« السابقةمتابعة »
escaped discovery, what becomes of those splendid churchestablishments which the Roman emperors were the means of founding? What becomes of that dictation of the civil magistrate in articles of religion which originated from him? What becomes of the council of Nice and the creed of mystery, the Father and Son denying heresy that proceeded from bim? Why they all become as equally antichristian as the doctrines of Popery. What too, if with him, the sovereigns of Earope are held up as enemies to the Church of Christ, as being Horns of his body, by following and maintaining his institutions. Why they share in his guilt, and are equally antichristian in the authority which they exercise. And will a church-man suffer the names of Constantine, Theodosius the Great and Justinian, the grand pillars of the Church, as it is by law established, or rather as it is carried by the Beast, suffer them to be branded with the name of Beast, as enemies to God and man? Can they endure to know that the sovereigns who imitate him in their discipline are part and parcel of his body? Never-so long as they wear their badge and take their pay, so long as they are Cæsar's men, Cæsarians and not Christians. If there be nothing wrong in the Roman emperors and their confederates, why are they held out by our Lord to his servants’ abhorrence? What good can there be to warn the flock that such and such is a wildbeast, a worse than wolf, if they are not to keep clear of him—to sbun bim--avoid him? Why are they doomed to damnation who worship the Beast? And what can that worship of the Beast else be than the rendering not unto God the things which are God's; but suffering the lord emperor and the kings to usurp the seat of the only Rabbi and Head, who is Lord of lords and King of kings ?-But Mr. Faber has written to me two letters, telling me that Roman Emperor or Emperor of the Romans is not the name of the Beast. And bere I will give those parts of them which relate to the name,
my answers. In one dated July 13th, 1829, he says: “ You say, that the Beast is an empire, or rather a congeries of seven empires : and yet you assert that the name of tbis Beast is, The Cæsar or Emperor of the Romans. I cannot discover the possibility of such a circumstance. The name of an empire may be either proper or descriptive. But Keisar Romim is neither the proper nor the descriptive name of your congeries of seven empires. Hence, even by your own shewing, I see not how it can be the name of the Beast. It is indeed the pame of a man: but it is not the name of an empire. No empire was ever called the Cæsar or Emperor of the Romans, either properly or descriptively. Nor is this the only difficulty. The terms of the prophecy intimate, that wisdom would be requisite not only to discover the name, but to compute it when discovered. Now, when once the name Keisar Romim is discovered, there is clearly no wisdom in the bare computation of its numerals. The operation is purely mechanical. This objection equally applies to your other name, Kedosh Romei : even if it were admissible to produce two names, which I think is not the case.—The mark and the name are obviously the same: or rather to speak with absolute precision, the mark is the impress of the name. This name is such, that it is at once the name both of an empire and of an individual man. The name in question arithmetically comprehends the number 666: and when the name shall ever have been discovered, still there is need of wisdom in managing the computation of its letters; so that the true name' may be lost for want of hitting upon the right mode of computing it.” To which I answered:
“ Ist. You object, that because I make the beast to be an empire, the name of the beast ought to be that of an empire also; and consequently that the Cæsar or Emperor of the Romans being the name of a man, cannot be the name of the beast. To this I reply, that it is the constant custom of prophecy to put a king and kingdom for each other, as is evident from comparing Dan. vii. 17, with Dap. vii. 23. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings. The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom
And if there should arise any doubt as to whether the name of the beast should apply to the kingdom or the king, we are expressly told, that the number of the beast is the number of a man. The Emperors of the Romans therefore is also put for the Empire of the Romans, and the Beast is an Empire as well. See my Symbolical Dic. under BEAST, KING.
2ndly. You object, that because I make the Beast a congeries of seven Empires, the name ought also to be descriptive of those seven empires. To this I reply, that I only fall into the language of St. John, who by the Beast at Rev. xvii. 11, evidently means no more than one head of it, called the eighth king.
“ 3dly. You object, that it requires wisdom not only to discover the name, but also to compute it when discovered, and that when once the Keisar Romim is discovered, there is clearly no wisdom in the bare computation of its numerals, because the operation is purely mechanical. Now I reply, that when St John says, let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast; he either means that the right way of getting the wisdom to find the name is to have the understanding to count its number, or that in the understanding requisite for counting the number, he includes the wisdom of finding the name.
For no one could count the number of the name without he knew the name itself. But granting your interpretation to be right, I think 1 have shown sufficient understanding even in the bare computation of the numerals, as I have properly rejected the common method of making a final m stand for 600, and have adopted its original value 40, which I think every one would not have had understanding or wisdom enough to do if they went by the general run of Hebrew Grammars. I think also, I have displayed sufficient wisdom in detecting that the name of the beast and the number of his name imply a Gematria, in which the number of his name alludes to some other name which has numerals equivalent to those of the name of the beast, and which name belongs to a character alike despotic and antichristian with that of the beast himself, to wit, His Holiness of Rome.
