposition by way of argument) the “reverend” sorcerers ignore both faith and repentance. It will not do to say that these are in the god-parents or sponsors, who answer for the babe. The doctrine of Christ knows nothing of such substitutional representatives in baptism. The “one faith,” the “one hope” and the “one baptism,” are a personal affair; no one can believe, or hope, or be baptized, for another; for “without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God (and they say, “he,” the babe, “coming to thy holy Baptism;” and, therefore, in baptism, to God)must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.” A babe cannot do this, and, therefore, no operation of which a babe is the passive automaton can be anything but disgusting and blasphemous before God. Besides, it is notorious that under the shadow of the archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth, godfathers and sponsors are often hired from the neighboring cabstand at a shilling a head, to make “baptismal vows” for baby candidates they never expect or wish to see again, after returning to their cab from the clerical bazaar! These profane Jehus, as “sureties,” undertake that the babe shall “renounce the Devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same. and the sinful desires of the flesh; so that he shall not follow, p. 357 nor be led by them!” But this blasphemous farce is not played only by these sons of the whip; it is substantially played off by all orders and degrees of the beast’s worshipers. All the royal family, nobility, gentry and clergy of England, have, by proxy in rhantism and personally in confirmation, vowed to do the same things. Yet all the world knows that their vows are unheeded and unperformed; for what else are these orders than the embodied “pomp and glory of the world” reveling in “the sinful desires of the flesh” by which they are led! They are the blind misleaders of the blind; for like priest, parson and minister, or by whatever name the public sorcerer may be known, who administers or performs the rhantismal conjuration, so are the people led. By proxy they promise to “constantly believe God’s holy word, and obediently to keep his commandments,” while they are as ignorant of what He requires them to believe and do, as if he had never spoken since he placed man upon the earth. The effect of all this upon papist, protestant and dissenter, is the inwrought supposition that they are baptized members of Christ’s church, and heirs of everlasting life! This is what Paul terms a strong delusion and believing a lie—2 Thess. ii. 11. They have substituted “the Sign of the Beast” for “the Sign of Christ”—or Rhantism of Babes for the Baptism of Adults, enlightened by “the truth as it is in Jesus;” so that the whole rhantized world is unbaptized and “alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart”—Eph. iv. 18.

There is one remarkable absurdity not to be pretermitted in this exposition of the Sign of the Beast. Its “reverend” sorcerers say that the water they use is sanctified by the Holy Ghost to the mystical washing away of sin, and that the babe, sprinkled on the forehead with this sanctified water, is released from sin, and sanctified with the Holy Ghost! Now, the question is, what sin is this ghostly sanctified babe released from? The apostle saith “sin is the transgression of law;” what law has a babe transgressed who is without speech and without volition? Every one not drunk or insane knows that a babe is not an actual trangressor; and, therefore, has no sins to be released from. But, as they refer to the fact, that “all men are conceived and born in sin,” it is to be inferred that this is the sin to be released from—“original sin,” as causing the flesh to be what it is. There is no other sort of sin a babe can be released from. To be released from sin is to be released from subjection to it, and from the penalty thereby incurred. Does such a release result from the subjection of a babe to the “outward visible sign?” Is it released from sin’s flesh and its “emotions?” If so, how does it come to be sick or to die? The punishment of sin is death, a sentence passed upon p. 358 all the descendants of Adam, εφ’ ώ παντες ῆμαρτον, in whom all sinned—Rom. v. 12. Upon this federal principle, the babe sinned in Adam, and, therefore, falls sick and dies, although it has committed no sins. What a monstrous absurdity in the face of these stubborn facts, to say that sanctified water (supposing it were really sanctified) or the essence of holiness supposed to be in it, releases a babe from the only sin that can be imputed to it, seeing that it is released from none of the evils that sin entails! If the inward spiritual grace said to be contained in the outward visible sign released the babe from sin, it would be freed from “all the ills that flesh is heir to,” and live forever. In such an event the Sign of the Beast would be a wonderful institution; but as it accomplishes nothing claimed for it by the “reverend divines” who practise it, there is no other conclusion that can be arrived at than that it is a sign characteristic only of those who obey and worship the beast, “of whom there has not been written the names in the book of life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world”—ch. xiii. 8; xvii. 8.

