תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

ON THE NAME AND NUMBER OF THE APOCALYPTIC WILD beast.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-In a recent work on Prophecy by your countryman, Dr. Whitley,
that gentleman, I observe, proposes MAOMETIΣ as the name of the wild
beast mentioned in the Apocalypse. The grounds of his opinion may be
briefly stated as follows:-
:-

The second apocalyptic beast is remarkably styled THE false prophet. Now, of him who is specially, in point of character, the False Prophet opposed to Christ the true prophet, MAOMETIΣ is the Greek appellation: and the Greek letters of this precise word, MAOMETIΣ, when arithmetically computed, will be found exactly to contain the fatal number 666. Therefore, both from well-defined character, and from distinctly specified numeration, we have a strong presumption that MAOMETIΣ the name of the Arabian false prophet, is the name alluded to in the Apocalypse.

In the adoption of this name, Dr. Whitley has followed the Romish expositor, Bishop Walmesley, who has written under the assumed title of Signor Pastorini. The latter indeed fancies that his Maoμeris will be some yet future personal Turkish Antichrist assuming the name of the Arabian impostor; but, so far as the name is concerned, he agrees with Dr. Whitley; and he furthermore substantiates its orthography by the assertion, that the word is actually written Maoueris both by Euthymius, and Zonaras, and Cedrenus.

I. As the obvious tendency, and indeed the avowed design, of this speculation, is to liberate the Papacy from the prophetic vituperation of the Apocalypse, I may perhaps be allowed to offer a few remarks upon it.

1. Dr. Whitley's reasoning would at least be plausible, if the name in question were distinctly set forth as the name of the second apocalyptic beast, or as the name of the beast denominated the false prophet. But, unfortunately, the advocates of the present scheme have completely mistaken the proprietorship of the title.

The name alluded to in the Apocalypse is the name not of the second beast, but of the first beast. That is to say, it is the name, not of the beast denominated the false prophet, but of the beast distinguished by his seven heads and his ten horns. Hence, the whole argument from the particular nomenclature of the false prophet falls to the ground; and hence, if I mistake not, it will be no easy matter to show how the individual name of the Arabian impostor can be the name of a beast which, with singular unanimity, has been pronounced to be the secular Roman empire, from Romulus downward.

That the name is the name of the first apocalyptic beast, not the name of the second, is admitted, I believe, by all our best expositors, and it is a point too clear to allow of any reasonable dispute.

Let the cautious inquirer carefully peruse Rev. xiii. 11-18, and from the strict continuity of the narrative, he will clearly perceive that the beast mentioned in ver. 17, 18, is the same as the beast mentioned in ver. 12, 14, 15 in other words, he will clearly perceive that the beast to which the proprietorship of the name is ascribed, is the first, not the second

beast.

To the same result he will he brought, by attending to Rev. xiv. 9, 11, and Rev. xx. 4. In these places, the name of the beast, which is the impressed mark or character of the beast, is described as appertaining to that

VOL. XI.

3 Q

t

There.

particular beast for whom an image had been made. But the particular beast for whom an image had been made, at the instigation of the second beast, was undoubtedly the first beast. See Rev. xiii. 3, 11, 14. fore, the first beast, not the second, is that to which the name appertains. Accordingly, as the first beast is specially said to have a name, and as the brand or impress of that name is said to be his mark or character: so, in the pictorial description of the hieroglyphic, that same name, under the additional appellation of the name of blasphemy, or the name of apostasy, is consistently said to be branded upon all his seven heads, insomuch that he appeared to be even full of the repetition. Compare Rev. xiii. 17. xiv. 11, with Rev. xiii. 1, xvii. 3.

2. Here I might well stop: for, since Dr. Whitley and Bishop Walmesley have mistaken the one beast for the other, and since, consequently they have proposed a name which never can have been the name of a beast that symbolises the secular Roman empire, their whole scheme, of plain neces sity, becomes untenable.. But, that nothing may be wanting, I shall proceed to offer a few remarks on the word itself which they have selected. MAOMETI, say they, is the name of the beast, and, accordingly, its numerical letters bring out the precise result of 666.

Now, even independently of the falseness of the principle upon which they work, we may well ask, Where is the indisputably final authority even for writing at all, still less, therefore, for exclusively writing, the Arabic name of the impostor with the specifie Greek letters which compose the word MAOMETIE?

Bishop Walmesley will boldly reply, that his anthority for thus writing the word is the joint and concurring authority of Euthymius, and Zonaras, and Cedrenus, all of whom remarkably agree in adopting this identical mode of expression. See Pastorini's Gen. Hist. of the Christian Church, p. 320. Dublin, 1812, 5th edit.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the Romish prelate is strictly and conscientiously accurate in his assertion-what then? Other historians of the later empire express the name of the prophet of Mecca in various other forms: and thus, for the purpose of arithmetical calculation, why are we bound to take the alleged MAOMETIZ of Euthymius, and Zonaras, and Cedrenus, rather than the MQAMEA of Nicetas, or the MEXMETHΣ of Chalcoccndylas, or the MAXEMET of Joannes Cantacuzenus, or the MEXEMET of Michael Ducas, or the MQAMEO and the MAXOYMETHY of Joannes Cananus?

