Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

has done the grounds of inquiry, on any one topic whatsoever, and by this means to free it in a great measure from perplexity.

It will be known to many of our readers, that Irenæus, one of the early Greek fathers,* mentions in his work on heresies, (lib. v. cap. xxx,) three different words from among many which were advanced by others; each of which words made (according to the Greek method of computing them by the numerical value of the letters thereof,) the number 666. They are Ευανθας, Λατεινος and Tear. The former Irenæus dismisses as scarcely worthy of notice the two last he regards with some complacency. On account of certain peculiarities in the word itself, he seems to incline most to Τειταν; but Λατεινος is, he says, very likely to be the true one, "because they were Latins who reigned in his time." In his ready application of it to the Roman empire, he seems to consider it as understood generally, that that was the kingdom symbolized by the beast of the Apocalypse; though he seems rather to deprecate such an application, and even the inquiry itself, until the kingdom should first be broken up and divided into ten parts.†

It is the name Aarɛtros then, which Mr. Rabett advocates, and lays down in the course of his disquisition certain principles, derived from the text of Scripture, which he considers must necessarily meet in

any word, pretending to be the true solution, and which do concur in the instance before us.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1st. It must be the name of a MAN for the name and the number are evidently used interchangeably in the text: "no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or 'the name of the beast, or the num Iber of his name. Here is wisdom: 'let him that hath understanding 'count the number of the beast, for

it is the number of a man, &c.” i.e. -the name is the proper name of a man, and the number therefore answers to the number of a man, or a man's proper name. This Mr. Rabett shews to be the case in the instance before us, since Latinus was king of Latium or Italy, and founder of the ancient kingdom of the Latins, called after his name Latium, and afterwards Rome, whence came the Latin name, race and language.

2dly. He contends that this name should be written and calculated in Greek. One reason assigned by our author is, the fact, that all the three instances adduced by Irenæus are Greek; but this is not conclusive with us. For Irenæus, being himself a Greek, would naturally, if he were not guided by any fixed principle, write in his own language. It shews indeed what was the prevailing notion in the church on this head; but even this not conclusively, unless we had names instanced by theological writers of other nations also written in Greek. Mr. Rabett

* He was Bishop of Lyons about A.D. 171. He speaks of Polycarp as having been a hearer of St. John, and himself as a hearer of Polycarp; and as having received from that father many of the sayings of St. John himself.

† The manner in which Irenæus passes from the consideration of λarɛivos, after having approved it to a certain extent, is very singular, and looks as if he had been influenced by the prudential consideration, not needlessly to provoke the wrath of the powers that be upon a subject that was involved in so much obscurity. For after his "valde verisimile est, quoniam novissum Regnum hoc habet vocabulum: Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant:" he abruptly adds-sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur. And then he passes on to the word Taurav and approves it, because it has six letters only, and each syllable three letters; and because none of their kings had borne the name of Teitan, and for various other equally unsatisfactory reasons.

seems to think the circumstance, that Irenæus was one of the Greek fathers, is in favor of his hypothesis: we deem the contrary to be the case; —we should attach more weight to his authority on this point, had he been a Roman, and whilst writing in Latin, had nevertheless brought forward these three names in Greek. That which would decide us in this matter is the fact, that the Apocalypse was itself originally written in Greek, and that the Greek has ever been the standard of reference (so far as the New Testament is concerned) among critics, throughout the Christian Church. Moreover the farther circumstance adduced by Mr. R. that in this instance the number is by St. John not written in full length, (as is usual with other numbers,) but in Greek numeral letters, thus-xc, points out the Greek most explicitly, as the language by the numeral characters of which it is to be calculated.* And if it is to be counted in Greek numeral letters, it must be spelt in Greek letters, for it would be contradictory and absurd to write the name in Greek and calculate by Roman numerals, or to write it in Latin and calculate it by Greek numerals: for neither indeed would there be letters and numerals to correspond in some instances. The word Lateinos is claimed by Mr. Rabett to be of Greek orthography (though this is by some disputed, as will presently be seen :) and it is evident to those acquainted with the subject, that Irenæus calculates this, as also the two other examples, in Greek numerals.—

[blocks in formation]

and it appears to us to be the only question of any moment, so far as this name is concerned. The papists, having been pressed by it as a proof that the Latin Church is the apostasy described in the Apocalypse, Bellarmine objected that it was incorrect to write it Lateinos, with the diphthong &, and that it ought rather to be written Latinos.† Dr. Adam Clarke has recently advocated the same side of the question, for the purpose of establishing his own theory in its place; and has brought forward the authority of Hesiod, Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Strabo, Plutarch, Dio Cassius, Photius, and the Byzantine Historians. But Mr. Rabett contends that the question is, not whether the persons here set in array by Dr. Clarke used the ; but whether it was acknowledged as a legitimate mode of writing the circumflexed ĩ among the ancient Greeks or Romans in the names of men ;-whether in fact it was genuine orthography in the time of Irenæus. We would illustrate this view of the question by a parallel case in our own times. verb to waive, when signifying to put off or defer, is often found used by modern authors of good style and correct orthography written as above, with the diphthong ai; and it is likewise found in many modern writers spelt wave. Now the latter authorities, if produced against the former mode of writing it at a thousand years distance, would be no proof that it was not also a received mode of writing it in the present day and the same argument would apply to many other words which are variously written, and that by accomplished scholars.