But, before closing this section it will be proper to make a brief statement of the sign left by Christ and made void by the Sign of the Beast. For the information, then, of sincere and candid inquirers after the truth, it may be remarked that the

SIGN LEFT BY CHRIST

is the “One Baptism.” It is the institution to which all must subject themselves as evidential of their obedience to the faith; for as Rhantism is the Sign of obedience to the Beast, so Baptism is the Sign of obedience to Christ.

Its constituents are a proper subject, sufficient water, and the action indicated in the word.. A proper subject is one who has been “taught of God”—Jno. vi. 44, 45. God’s teaching finds access to a man’s mind by the study of the scriptures, which are sufficient for instruction in righteousness, and the development of a man of God— 2 Tim. iii. 16. A man thus taught believes “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ”—Acts viii. 12; and, in acquiring this faith, finds himself possessed of an enlightened mind, a love for the truth he believes, and a disposition such as Abraham possessed; in other words, he is a subject of a “faith that works by love,” and purifies the heart”—Gal. v. 6; Acts xv. 9. Such an one as this, having the “one faith” and the “one hope,” is the only proper subject of the “one baptism.”

Baptism being the institution that affords scope for the obedience of faith, and obedience to the faith, can only be scripturally and rightly observed by a true believer—a believer of “the truth as it is in Jesus.”

p. 359 The religious use of water is of no efficacy to any other kind of subject. No invention can supply the lack of an intelligent belief of the gospel of the kingdom in the person to be baptized. He must be “dead to sin,” that he may be “baptized into Christ’s death,” who “died for sin once;” for it is only the dead, in this sense, who are released or freed from sin—Rom. vi. 1, 3, 10, 7.

The quantity of water is not sufficient if the subject cannot be buried therein. In whatever place there are persons “ordained for eternal life,” sufficient water will always be found. The quantity required is indicated by the word immersion, which is the English synonym for the Greek word baptisma. “We are buried with Christ,” says Paul, “through the baptism into the death” of Christ. The action of baptism is, therefore, a burial in water as a sign of burial with Christ; which signified burial no one can be the subject of who does not believe “the things of the name of Jesus Christ.” The phrase used by Christ in his conversation with Nicodemus, indicates the quantity of water, and the action inseparable from baptism—“Except a man be born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” To be born of anything is to emerge from that thing in which the subject of birth had been previously concealed. Hence, no one can be “born of water” unless he have been covered with, or put out of sight, in water. The action of baptism is, therefore, clearly a burying in water, or immersion, and an emergence from it. This is a sign based upon the burial of Christ crucified for our offenses, and his resurrection for our justification (Rom. iv. 25); and signifies that the subject, having Christ in him by faith (Eph. iii. 17), is crucified, dead, buried and risen together with him, to walk in newness of life.

Such is the sign left by Christ for the mystical washing away of sins. If there were no literal or actional washing, as in the Sign of the Beast, there could be no mystical washing away. In the beast’s sign there is no faith in the subject, no literal washing, and, consequently, no basis for a mystical or emblematical washing. The absence of faith in the subject is substituted by the bungling conceit of putting “holy ghost” in the water, and applying it homeopathically for an emblematic washing, where there is no sign-washing at all! Look now, gentle reader, upon this picture, then upon that. Contrast the Sign of the Beast with the Sign left by Christ, and you will easily perceive that the one is a mere invention of the drunken Sorceress of Babylon, authoritatively delivered to, and reverently received by, the worshipers of the beast; while the other has the scriptural impress of Christ’s image and superscription evincing its divine authority; and has been recognized by the faithful in all the p. 360 ages and generations since it was delivered, as the only true sign, betokening “the Father’s name written in the foreheads of the redeemed”—Apoc. xiv. 1, 3, 4.

34. Buy or Sell

“And (causes) that no one be able to buy or sell, save he that hath the sign, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name—Ver. 17.

