that we are to infer from the expression, • The Times of Irenæus,' that IRENEUS ever favoured such an opinion; for the production of his own three Names Τᾶταν, Λατινος, and Ευανθας, as well as his reasoning on the subject, are totally subversive of such an idea, because each one of these Names contains the precise Number 666. As to the statement that this Number 616, xs', is SUFFICIENT to shew, that liberties had been taken with this passage;' it can only prove that ONE liberty had been taken with it, and this is the very utmost that the Professor can produce, or he need not have resorted to the dubious opinion of Archbishop Laud, who merely says, 'Numeralis illa theologia. . . non MIHI placet ;' as people generally express themselves, when they do not understand any particular subject' non mihi placet,' it does not please me;' and as for the Archbishop's assertion- non sapit spiritum Apostolicum,' it seems to me altogether to want proof. It is evident from the simple circumstance that the Professor has used the term LIBERTIES,' that HE is not satisfied with the ORIGINALITY and authenticity of the Number xis', 616, or why does the Professor say, 'liberties?' liberties?' We may infer, therefore, from the off-hand words of Archbishop Laud,

Numeralis illa theologia. . . . non MIHI placet.... non sapit spiritum Apostolicum,' that they no more sanction the rejection of the Number xs', 666, than the authority of Cardinal Bellarmine, quoted by Dr. Adam Clarke, (and a worse could scarcely have been adduced,) can operate to the rejection of the

M

graphy of Irenæus, in reference to the Diphthong in the Name Aareivos can never be overthrown by any Classical writers, and if this Name of Aatêivos were FAMOUS in times past, it will be still MORE FAMOUS for THE TIME TO COME. I am free to confess, that, although there are multitudes of men more competent than myself to undertake this elucidation, yet from the sophistry which has been displayed by so many learned and pious Authors, I felt most anxious, if possible, to arrive at the CERTAINTY both of the NAME of the MAN, and the NUMBER of his NAME, the latter of which has been impeached by Professor Lee and Archbishop Laud, and the former has been misconceived by many writers. Of one thing I can assure my Readers, that, since the year 1829, I have used much patient investigation in my endeavours to establish the Mystic Name; and that the Motive which prompts me to the publication of this little work is a love of and zeal for the elucidation and final establishment of TRUTH, which is evidently the self-same Motive which moved Irenæus to write on this Sacred Number xs', or "666," as he says, Propter timorem erga Deum, et ZELUM VERITATIS.

As it is truly painful to see so many gigantic Authors at a polar distance in their opinions on this subject, it seems expedient as far as practicable, to arrest the progress of so many glaring errors as must spring out of such a discrepancy.

CHAPTER XIII.

REMARKS ON THE SPURIOUS NUMBER xis', OR 616,

WHICH IS MENTIONED BY PROFESSOR LEE.

HAVING proved, as I believe, the fallacy of Dr. Adam Clarke's hypothesis with reference to the sentence Aation Barikeia, as also of the similar sentence Εκκλησια Ιταλικα, I now proceed to notice,

III. The opinion of Professor Lee1 of Cambridge, which is, that the Number xs' or 666 is disputable, for the Regius Professor of Hebrew informs us that, "In the times of Irenæus another Number, viz. xis', 616, was also found, which is sufficient to shew, that liberties had been taken with this passage: and I cannot help adding the words of Archbishop Laud: Numeralis illa theologia-non mihi placetnon sapit spiritum apostolicum.'"

I believe, however, that all New Testament commentators upon this Number xs', 666, are fully

1 Lee's Dissertations on Prophecy. Rev. xiii. Diss. II. Sec. III. Page 329,

agreed concerning its authenticity and integrity; even Cardinal Bellarmine, the Jesuit, who objects to the orthography of Irenæus, in his use of the Diphthong &, in Λατάνος does not object to the NUMBER χξς', 666, and, therefore, should it be still further objected that not only was the orthography of Irenæus incorrect respecting the diphthong, but that a doubt exists about the correctness and validity of the Number xes', 666, as Professor Lee has insinuated in his "Dissertations on Prophecy," then it will be proper to examine the force of such objection in order to ascertain whether it can stand the Test of critical investigation; and if it cannot, it must be rejected as irrelevant and inconclusive.

In replying to the above sentiments of Professor Lee concerning the pseudo-prophetic Number xs', 616, backed by the equivocal opinion of Archbishop Laud, I will endeavour to shew from the genuine words of Irenæus, that this solitary rival of the Number xs', 666, was never sanctioned by that Christian Father, but originated with some author (most likely contemporary,) whose writings were never considered equally orthodox with those of Irenæus, ́ otherwise the Professor of Hebrew would not have failed to have given us his Name, the precise time when he wrote, and when this Number first made its appearance. For although the Professor has not hesitated to remark-that, " In the times of Irenæus another number, viz. xis', 616, was also found, which is sufficient to shew, that LIBERTIES had been taken with this Passage; " yet he cannot suppose

that we are to infer from the expression, The Times of Irenæus,' that IRENEUS ever favoured such an opinion; for the production of his own three Names Τέταν, Λατεινος, and Ευανθας, as well as his reasoning on the subject, are totally subversive of such an idea, because each one of these Names contains the precise Number 666. As to the statement that this Number 616, xis', is SUFFICIENT to shew, χις', that liberties had been taken with this passage;' it can only prove that ONE liberty had been taken with it, and this is the very utmost that the Professor can produce, or he need not have resorted to the dubious opinion of Archbishop Laud, who merely says, 'Numeralis illa theologia. . . non MIHI placet;’ as people generally express themselves, when they do not understand any particular subject non mihi placet,' it does not please me;' and as for the Archbishop's assertion- non sapit spiritum Apostolicum,' it seems to me altogether to want proof. It is evident from the simple circumstance that the Professor has used the term LIBERTIES,' that HE is not satisfied with the ORIGINALITY and authenticity of the Number xis', 616, or why does the Professor say, 'liberties?' We may infer, therefore, from the off-hand words of Archbishop Laud, Numeralis illa theologia. . . . non MIHI placet.... non sapit spiritum Apostolicum,' that they no more sanction the rejection of the Number x5', 666, than the authority of Cardinal Bellarmine, quoted by Dr. Adam Clarke, (and a worse could scarcely have been adduced,) can operate to the rejection of the

M