The

To meet this question then Mr.

* The number 666 does itself occur twice in the Septuagint, (Ezra 11. 13 and 1 Kings x. 14,) and is written both times at full length, εžakoσia ežŋkovτa ež.

+ Latinus is out of the question in this argument, as that would be writing it with a Latin termination instead of a Greek.

Rabett first adduces arguments of a presumptive character: viz. that Irenæus should, in two examples out of three, give instances of this orthography (as Lateinos for Latinos, Teitan for Titan,) and yet give no note or intimation whatsoever that he is deviating from the ordinary usage; which is hardly to be accounted for, if he considered that his orthography was liable to be challenged. Candour however obliges us to avow, that there is something like a remote intimation in Irenæus, in regard to the word tɛɩTay that it was more commonly spelt Titan; for when he first instances it, he says" Sed et TEITAN, prima syllaba per duas Græcas vocales, ɛ et ɩ, scripta, omnium nominum quæ apud nos inveniuntur, magis fide dignum est."

At the same time, he gives no such notice in regard to LATEiNOS, and as he propounds both names with modesty, and not at all with the air and dogmatical spirit of one who is anxious to establish a favourite hypothesis, it is but fair to admit, that it was a mode of orthography which was in common use, and which he had no reason to expect would be objected to.

Of direct proof of the legitimate use of this orthography Mr. Rabett brings forward Ennius, lib. vI. 26, (who had previously been quoted in the matter by Dr. H. More and Bp. Newton,) who uses the identical word Lateinos. This is the only instance in the use of the word itself, unless we except Irenæus, alleged by Scaliger;* whom Mr. Rabett quotes as stating, that the Greeks write the letter iota with the diphthong & when they pronounce it before an v, as Αντωνεινος, Σαβει

vos, and Λατεινος in Irenæus. That which custom therefore hath established (continues Scaliger,) not only is it no fault to write it so, but it would appear necessary to make it so.

"a

But of evidence to the use of the diphthong & in place of the Mr. Rabett adduces an overwhelming mass; not only proving the propriety of its use before the letter v, as mentioned by Scaliger, but before other letters also, of which we have already had an instance in the word τειταν. He instances Eusebius likewise spelling the name of Irenæus, Epevalos. He gives various examples from Varro, Plautus, and Lucilius; and quotes Scapula declaring the practice to have been common in the time of Cicero. He cites also Hubert Goltzius, who in his Thesaurus rei Antiquariæ has numerous instances of Greek inscriptions from the medals of the Roman emperors and their wives, among which may be instanced, by way of example, Σαβεινα, Αλβεινος, Κωνσταντεινος, (the C being used in all instances instead of the Σ :) and he quotes his author as explaining, at page 284 of his work, “that ɛ (in these inscriptions) is put forɩ, as eidus for idus leibertas for libertas, and many others." And finally the Sieur A. de la Motraye, in his Voyage to the Chersonesus and Adrianople, has also instanced on the medals of Antoninus and Faustina, the use of the ε for . This is surely evidence sufficient to satisfy any dispassionate inquirer of the legitimacy, (not to say with Scaliger, the necessity) of writing Λατεινος, in the manner given by Irenæus.

ει

3rdly. Mr. Rabett lays it down

*The word Latineis used instead of Latinis, of which examples are given by Mr. Rabett, we do not consider proofs of the use of the actual word Lateinos; because it is evident that in the nominative singular the same would be Latinos or Latinus.

a Scaliger Animad. ad Chron. Euseb. 106.

b Tome I. chap. xx, p. 425 ;-Tome 11. chap. v. p. 157.

as a principle, that the number must be 666 and no other. This, if we consult our authorized version, appears to require no comment. But there exists a solitary instance to the contrary, in the Codices of Petavius, a French Jesuit, which was adduced by Archbishop Laud, and is revived in the present day by Professor Lee, among some other obsolete monstrosities brought forward again by that learned writer.-The manuscript alluded to has xg, or 616. The thing does not appear to us worthy of any serious notice. There is scarcely a passage of Scripture existing, of which a various reading may not be found in some manuscript or other, through the carelessness, fraud or ignorance of transcribers; but if a generally received reading is to be questioned, because some solitary instance of a different one, and that of comparatively late date, can be raked up, we must bid farewell to the idea of ever having any truth of Scripture established on a certain basis. All the best and earliest Greek Testament manuscripts have it xes'.