In commenting upon this, bishop Newton remarks, “If any dissent from the stated and authorized forms, they are condemned and executed as heretics; and in consequence of that they are no longer suffered ‘to buy or sell;’ they are interdicted from traffic and commerce, and all the benefits of civil society. So Roger Hoveden relates of William the Conqueror, that he was so dutiful to the pope that ‘he would not permit any one in his power to “buy or sell” anything, whom he found disobedient to the Apostolic Throne.’ So the canon of the council of Lateran under pope Alexander III., made against the Waldenses and Albigenses, enjoins, upon pain of anathema, that ‘no man presume to entertain or cherish them in his house or land, or exercise traffic with them.’ The synod of Tours in France, under the same pope, orders under the like intermination, that ‘no man should presume to receive or assist them, no, not so much as to hold any communion with them in “selling or buying,” that being deprived of the comfort of humanity, they may be compelled to repent of the error of their way.’ Pope Martin V., in his bull set out after the council of Constance, commands in like manner, that ‘they permit not the heretics to have houses in their districts, or enter into contracts, or carry on commerce, or enjoy the comforts of humanity with Christians.’ ‘In this respect,’ as Mede observes, ‘the False Prophet “spake as a dragon.”’ For the Dragon Diocletian published a like edict, that no one should sell or administer anything to the Christians, unless they had first burnt incense to the gods, as Bede also rehearseth in the hymn of Justin Martyr:

Non illis emendi quidquam\ Aut vendendi copia:\ Nec ipsam haurire aquam\ Dabatur licentia,\ Antequam thurificarent\ Detestandis idolis.

That is, ‘they had not the power of buying or selling anything, nor were they allowed the liberty of drawing water itself, before they had offered incense to detestable idols.’ Popish excommunications are, p. 361 therefore, like heathen persecutions; and how large a share the corrupted clergy, and especially the monks of former, and the Jesuits of latter times, have had in framing and enforcing such cruel interdicts, and in reducing all orders and degrees to so servile a state of subjection, no man of the least reading can want to be informed.”

Now, this is all true and satisfactory as far as it goes; but it does not bring out all the truth contained in the prohibition of the text. The scriptural use of the phrase “buy or sell” is not restricted to dealing in dry goods, groceries, and other kinds of secular daily traffic among the people. Spiritual wares are merchandise as well as silks, linen, tea and sugar. The Spirit deals in the choicest kinds of merchandise, which he offers to the public upon the most advantageous terms. His business advertisement is conceived in the most liberal spirit, and runs thus: “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” He then proceeds to expostulate with people for wasting their means in buying mere sawdust of dishonest bakers, who sell it to them for bread. “Wherefore,” saith he, “do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye good (bread), and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will cut off to you the covenant of the hidden period (or future age), the sure mercies of David”—Isaiah lv. 1-3. In this advertisement, the article offered for sale is the truth—the good things covenanted to David; concerning which he saith to men, “Buy the truth and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding”—Prov. xxxii. 23: that is, buy these four things; but when you have acquired them, see that you do not part with them for any consideration.

The truth, then, is the spiritual merchandise to be bought and sold without money or price. The Spirit and his agents, “faithful men who are able to teach others” (2 Tim. ii. 2), are the sellers, and those who seek to understand it, are the buyers. The commodities they offer for sale, under the divine commission contained in Apoc. xxii. 17, are tried gold, white raiment and eye-salve, with many gifts thrown in to induce purchase. The apocalyptic advertisement is found in ch. iii. 18, thus: “I counsel thee,” saith the Spirit and the Bride, “to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see.” All this is valuable merchandise that has been freely offered to them who dwell upon the habitable, p. 362 now occupied by the Dragon, the two Beasts, and the Image of the Sixth Head of the Beast.

