صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

I conceive then, that the apostle designed to intimate in this confessedly difficult passage, that we should seek out some name, which should at once be the name of an empire, the name of its supposed founder, and the name of every individual in that empire. This identity of appellation is very frequently found to occur, particularly in the early ages of the world: thus Ashur is equally the name of Assyria, of the father of the Assyrians, and of every individual Assyrian; thus also Misraim is equally the name of Egypt, of the father of the Egyptians, and of ev ery individual Egyptian; and thus, to descend to modern times, Ottoman or Othman is equally the name of the Turkish empire, of its founder, and of every individual Turk. Now, had the prophet said nothing more than this respecting the name of the beast, we might for ever have wearied ourselves with endeavoring to discover it; because numerous indeed are the names, which, like

the Papacy as a temporal power about the year 756, at which time he conceives it to have become the beast of the sea under bis last head. Respecting this opinion it will be sufficient to observe, that, even if the Papacy were the beast of the sea which to me seems utterly impossible, it would still be altogether irreconcileable with the plain language of the prophecy. None were either to buy or sell but those that bore the name of the beast, and together with it the number of his name; a number moreover, that is the number of a man. How is all this fulfilled, if 666 be merely a term of years? How can a term of years be the number of the beast's name? How can it be shewn, that none were allowed to buy or sell except those that bore this term of years as included in the name of the beast?

There is a most curious treatise by Mr. Potter on the number 666; in which he goes on the principle of extracting the square root, and of applying it when so extracted to a wonderful variety of matters connected with Popery. He supposes indeed the ten-horned beast to be the Papacy; but his system, if it be tenable, will apply with nearly equal force to the secular papal Roman empire. I can promise the reader entertainment of a very singular nature from this work; though, like myself, he may possibly rise from the perusal of it unconvinced. It is one of the most ingenious productions that I ever met with; but it strikes me nevertheless as being too elaborate and far-fetched, independent of various objections that might be urged against it. I think it right to mention, that Mr. Potter will not allow the number to be the number of a name, and that he thence denies the propriety of discovering it by numerical letters in the name Latinus or in other similar names. In this point he is certainly mistaken; for St. John most unequivocally declares, that the number of the beast is "the number of his name." (Ver. 17.) Mr. Mede bestows a very high and a very well deserved encomium on this work of Mr. Potter.

The modes in which the Romanists have computed this number, are sufficiently whimsical. Feuardentius discovers it in the word Moametis, for so he thinks proper to spell the name of Mohammed. He likewise finds it in Martin Lauter, which he says was the original way of spelling Luther's name. (Lowman's Paraph. in loc.) This last idea is considerably enlarged by Lindanus and Bellarmine. Martin Lauter produces the number in Saxon; David Chitræus and Beza antitheus, in Greek; and John Calvin, in Hebrew. (Cornel. a Lap. Comment. in Apoc. in loc.) They refrain however very judiciously from specifying the seven þeads and ten borns either of Mohammed, Luther, Chitraus, Beza, or Calvin.

Ashur, Mizraim, and Ottoman, bear triple significations: hence he informs us, that the name, to which he alludes, should not only bear this triple signification, but should likewise contain in its numerical letters the precise sum of 666.

Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, who lived not very long after St. John himself, has been much more happy in pitching upon the name of the beast, than in assigning the proper reasons why that particular appellative ought to be pitched upon in preference to all others. "The name Lateinos," says he, " contains the number 666;” "and it is very likely that this may be the name, because the last kingdom is so called, for they are Latins who now reign but in this we will not glory." Bp. Newton has adopted the opinion of Ireneus, which I believe to be perfectly just; yet, what is something remarkable, neither has he assigned the real cause, why Latinus, or, according to its ancient orthography both Latin and Greek, Lateinos is the very name of the beast intended by the Apostle. I shall endeavour therefore, agreeably to the deductions made from the apocalyptic description of it, to point out why Latinus, and Latinus alone, is the name of which we are in quest.

The ten-horned beast, whose name is declared to contain the number 666, is certainly the temporal Roman empire. Of this Empire the second founder indeed was Romulus; but its first real or fictitious founder was Latinus, the ancient king of Latium. Latinus therefore is the name of a man. It is likewise the peculiar name of the Western or divided Roman empire, and the distinguishing appellation of every individual in that Empire. Here it is observable, that the Gentile name of Latinus or a Latin was, in the victorious days of the republic and empire, almost lost in the more favourite gentile name of Romanus or a Roman. Preserved however it carefully was,† though not so frequently used as the other; inso

*Iren. Lib. 5. Cap. 30. p. 449. cited by Bp. Newton.