By reason of the essentially different principles of alphabetic writing which severally prevail in the East and in the West, scarcely any two oecidentals, except by previous concert, will express a Hebrew or Arabic word perfectly alike in Greek or Roman letters. Consequently, since, down to the present day, the name of the grand impostor has been written in almost an endless variety of forms, those who seek the number 666 in his name, expressed in Greek letters, ought first to demonstrate that the particular form MAOMETIE must be critically adopted, and that all the other forms must be critically rejected. In fine, any person acquainted with Hebrew or Arabic will, from the very genius of those languages, readily perceive the utter improbability, that the enigmatical name alluded to in the Apocalypse, should be an Arabic word written and numbered in Greek characters: because such a circumstance would make the absolute strictness of an arithmetical calculation to depend upon the inherent laxity of an alphabetical expression.

Such would be the immediate objection to the word MAOMETI, even

if Bishop Walmesley had been correct in his allegation that the name of the Arabian impostor is thus expressed by Euthymins, and Zonarus, and Cedrenus; but, so far as my own experience teaches, in many more instances than one, the bold assertions of the Romish priesthood, where the interests of their party are, however remotely, concerned, must not be im plicitly received as undoubted verities. The present allegation of the Latin prelate is inaccurate. Not one of his three adduced authors writes the name MAOMETIE. Cedrenus writes it MOYXOYMET: Euthymius writes it MOAMEO, or, (as it appears in a manuscript of the Panoplia, Jeft by Bishop Vell to the Bodleian Library,) MQAMEA: and Zonaras, in Roman characters, writes it MOAMETUS, and MACHUMETUS, and MAOMETUS, and MOAMEDUS.

Dr. Whitley indulges in no such baseless assertions as Bishop Walmesley. Having somewhat too hastily laid it down as a clear case, that the second beast, denominated the false prophet, is the impostor Mohammed, he would corroborate his opinion by the remark, that the name of that individual, when in Greek characters written MAQMETIE, exactly produces the required number 666.

Now, surely at least a solitary case ought to have been produced, where, by some historian of the later empire, the name is actually thus expressed. The speculation, it is true, would not really have been much benefited by such a production, but still it would have been rendered a little more decently plausible. Dr. Whitley, however, produces not a single case, in substantiation of his specific and plainly necessary mode of expression. I am not fond of making assertion beyond my own reach of examination; and, therefore, I will not take upon myself to say, that the name is never written MaoμETIS. Yet, at all events, eight authors, as we have seen, variously write the name of the impostor, but not one of them writes it Maoμeric, so as to give a word which will arithmetically produce the number 666.

II. I was once strongly inclined to adopt the word LATINUS, as the name of the hieroglyphical Roman wild beast, on the often asserted plea, that this name is most probably the true name, because it is proposed by the venerable Ireneus, the pupil of Polycarp, the disciple of St John. But at that time I did not understand the utility of verification so completely as I do at present. Irenèus, no doubt, mentions the name Latinus, but be mentions it only to discard it immediately, in favour of another name. expressive of blasphemy, or idolatrous apostasy. Iren. adv. hær. lib. v. c. 25. Hence the authority of Ireneus in favour of the word Latinus cannot be safely alleged.

That word, however, beside its lack of authority, is inherently objectionable. It will not produce the requisite number 666, unless, in Groek letters, it be written, AATEINOX. But, unless we can admit, as a legitimate exception, Irenèus himself, who exhibits the word in this Greek form, purely that it may give the prophetic number, in no Greek author extant, whether flourishing before the Christian era, or after the Christian era, does the word, unless I greatly mistake, ever occur thus written. Aarivos, not Aarεivos, is invariably, I believe, the form of its expression.

We may cheaply say, indeed, as Dr. More actually has said, that "if Aarivos be found in Greek authors, it is the unskilful officiousness of some pragmatical scribe or critic, that has depraved the orthography of the word."

Should such have been the case, strange it is, that not a single place in a single Greek author should have escaped this officiousness: at least, not a

single place has ever yet been produced, in order, by exhibiting the alleged true reading, Aareros, to shame the intermeddling unskilfulness which is the subject of Dr. More's strenuous vituperation.

In truth, to a person at all acquainted with the genius of Greek orthography, the temptation of fancied corrective improvement would have lain in a way directly opposite to that which Dr. More has gratuitously imagined. When transcribing a manuscript, or when first transferring a manuscript into print, an intelligent Grecian might have been strongly tempted to alter Aarivos into Aurevoc, just as he would doubtless have corrected Τιρεσίας into Τειρεσιας, or Ηρακλιτος into Ηρακλειτος. But it is difficult to conceive upon what Hellenic orthographical principle he could have been tempted to alter Aaravos into Aarivos; and still more difficult is it to conceive how every transcriber and every compositor, whose handywork has come down to us, should, in every Greek book containing the word in question, have uniformly and systematically yielded to the incomprehensible temptation of corrupting & into . This, as Dr. More speaks, were indeed a piece of marvellously unskilful officiousness. Had the word ever been written Aarɛivos, we may, on the principles of Greek orthography, be morally sure that it never would have ceased to be so written.