I say, it has been liberally offered for sale in these dominions, and extensively purchased; but it is not so now. A rival establishment has been opened, professedly to sell the same goods; but instead of selling “wines on the lees well refined”—Isaiah xxv. 6; that “cheereth Elohim and men”—Judges ix. 13; they introduced a poisonous and intoxicating substitute, which stole away the brains of all who purchased it. This noxious compound, which causes ramollissement du cerveau, or softening of the brain, and rottenness of the bones, is apocalyptically styled, Babylonian wine of fornication—ch. xvii. 2-5. Under the influence of this “imported liquor,” they refused the cheering and strengthening, but not intoxicating, wines of the Spirit; and gave all their custom to the False Prophet, whose “Mouth” speaks from the Seven Hills, and who distinguishes himself with the skin and horns of a lamb. This principal of the rival establishment, who enriches himself “with all deceivableness,” knowing that his success in business depended upon the continued intoxication and infatuation of his customers, secured for himself, by good words and fair speeches, which deceive the hearts of the simple, an exclusive license to sell spiritual merchandise. The original firm, however, protested against the fraud, and would not submit to the exclusion; but continued to sell the true and genuine bread, wine, and precious things, to the few who wished to buy. But, in process of time, the fraudulent traders had so thoroughly established themselves, and so perverted the tastes of the people, “both rich and poor, small and great, free and enslaved,” that nothing genuine was in demand. Their monopoly was sustained by the corrupt governments of the world; by which they were authorized to maintain it by any measures they deemed most effectual. They were not slow to avail themselves of this permit. They accordingly decreed, that “no one should buy or sell, save he that had the sign” of their establishment. He alone was “ordained” to sell the merchandise of the Lamb-Horned Prophet; and the worshipers of the beast, who, by christening, were known as recognized customers, were alone permitted to buy of the ordained, or appointed, agents, what they were taught to esteem as “dainty and goodly things”—ch. xviii. 14. In other words, it was decreed, that no one should preach and administer ordinances unless licensed or ordained so to do, by the recognized spiritual authority; which saith, “as some claim authority to preach,” or sell dainty and goodly things by auction, “all who venture so to do, either publicly or privately, without authority from the Apostolic Throne, or Bishop of the place, shall be bound with the bond of a perpetual curse.”

p. 363 Preaching and administering ordinances constitute the apocalyptic selling of the text. Hence to sell canonically is “to perform every act of sacerdotal function among the people” who buy. No one has power to do this among the rhantized, or “christened” worshipers of the False Prophet ecclesiastical power, save he who is “canonically ordered to dispense the word of God and his holy sacraments, within the rails of the Altar, as a minister of the Apostolic succession.” Hence, also, it is decreed in Article XXIII. of the superstition of the Anglo-American daughter of the Babylonian Mother, that “it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same:” or apocalyptically, “no one shall sell, save he that hath the sign;” that is, the christening sign, which the Pseudoprophet-Corporation styles “baptism;” and in its Article XXVII., declares to be, “not only a Sign of profession, and Mark of difference, whereby christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but is also a sign of regeneration whereby they are visibly signed and sealed.” No one is to sell, or buy, bread and wine at communion, who is not thus visibly signed and sealed; nor can he sell, or dispense, though he hath this sign, unless he be also canonically, or “lawfully, chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority, given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into,” what they term, “the Lord’s vineyard.” So that, it may be clearly perceived, that there can be no selling of the dainty and goodly things of the Latin section of the Apostasy, in any of its Romish and Protestant subdivisions, by any one, unless he be the subject of three Babylonish ordinances, namely, Rhantismal Christening, Episcopal Confirmation, and the Ordering of Priests. The confirmation is not ceremonially observed by all the Beast’s Names of Blasphemy (ch. xvii. 3); though in effect it is: for the Dissenting Administrator of Ordinances is the επισκοπος, overseer or bishop, of his flock; and it is part of his duty to catechise the lambs he has marked into the status quo they are supposed to be put, by the manipulation of bishops of greater dignity. An “ordained minister” is the nonconformist equivalent for an “ordered priest.” A worshiper of the Pseudoprophet-Corporation of the Gentile Court, acquires the right to sell by “ordination;” though as a tradesman, he is distinguished by different terms, according to the taste of the buyers among whom he is most popular. By different classes of customers he is styled priest, bishop, minister, parson, pastor, elder, evangelist, and so forth; all of whom, though generally envious and jealous rivals, for the most part claim to be ambassadors and ministers of Jesus Christ, p. 364 and successors of the apostles. To this dignity the grace of ordination is supposed to elevate them! Before the operation of ordering and consecrating (inferiors are “ordered,” not consecrated; an ordered inferior when “consecrated,” or made holy, is called a Bishop!) these were laymen, or laics, mere people; but ex opere operato, from the work performed, they are instantly transformed, by the mighty magic of the conjuration, into Christ’s ministers, and ambassadors to the world; and are empowered to pardon sinners, and to accompany murderers to the gallows with “the consolations of religion!!” For, say they, pointing to the thief upon the cross,

“While the lamp holds out to burn,\ The vilest sinner may return!”

And, to show how instantaneous the operation is, they sing,

“Between the stirrup and the ground,\ He pardon sought and pardon found!”