4th. We would beg to add, that in our opinion the name of the beast should not only answer to the number of a man, but also to the number of a kingdom: for it is the number of the beast likewise; and the beast is evidently, from his numerous horns and crowns a kingdom or empire. It is the same apparently as the beast of Dan. vII, and that is explained to signify a kingdom.

It is needless to add, that in both the two last particulars the name Λατεινος corresponds with what is required. And as the word itself answers to the terms or principles laid down; so Mr. Rabett justly observes, that the papal kingdom has proved itself to be signally Latin. The popes and their coadjutors have adopted the epithet Roman as the

distinguishing name of their church and empire; they have canonized the Latin language at the Council of Trent for the use of the whole church, in lieu of the Italian, which is the vernacular tongue of Italy;-they allow no exercise of religion but in Latin; and the pope still considers himself as the head of the Latins.

Leaving now this particular name with the reader, for his own consideration, we pass on to notice some few of the other names that have appeared, and to shew how they are affected by the application of the principles here adduced.

Almost all, then, that have been advanced fail in some one or more of the particulars that have been here assigned. For example, such names as Añosατns, suggested by Mr. Faber, and n Aativn Badidɛia, by Dr. Clarke, do not contain the proper name of a man. Such words as LVDOVICVS and NAPOLEON are names of men, but they are neither written in Greek, nor calculated in Greek numerals, nor are they names of kingdoms. The square root suggested by Mr. Potter, and so much lauded by Mede, (viz. 25.) is objectionable on every account; for it does not answer to the number of the name, nor to any one requisite of the Scriptures; nor is it strictly the root of 666, leaving as it does a residue of 41: the number 26 would have been nearer as a root than 25. And once more, the word Maoueris has not a Greek termination, and is in other respects incorrectly spelt, as has been amply shewn by Mr. Faber.

The word anоsarns however, advanced by the latter writer, and recently contended for by him in a separate treatise called " Recapitulated Apostasy," is worthy of further observation, on account of the name of Mr. Faber having influenced others to adopt it, and because it is like

wise adopted by Papists and applied by them to Protestants. And in addition to the exception just taken against it, the very circumstance that it is a word frequently applied to deserters from any communion, deprives it at once of that clear and explicit character, which one would expect to find in a mark that is to distinguish the kingdom of the beast from all others. The word Aarɛvos is certainly free from this vagueness; as it cannot apply to any but those who are members of the Latin church.

Mr. Rabett however brings an objection against the word which appears to us entirely destructive of its pretensions :-viz. that when it is correctly written, its number is not 666. To make it this number Mr. Faber does not write it with the letters or but with the contraction 5. This latter character Mr. R. contends is not a numeral, but nothing more than a ligature or contraction: that to make it a numeral there must at least be the mark over it, thus g', in which form it is incapable of expansion into the letters or. This does not strike us as a valid argument; because all the letters of the Greek alphabet, when used as numerals, have a mark over them or under them; and it may as well therefore be objected to the first letter in the word, a, that it should be written a'. We attach more weight to his assertion, that the episemon

is not a contraction of σT, but is derived from the double гT or F written; and that it has no other power but the denotation of quantity, any more than two other characters used as numerals, viz. кoππа and σανπι. These are never met with other than as numerals and in calculations; and Mr. Rabett therefore argues, that had it been customary for the Greeks to make use of an episemon as a letter, we should meet with examples of the other two in words; and if, on the other hand,

it were usual to make use of any of the numerous stenographical contractions of the letters of the Greek alphabet for numerals, we should meet with other instances besides that of 5.

Mr Faber is therefore in a complicated dilemma. If he writes it Or he makes the number 1160. If he uses the contraction without the mark, it is after all no other than σ7: unless Mr. F. would maintain that is at the same time equal to or and not equal to it. If he puts the mark over it, he makes it an episcmon, and not a letter; which would be as absurd as to use in English the cypher 0, for the letter o, or the figure 1, for the letter I, merely because there is a resemblance between them. And farther, if the mark be omitted, and left to the reader to supply, he might chuse to place it beneath instead of above, when instead of 6 it would signify 6000.

Such is the substance of Mr Rabett's Treatise: and we repeat, that he has rendered service by his work, if it only tends to free the subject in any measure from obscurity, and to shew, that it is not every plausible conceit, which a writer may choose to bring forward, that has really a pretension to be considered.

(2.) The time of the End.-A charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely, at a Visitation held in the Parish Church of St. Michael's, Cambridge, May 19, 1835, by the Rev. J. H. Browne, M. A. Archdeacon of Ely.

London: Hatchards, 8vo. pp. 114.

We have always felt persuaded in our own minds, that if we were really approaching to that great and awful crisis foretold in Scripture as immediately to precede the coming of the Lord, the signs of that crisis given in the word of God would thicken around us, and become more distinct as the " day of clouds" drew

« AnteriorContinuar »