III. Those who adhere to either of the two words Maoμeric and AaTEIVOS, do not appear sufficiently to have observed, both that the name of the wild beast is described as being the name of blasphemy or apostasy, a characteristic evidently noted by Ireneus; and that the wisdom of the enigma is said to consist, not in discovering the name, but in arithmetically calculating it when discovered.

Neither of these requisitions is fulfilled by the words Maoμeric and AaTεvos. Simply, as words, they are not names of blasphemy or apostasy; and in the mere mechanical process of arithmetically calculating their letters, there is assuredly no wisdom, for any school-boy, with a Greek grammar in his hand, would readily perform the task. Hence, for these yet additional reasons, neither Maoμeriç nor Aareivos can have been the name which St. John beheld, impressed upon all the seven heads of the beast, as his essentially descriptive mark, or stigma, or character.

Unless. I greatly mistake, the name of blasphemy which the Apostle saw branded upon the heads of the great secular Roman beast, was the word ΑΠΟΣΤΑΤΗΣ, written in what are called uncial or capital letters ; and well might he remark that it required wisdom to calculate the number of the name; because, from the name thus written, (and, in the age of St. John, it could only have been thus written,) it is impossible to extract the revealed number 666.

At a much later period, the cursive Greek character was invented; and the literal compendium, s, which is the very hinge of the enigma, and which accidentally coincides in form with the arithmetical digamma 5, occurs not, as I am informed by the present learned Bishop of London, in any manuscript older than the thirteenth or fourteenth century. But, even after these later inventions, what the Apostle calls wisdom was still necessary to calculate the number of the name which he beheld. The uncial ΑΠΟΣΤΑΤΗΣ of St. John's age, and the cursive Αποστάτης of a later age, alike produce the number 1160: and it is only when the word is written 'Arosárns, (a form which St. John could by no possibility have beheld,) that the result is the precise number 666.

This number, and, therefore, name, are also the number and name of a man; for they are the number and name of that man of sin, whom St. Paul describes, as springing out of an apostasy, and thence, as being himself, with bad eminence, 'Arоsúrns, the Apostale.

The principle of developing the name from the character of apostasy, was long since understood by Ireneus: in modern times it was first successfully brought forward, though not sufficiently expanded, by Archdea con Wrangham, who thence rightly pronounced the name to be 'Arosárns. G. S. FABER.

SUNDRY QUERIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF The christiIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Would some of your clerical correspondents be so kind as to give their opinion on the following questions?

I. Is the practice of reading the psalms in alternate verses, warranted by the rubric? If not, would it not be desirable that the practice of the minister and people reading them together throughout, should be immediately adopted?

II. Is not a similar mode of reading the Athanasian creed in alternate verses, expressly discountenanced by the rubric, and by universal practice, in reading the two other creeds?

III. Why does the clerk usually assume the privilege of giving out the psalm to be sung? In doing so, he directs the worship of the church, which belongs only to the minister; or, if we consider him as the representative of the laity in all he says, we must suppose the exhortation which he gives to sing the praise of God, as the voice of the congregation addressing an exhortation, to itself, which is equally incongruous.

IV. Is it not for want of considering the appropriate arrangement of our liturgy, that we commence with a morning hymn? We meet as penitents, burdened with fresh contracted guilt, to confess our sins, and receive the ministerial assurance of God's forgiveness. All the sentences, and the exhortation proceed upon this supposition; then follow the confession and absolution and if our liturgy does not even put the language of prayer into our mouths, before the confession of sin, how much more unbecoming is that of praise?

V. It is stated in the Christian Observer for Nov. 1830, that "the parenthesis inserted in the prayer for all conditions," used to be inserted also in the litany, till the late increased demand, wide circulation, rapid printing, and consequent careless getting up of the Book of Common Prayer, caused its omission. Is this so? Is that parenthesis found in the sealed books? If so, in what part of the litany does it occur?

VI. Is it less inconsistent with the rubric, to give out the day of the month, and number of the psalm, than the Sunday at the communion table? are not both perfectly unwarrantable, and the former less necessary than the latter, and a needless interruption after the Venite, in the praises of the church?

VII. Why do not the clerk and people follow the minister in the general confession, as in the Lord's prayer, without stopping at every sentence? are they not printed alike, each sentence commencing with a capital? surely the word after in the rubric, is but a slender warrant for the prac

tice.

VIII. Has Act of Parliament made it illegal to publish banns after the Nicene creed, instead of after the first lesson? If so, whether is a minister to follow the Rubric, which is the voice of the church, or an Act of Parliament, enjoining a practice by which the solemn service of the church would be painfully interrupted?

I am, Sir, yours, &c. ?

« הקודםהמשך »