A horseman would not be many seconds in falling from the stirrup to the ground; but this is deemed long enough by a pretended seller of the truth, or dispenser of the word, to atone for a life of crime; though that word declares, that if men live after the flesh they shall die; and that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him—1 John iii. 15; Rom. viii. 13.

In this matter of selling spiritual dainties and goodly things, seeing that it is a mere mock auction fraud, the Peter Funk operators aim to pass off their worthless merchandise with as much as possible of the glitter and polish as can be derived from the letter of scripture, which, in their blasphemous use of it, is truly, as they say, killing. Assuming to be the legitimate successors of the apostles, whom the Spirit appointed to sell the truth, or bread, wine, and milk, without money and without price, they appropriate the words addressed exclusively to them; and think, by a like formula and action, to be endued with their authority! By this process, a “consecrated” craftsman undertakes to transform a “made” deacon into an “ordered” priest of great official excellency and high dignity. The formula and action of the conjuration are exhibited in the Protestant “Ordering of Priests.” The deacon humbly kneels before his lord the bishop, who laying his “consecrated” hands upon him, says, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” From p. 365 this the reader will perceive, that the salaried sin-pardoners are not confined to the parent establishment. Article XXXVI. of the Anglo-American Harlot, which all baby-sprinklers recognize as a christian church and orthodox, says, that this ordering hath nothing in it superstitious and ungodly! But the enlightened believer taught of God knows that it is nothing else than ungodly and blasphemous superstition. Here are men, who eight times confess in their Litany, that they are “miserable sinners,” which is no doubt literally true, meet together in sanctimonious convention to consecrate and ordain one another “to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood,” which they declare is done “by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is one of the lies of ignorance or something worse. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever commanded “miserable sinners” to do any other thing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, than to believe the gospel of the kingdom and be immersed into that name. “Miserable sinners,” nor any other kind of sinners, can do anything else according to the will of Christ. They can only defile and blaspheme; God does not hear sinners (John ix. 31), and their most sanctimonious demonstrations are to Him mere “abominations of the earth”—Apoc. xvii. 5: but “the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil”—1 Pet. iii. 12; Prov. xv. 8, 9, 26, 29: and who are greater evil-doers than the clergy of all orders and degrees, who, in the name of the Lord, filch from their customers their hard earnings for that which is not bread, and their labor for that which satisfieth not? No evil can be greater in his sight than to sell lies, and to palm them off upon ignorant buyers as the truth of God. Their dainties and goodliest things exposed for sale in their bazaars, dedicated to Mahuzzim, or Guardian Saints Protectors, which they term churches, and houses of God, are mere trash and trumpery; and the crisis rapidly approaches, when “these merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more”—Apoc. xviii. 11.

35. The Name of the Beast and Number of His Name

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath the understanding compute the number of the beast; for it is a man’s number, and the number of it is χξς, or Six Hundred and Sixty Six.”

Upon the Seven Heads of the Beast of the Sea is “A NAME OF BLASPHEMY”—ch. xiii. 1. “This is the Name of the Beast.” enthroned upon the Seven Hills, which is the topographic signification of the Seven Heads—ch. xvii. 9. This name belongs to the beast p. 366 and is represented by a man’s number; and a man’s number is significant of the man’s name to which the number belongs. In other words, the name is indicative of the Man himself—the Image of the Sixth Head of the Beast, adored by the Pseudoprophet Hierarchy, by which he was created—quem creant adorant.

The name to be ascertained, then, is the Name of “the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, who opposeth and exalts himself over every one called a god, or σεβασμα, worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of the god as a god, publicly showing himself that he is a god.” This Man of Sin is not a single person; but an order of men, ruling imperiously, and imperially, in Rome—the Man-Image set up for worship there. All things have their names, and this Man-Image is no exception to the rule. What then is his Name?—the name of the power represented by the Image? It is evidently not literally revealed, or we should be able to read it plainly in the prophecy. It is like every thing else in this wonderful book. It is revealed in an enigma.

