hundred
threescore and six.

V. 18.--"The name of the beast," since the time of Ireneus, the disciple
of Polycarp, who was cotemporary with the apostle John, is understood to
be _Lateinos_, or _Lateinus_; for it is well known to scholars, that
classical usage justifies the orthography of this word. However learned
men may indulge their fancy, and sport with this mystic and sacred name
and number, no other word fills up all the conditions required by the
inspired writer. _Latinus_ is the proper name of the "first beast," the
_Latin_ empire: it is the name common to the whole population of the
empire, the _Latins_: it is the name of the _founder_ of the empire,
_Latinus_; and it contains the _number_, 666. The probability that this
word contains the requisite name and number, amounts almost to a
certainty. The unlearned reader may be easily taught to understand how
to "count the number of the beast." Of course, the apostle John
accommodated his expressions to the custom of his own age. Well, even
children soon learn to number or count by the use of Roman letters of
the alphabet. They know that the letter I, stands for _one_; V. for
_five_, etc. Now, in the apostolic age, the Jews, Greeks and Romans,
were accustomed to express numbers by the use of the letters of their
respective alphabets. This we suppose to be the only rational and
probable method of solving the mystery.

In this chapter we have the fullest exhibition of the great
antichristian confederacy, spoken of by prophets and apostles, including
the "man of sin, to be revealed in his time." The component parts of
that complex moral person called "Antichrist," are here graphically
portrayed. The three most prominent features are the _two beasts_ of the
sea and of the earth, with the _image_ of the first; or, a tyrannical
_empire_, an apostate _church_, and the _Pope_. To suppose that the
Antichrist is a power or moral person _distinct from these_,--a "wilful,
infidel or atheistical king," is a mere _chimera_ framed in a learned
brain, disordered by _antichristian_ politics. The chief, if not the
only ostensible ground of such hypothesis is the language of our
apostle, (1 John ii. 22.) "He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and
the Son." The _sound_ of the words of Scripture is too often mistaken
for the _sense_. This is a notable example. From the words of our Divine
Redeemer,--"My Father is greater than I, Socinians infer the _essential_
inferiority of the S