[blocks in formation]

much that, although the people were styled Romans, their language was denominated Latin. But, when by the arms of the northern nations the Roman empire was divided into ten kingdoms; when, by setting up a spiritual tyrant in the Church, and by lapsing into papal idolatry, it again became a beast; when Rome was governed by her bishops under the wing of a new line of Emperors; and when Greece, formerly her instructor in the arts and sciences, was now become her rival both in imperial and ecclesiastical domination: the old gentile name of Latin was revived, and has ever since been the peculiar distinguishing title of the papal Roman empire both temporal and spiritual. Such accordingly is the general appellation which the inhabitants of the West bear in the Eastern parts of the world: the particular names of Spaniards, French, and Italians, are swallowed up in the com-. mon title of Latins. Hence Mr. Gibbon, in his account of the crusades, terms, with strict propriety, the people of the western empire Latins: and gives us, under this name, the history of the five Latin Emperors of Constantinople. Hence also, though the Papists are wont absurdly to style themselves Roman catholics, the real name of their community, as contradistinguished from the Greek church, the Armenian church, or the Abyssinian church, is certainly the Latin church. Thus Thevenot, in his account of mount Sinai, speaks of two churches, one for the Greeks, and the other for the Latins: and thus Ricaut, throughout his state of the Greek and Armenian churches, discriminates the Romanists from all other professors of Christianity by the appellation of Latins. The Papists, as Dr. Henry More aptly expresses it, "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 the Scripture read in any other language, under Popery, than Latin. Wherefore the council of Trent commanded the vulgar Latin to be the

* Hist. of Decline and Fall, Vol. ii. p. 243–304.

Cited by Mr. Granville Sharpe in bis appendix to three tracts, p. 126. I am indebted to this gentleman for the idea, that Latinus is the name of that particular mas whose appellative contains the same number as the name of the beast.

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."*

Here then we have a name, which completely answers in every respect to the apocalyptic name of the beast. Luteinos is at once the name of a man, the title of an empire, and the distinguishing appellation of every individual in that empire: and, when the sum of its numerical letters is taken in the Greek language, the language in which the Apocalypse is written, and in which therefore the calculation ought evidently to be made,† it will amount precisely to 666. On these grounds then I do not hesitate to assert, that Latinus, and nothing but Latinus is the name of the beast; for, in no other word, descriptive of the revived temporal beast, or the Papal Roman empire, can such a fatal concurrence of circumstances be discovered.

With regard to the mark of the beast, I think with Sir Isaac Newton that it is the cross. This symbol has been abused by the Papists to the purposes both of the most infernal cruelties, and of the most childish superstition.§

* Mystery of Iniquity, Part 2. B. 1. Chap. 15. and Molinai Vates, p. 500. cited by Bp. Newton. "Hoc nomine (Latinus), post imperii divisionem et decem reges in provinciis ejus exortos, neque prius, pseudo-propheta Romanus, cum reliquis Occidentis incolis, discriminis ergô appellatus est. Namque Græci et reliqui Örientales seipsos solos Romanos dici voluere; nos, cum pontifice nostro, et sub eo episcopis, regibus, dynastis, fatali quodam instinctu Latinos dixere. Et hæc distinctio Grace Latinæque ecclesiæ adeo insignis erat, ut in generalibus conciliis Occidentales patres sive episcopi Latini, reliqui vero Græci discriminatim appellarentur." Pol. Synop. in loc.

I cannot but wonder, that any should have thought of seeking the name of the beast in a different language from the Greek. It is scarcely probable that St. John should write in one language, and mean the calculation to be made in another.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

When our dissenting brethren censure us for using the sign of the cross in the baptismal ceremony, because it is used likewise by the papists, they ought to consider

The cruelties, that have been perpetrated under its sanction are notorious. I am strongly inclined to believe, that, when St. John beheld the secular beast making war upon the saints, he beheld him likewise with astonishment bearing the badge of the cross: for this was the very symbol worn by all those, who at the instigation of the Pope undertook those diabolical expeditions against pretended heretics, which were thence denominated crusades. In the time of Innocent the third, it was alledged against the unfortunate Waldenses and Albigenses, that they had cast the books of the Gospel into the common sewers in the sight of the bishops and priests. On the score of this lying accusation, the zealous pontiff, cut to the heart by such profaneness, determined to extirpate them with fire and sword. Accordingly he proclaimed a solemn crusade against them, and sent preachers into all the regions of the West, injoining both sovereign princes and other Christian people, that, for the remission of their sins, they should forthwith sign themselves with the cross, and under that holy symbol should extirpate the pest which had invaded the Church.* The secular beast,

that the use of it is either innocent or not innocent, exactly according as it is religious or not religious. It was only by a vain and cruel abuse of the sign of the cross, that it became the mark of the beast: had a circle, or a square, been thought by the papists more convenient for their purpose, either of those figures would in that case have been as much the mark of the beast as a cross. If indeed the church of England either proclaimed a crusade against the dissenters, or laid any mysterious weight upon the use of the cross in baptism, she certainly would not in these respects have purified herself from the corruptions of the papal beast; but, concerning all her ceremonies, and therefore the use of the cross in baptism among the rest, nothing can be more moderate and rational than the language which she uses. "In these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: for we think it convenient, that every country should use such ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition." Hence it appears, that she only wishes "all things to be done decently and in order ;" and that, if other protestant churches dislike the sign of the cross in baptism, she would by no means impose upon them the use of it, as an indispensable term of spiritual communion in a common Lord. She disapproves indeed of the endless cruciform evolutions of the Papists; but she can discover no reason, why their vain mummeries should make it sinful or superstitious in ber ministers to sign a newly baptized child" with the sign of the cross, in token that bereafter be shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified." Hence, "to take away all scruple concerning the sign of the cross in baptism," she refers us for the true explication thereof, and the just reasons for the retaining of it, to the 30th Canon.

* "Papa Innocentius, his auditis," (namely the false accusations preferred against the Waldenses) "non mediocriter condoluit. Qui,missis prædicatoribus ad omnes regiones occidentis, principibus aliisque populis Christianis, in suorum remissionem pecca

[blocks in formation]
« السابقةمتابعة »