An enigma is a dark saying in which a known thing is obscurely expressed. Wise men in all ages have found satisfaction in presenting some of their choicest ideas in the form of enigma. This was characteristic of the teaching of Solomon, and of Jesus, who was wiser than he. The teaching of the Spirit has also been distinguished from the beginning by the presentation of “wisdom” in this form, which is characteristic of the apocalypse throughout. How easy it would have been for the Spirit to have told the servants of the Deity plainly the Name of the Man of Sin. But no: “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter:” he has therefore chosen to adapt himself to the genius of the Greek tongue in which he spoke, and to the customs prevalent in society when the apocalypse was signified to John.

The particular custom in the premises was that of indicating the names of σεβασματα, or objects of veneration, reverence, or worship, such as gods, emperors, masters, and so forth, by the numbers of their names; that is, by the numerical values of the letters constituting the name, enigmatically represented by the sum total expressed in the ordinary way. This statement will be unintelligible to a mere English reader, seeing that the letters of the English alphabet of which our names are composed are destitute of numerical values. We represent numbers by Arabic figures, not by letters; while these were the common numerical signs of the Greek. Thus, a man’s name, or a god’s name, written in Greek, would not only indicate the man, or the god, but would represent a sum total when added up, which, when specified in letters, would not be the name itself, but the symbolic p. 367 number, or enigma, of the name. Thus, the mystics of Egypt spoke of “the messenger of the gods,” or Thouth, under the number 1218, because the Greek letters composing the name Thouth, computed according to their numercial value, when added up made that total. The following example will make the matter plain, and easy to understand:

In this instance, the enigma would be to give the number of the god, α, β, ιή and to require from this total, his name.

Now, in the text before us the Number of the Man’s Name is given as Χξς. This is the total, and expressed in our figures is equal to 666. In this case the riddle is, the sum total, or Number of the Name, being given, what is the Name of the Man of Sin; or of the Beast’s Name of Blasphemy upon the Seven Heads, or Hills?

There need be no doubt about the correctness of χξς, 666; for Irenæus, who became overseer of the ecclesia in Lyons about 70 years after John received the apocalypse, testifies to its correctness in the most positive manner; and also says, that the number of the name is according to the cipher of the Greeks through whose letters it is expressed; that is, it is a name in a Greek form, and as such the enigma must be explained.

What then is the solution of the riddle? Irenæus was of opinion that Λατεινος, Lateinos, was the name. He says, that “the name Lateinos contains the number of 666; and it is very likely, because the last kingdom is so called, for they are Latins who now reign; but in this we will not glory.” From this it is evident, that he regarded the subject of the name as a royalty, not a person—the Latin Kingdom. Irenæus living so near the time when the apocalypse was given, may have received the name through his friend Polycarp from John himself. Irenæus used to attend the expositions of Polycarp, whom he styles “that blessed apostolical presbyter.” He says, “Polycarp related to us his converse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord;” and in respect to what he told his hearers, Irenæus says, “I wrote them not on paper, but on my heart; p. 368 and ever since, through the grace of God, I retain a genuine remembrance of them.” It is hardly probable that Polycarp, a member and presbyter of the ecclesia in Smyrna, would converse with John, and not seek to learn from him the probable solution of this enigma of the name of the Antichrist. If John told him Lateinos, it is easy to see how Irenæus came by it. Hippolytus, a brother member and successor to Irenæus in Lyons, urges the probability of the same name Lateinos in his writing concerning the Antichrist, more distinctly and decidedly than he. “The plague of the first beast,” says he, “was healed, and he shall cause the Image to speak, that is, to be powerful: and it is manifest to all, that the rulers are now Latins, Λατεινοι: transmuted therefore into the name of one man, it becomes Λατεινος.” Hence, Hippolytus plainly regarded Lateinos as the name of the speaking image made powerful by the Lateinoi, or Latins; which image he regards as “one man,” and that man the Antichrist of whom he was treating.