“ That the mark is either the name or the number of the name, i. e. according to my interpretation some other name with numerals equivalent to those of the name, you will find, tbat I have said in my version of that passage.'
To this Mr. Faber again replied in a letter, dated July 20th, 1829: “ It is true that, in the Hebrew idiom, a kingdom is sometimes prophetically put for a king; but I know not of any instance at all parallel to your alleged name of the beast. The empire of Babel is never called Nebuchadnezzar; nor is the kingdom of Egypt ever styled The Pharaoh of the Mizraim. I cannot comprehend how an alleged congeries of seven kingdoms can have for its proper name The Cesar of the Romans. In matter of fact, it never was so called ; and in matter of usage, it never could be so called.” To this I replied:
“ As you grant that" a kingdom is sometimes prophetically styled a king,” and it is prophecy alone with which we have to do, I think that analogically the name of a king
may also be put for the pame of a kingdom. St. John (Rev. xvii. 10, 11), plainly calls the Beast the Eighth king, and (Rev. xiii. 10) implies, that the name of the beast is the name of a man. The name of the king therefore is the name of a man. And if the name of the king is the name of a man, and the general rule of prophecy requires the king to be put for a kingdom also, then the rule of prophecy will require the name of the king to be put for the name of the kingdom also. And this instance has many parallels contrary to your assertion. For just as Asshur, Canaan, Mizraim, Israel, Judah, are put for the kingdoms which they founded, so may the Emperor or Cæsar of the Romans be put for the Empire or Cæsariate of the Romans, which he founded. In matter of usage, therefore, the Empire could be called the Cæsar of the Romans. But as to the matter of fact, I never said that the Empire was called the Cæsar of the Romans. I only said, that Prophecy intended by the Emperor of the Romans, the Empire of the Romans, as when we say the king did so and so, we may mean England did so and so; and it matters not what Prophecy says, so long as we know what it means, and su long as we have a certain grammar of prophecy, given to us by its own internal structure, to go by. The word Islam means the Mohammedan territory as well as the Mohammedan faith. It is our business to translate the word, and not to quarrel about its ambiguity. In the same manner, therefore, as we translate the language of Islam, we must translate the language of prophecy.--If the Cæsar of the Romans then stand for the Empire of the Romans (letting alone what I have already said, that by the beast St. John means only the Eighth king or kingdom (Rev. xvii. 11), which you seem not to have taken much notice of in my last,) it will very easily follow, that the Cæsar of the Romans will stand for “ the congeries of seven kingdoms.” For as it is plain, that the first seven kings are FALLEN, according to Rev. xvii. 10, 11, when the eighth king reigns, then the Cæsar of the Romans, being put for the Empire of the Romans, will be descriptive of them in their FALLEN state. For as this beast, according to Daniel vii. 7, devours all the rest, i. e. includes them within its Empire, then the Empire or Emperor of the Romans is descriptive of the whole, just as the name British Empire is descriptive of those
territories in India, which it has devoured. I believe it is said, that the sun never sets on the British Empire.”
To this Mr. Faber has made no reply, for how could he? since he must be now convinced. Yet he still retains the mark of the beast. He still adheres to the church government and to the creed which the Beast established, instead of coming out from among them. But with respect to the
congeries of kingdoms,” which Mr. Faber seems most to stick at, he will find in my pamphlet, entitled A Concise View of the Language, Scheme, and Spirit of the Chronological Prophets, etc., a complete removal of that objection by applying the whole of the headships to one Empire; but as to making the name apply to more than one head of the Empire, it would be absolutely to depart from the terms of the prophecy which describes the particular or specific beast as only one of the seven heads, The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven (Rev. xvii. 11), which argument Mr. Faber perversely persisted in overlooking in my letter.
Dr. Whitley has evidently seen in what a dilemma the national churches are placed by admitting that the Beast and False Teacher are such internal enemies as the Roman Emperors and the Popes, and consequently he has written a book, The Scheme and Completion of Prophecy, to prove that the Beast and False Prophet or Antichrist are the temporal and spiritual Empire of Mahomet, p. 317; that “ Mahomet is the true prophetic and mystical king of Babylon; that his imposture and empire constitute the true and mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth, described in the Apocalypse !” p. 296; that Gog represents the Turks; that the Millennium has already passed; that it lasted from A.D. 320 to A.D. 1453, from the reign of the first Constantine to the fall of Constantinople," which” says he “is a period of more than one thousand years, p. 381 ; that " the son of the woman or the son of the church, viz. the temporal and the representative Messiah, after a reign of more than 1000 years, which is the true Millennium (!) was conquered and slain by Gog and Magog, or the Turks; Constantine Paleologus, the last vicarious or deputed Christ” (monstrous !) “ or the last Christian Emperor of the Roman world, having been slain by them whilst bravely defending his capital” p. 389. All which having read, I thought Dr.