But an objection has been raised to this name, that the orthography of the Greek word is Λατινος, not Λατεινος; giving the number 661, χξά, not 666, χξς. But this is an objection of no weight; for both Irenæus and Hippolytus spell the word with the dipthong ει, pronounced ī long in Latin words; in which the long i at length superseded the ei, as it used to be written in the oldest Latin authors, as appears from the sentence quoted by commentators from Ennius—“Quam primum cascei populei tenuere Lateinei”—At first the ancient people were Latins. It is of no consequence what “fathers” after Irenæus and Hippolytus thought of the word and of other solutions deemed admissible by the worshipers of the beast. We are better able to judge correctly than they. The two writers upon the subject nearest to John raised no question about the spelling of the word; but adopted Lateinos, in word and orthography, as the least objectionable that could be supposed; and yet more worthy of acceptance by us by its appropriateness to what we have traced out as the Image of the Sixth Latin Head of the Beast, and the Man of Sin. All speculations based upon the Hebrew (though the Jews used their letters for numerals as well as the Greeks) in the solution of the enigma are excluded, because the text is Greek, not Hebrew. If the Hebrew had had anything to do with the solution there would doubtless have been an intimation to that effect, saying, “tho number of his name, which in the Hebrew tongue is םסך and in the Greek tongue he hath his number χξς,” after the formula in ch. ix. 11. But in the absence of such intimation we need not trouble ourselves about the Hebrew names suggested by commentators whose p. 369 display of “ripe scholarship,” has embarrassed, without throwing a ray of light upon the subject.

At the time when the apocalypse was given, the Sixth or imperial form of government obtained in Rome. This was established by Augustus Cæsar, whose native tongue was Latin. All the affairs of state were conducted in Latin; so that, until this language was superseded legislatively and executively by the Greek, it might truly be said in the words of Irenæus, “Latini sunt qui nunc regnant”—the Latins are they who now reign. But in process of time, the supreme power passed from those of the Latin tongue to those whose vernacular was the Greek. Had Irenæus lived in the days of Justinian, he would have said, “Græci sunt qui nunc Romanis imperant”—the Greeks are they who now rule over the Romans. The question would not have been of race, but of language. Was the Antichrist, or Man of Sin, to be a Greek or a Latin? Or, was the Image, endowed with the faculty of speech by the Pseudoprophet constituent of the beast, to speak in Latin or Greek? In other words, was the Image-Man to legislate and promulgate his decrees and blasphemies in the Latin or Greek, as the language of the state? If the language of the Image-monarchy were Greek, then Lateinos could not be the name of the Iconic-power. Its name would then be Hellēn, ἑλλην, and its enigmatical number ρκγ, or 123. Thus,

It is evident, then, that the Man of Sin was not to be a Greek Power. Now, we have seen in the course of this exposition, that the Latin Imperial Executive became extinct, when the Western Roman Empire was superseded by the Seventh Head and the Ten Gothic Horns, A. D. 493. Three hundred and six years after, A. D. 799, it was revived by Charlemagne, when the Latin language, which by decree of Pope Vitalian, A. D. 666, was made the religious tongue, began again to assert its supremacy in the state. Vitalian’s was an early move towards the ecclesiastical development of the Latinity of the Name. The Centuriator Bale says, “Vitalian sent monk-orators p. 370 into England about A. D. 666, which from Christ’s birth is the number of the beast, that they might confirm waverers in receiving the papistic faith, and that they might sign their own faithful with the mark of Antichrist. He commanded Latin hours, Latin songs, Latin idolatrous and devotional ceremonies, and other frivolous trumpery, rites, &c., all to be performed in the temples in the Latin tongue, according to the Greek word Lateinos, which by numeral letters fulfills the predicted number of the Beast.”

About four hundred years after Charlemagne, the Latin had become fully established as the language of the pontifical kingdom and empire of the Man of Sin; or Image of the Imperial Latin Head, revived in the Beast of the Earth. When the empire of the Cæsars came to assume the form of Eastern and Western Limbs, as symbolized in Nebuchadnezzar’s Image; and after the Gothic kingdoms had appeared, the Greeks appropriated to themselves the name of Romans: and bestowed upon all the kingdoms, in ecclesiastical fellowship with the See of Rome, the name of Latins. These Western Romans were not averse to the appellation; so that thenceforward it became the recognized name of the second universal monarchy—“a new species of despotism,” says Dr. Geo. Campbell truly, “never heard of, or imagined before, whose means of conquest and defence were neither swords nor spears, fortifications nor warlike engines, but definitions and canons, sophisms and imprecations; and that by such weapons, as by a kind of magic, there should actually be reared a second universal monarchy, the most formidable the world ever knew,—will, to latest ages, afford a matter of astonishment to every judicious inquirer.” This universal monarchy of the west pervaded all its kingdoms; and though they legislate in the modern languages of the nations, the officials of the pontifical despotism, in whatever kingdom or republic they may have established themselves, use not the languages of the worshipers of the beast; but transact all their swindling traffic in the language of Pagan Rome: and as Dr. Henry More expresses it, they Latinize in every thing. “Mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls are conceived in Latin. The papal councils speak in Latin. Women themselves pray in Latin. Nor is scripture read in any other language, under popery, than Latin. Wherefore the council of Trent commanded the vulgar Latin to be the only authentic version. Nor do their doctors doubt to prefer it to the Hebrew and Greek text itself, which was written by the prophets and apostles. In short, all things are Latin; the pope having communicated his language to the people under his dominion, as the mark and character of his empire.” If Dr. More, who himself wrote in Latin, instead of saying “as the mark and character,” had written “as the name of his empire,” he would have been correct.

p. 371 Thus, no power upon the earth has so exclusive a claim to the name of Lateinos as the Iconic Power of the Seven Hills. All that pertains to it is Latin, and names are invented and conferred upon, things in view of that most striking characteristic. The names of many modern powers are the names of the languages of their executives and dominant races; as the French power, the Spanish power, the Greek power, the English power, and, as in the case before us, the Latin Power. Their several languages are characteristic of each; no wonder then that the Latin, the tongue in which the Image speaks, should be selected by the Eternal Spirit as the basis of its name.

But, in conclusion of this chapter, does Lateinos solve the enigma χξς or 666? Let us see:

Another name, or title, has been suggested by Mr. Clarke, which is equivalent to Lateinos. This is Ἡ Λατινη βασιλεια, or The Latin Kingdom. Thus:

p. 372 On this suggestion of Clarke’s, Mr. Elliott remarks, “it is indeed so remarkable that, were it but the name of a man, I should have thought that the Divine spirit had it also in view, as an alternative solution involving the word Latin in its more usual, though not the mystical orthography. But that which alone completely answers to every requirement of the sacred enigma, and which I therefore fully believe to be the one intended by the Spirit is Irenæus’ solution, ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ.” Mr. Elliott and others have searched for the name of the beast among the names of individuals, supposing that the name was to be some name previously borne by some distinguished man! Hence they have pitched upon Romulus, who is supposed to have founded Rome, the capital of the Latin kingdom. But Romulus is neither Romanus nor Lateinos. They have been thus misled by the words “the number of the beast is the number of a man;” upon which one of them remarks, “the number of his name, or the number of a man, being a Latin name derived from that of Romulus, a man who founded Rome pagan, and so peculiar to a man, viz., the pope, who is the foundation of Rome papal. Hence, their reading in exposition is, “the number of the beast is the number of Romulus!” But the number of Romulus, or Ρωμυλος, is αύμς, or 1446, not 666. Χξς is not the enigmatical number of Romulos; and therefore, if the man referred to were a distinguished individual of antiquity, Romulus cannot be the man. But the reference in the text is not to a man existing anterior to the beast; but one contemporary with the dominion founded by Charlemagne, which still exists in a dilapidated condition. The expository reading of the passage is, “the number of the name of the Image of the Sixth, or Imperial Latin Head, of the healed, or revived, dominion of the West, is the number of the name of the Man-of-Sin power; and that number is six hundred and sixty-six.”

Such is the wisdom enigmatically set forth by the Spirit for the computation of those of his servants, who have the understanding. No other solution of the enigma is so in harmony with historical and still existing facts. There was no Pontiff king reigning in Rome over a kingdom professing Christianity in the days of John, Polycarp, Irenæus, and Hippolytus. But they all expected that there would be such an one; and that a dynasty would rule it, whose name in Greek would be numerically 666. They judged that its most obvious character would cause it to be styled Latin. This they expected as the Antichrist Power, to be revealed when that which hindered its manifestation in their day was taken out of the way. What they expected, we behold—a Latin Pontifical Kingdom, whose Pontiff-King claims to be Christ’s Substitute on earth, and Successor to the Apostle of the Circumcision; the Name of Blasphemy, whose pontifical throne p. 373 has been for ages established on the Seven Hills; and though reigning in a country whose vernacular is the Italian, ignoring this language, and “speaking” only in that of his pagan fathers to whom he was unknown—Dan. xi. 38: could any name be more appropriate to such a power than Latin, in the sense of the Latin Power, or the Antichrist? No other, I believe.