« AnteriorContinuar »
hear miass, or perform any Divine office, or receive the atythe of Almighty God, without our special leave. And whoever shall presume, contrary to these interdicts, either to sing or hear mass, or to perform Divine service in any place, or to receive the tythe of Almighty God, let him be excommunicated and accursed by the authority of the 'omnipotent God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and of St. Peter, and all the saints, and separated from the society of Christians, and from the doors of our holy mother church, where'there is remission of sins, and let him be anathema' marana. tha, to the lend of the world, with the devils in hell. So let it bey once, twice, thrice, Amen.")*1): It is in 31 fond jung bi id odio di portato
* In Christi nomine ego Hildegarius episcopus (Bellovacensis) ex parte Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, et ex parté sancti Pe. tri Apostolbrum principis, et ex nostra parte, excommunicamus et interdicimus hanc ecclesiam, et omnes capellas ad illam ad. spičientés ut nullus habeat licentiam Dei omnipotentis, et sancti Petri Apostolorum principis, ab hâc die in anteà missam cantare, niec alidité, i nec ullo modo divinum officium ministrare, nec decimam Dei omnipotentis accipere, nisi per nostram licentiam : et quícůnque contra hæc'interdicta aut missam cantare, vel audire, vel in aliquo loco divinum officium ministrare, aut decimam Dei omnipotentis accipere præsumserit, ex parte Dei Patris omnipo.' tentis, et Filii, 'et Spiritus Sancti, et ex parte sancti Petri atque sanctorum omnium sit excommunicatus, et maledictus, et à con." sortio Christianorum segregatus, et à limitibus sanctæ matris 'ec.. desives ubi fit remissio peccatorum, separatus, et sit anathema maranathai asque in fifien sæculi cum diabolis in inferno. Fiat, fiat, fiat. Amen. Chandler's Edition of Limborch's History of the Inquisition, Vol. II? Book iii. chap. 13.3 " Dobry the goal y con
this and similar ways that the false-prophet has terrified the Latin world, and kept it in subjection to the secular and spiritual powers. Those interdicted by the two-horned Beast from all offices of civil life, are such as have not “ the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” * Bishop Newton supposes that, the name of the Beast, and the number of his name, mean the same thing; but this opinion is totally irreconcileable with Rev. xv. 2. where St. John informs us that he “saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name, stand upon the sea of glass, having the harps of God." op In this passage it is evident that the
* The disjunctive particle », « or,” between rò xápayuan “ the mark,” and rò Övoua Toữ Impia, “ the name of the beast," is omitted in many excellent manuscripts, which has induced some to suppose that the meaning of the passage is, that the mark consists in the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. “And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, [to wit,] the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” But that this cannot be the meaning is evident from the context; for the name of the Beast is the Latin empire; therefore, if the mark be the same with the name of the Beast, the mark must be the Latin empire, a supposition which the whole tenor of the prophecy shews to be absurd. Therefore the mark is not the same with the name of the Beast; though it refers to the name, as is evident from Rev. xiv. 11. where we read of tò xápayua toŰ óvouatos aútoữ, “ the mark of his name,” as has been already shewn.
+ The common reading of the passage is as follows: ToŰS Yκώντας εκ του θηρία και εκ της εικόνος αυτού, και εκ του χαράγμα
Beast, his image, and the number of his name, are perfectly distinct; and, therefore, no two of them can mean the same thing. Hence what is meant by the name of the Beast is entirely different from that intended by the number of his name. But how can this be, when it is expressly declared in the fol-. lowing verse that the number of the Beast is 666 ; which number is declared to be that of his name?
TO's atroő, ér roữ dipunguo Toũ óvóuatos AÚTOų; “ them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name.” In the above passage éx TGV zapkypatos aútgū, “ over his mark,” is certainly an interpolation ; for it does not exist in many of the best Greek manuscripts, among which are the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Monachorum Sancti Basilii, and the Codex Ephrem. · The reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, and nearly thirty 'others, is τους νικώντας εκ του θηρία, και εκ της εικόνος αυτού, και εκ του dpa&poữ TGŨ óvópatos aútoû, fr them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name.” A great number of the ancient versions also omit the clause respecting the mark; among which are the Syriac, the Æthiopic, the Coptic, all the Arabic, and the Vulgate: the reading of the last of which is, eos qui vicerunt bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et numerum nominis ejus; “ them that had conquered the beast, and his image, and the number of his name.” It is from the foregoing among other reasons that Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach, consider én toő Xaçãypatos, aútoő, a reading of very little authority, all of whom have marked it out of the text : in their editions of the Greek Testament. It is very likely that έκ τού χαράγματος αυτού was originally a marginal reference made by some person who, from a mistaken view of Rev. xiii. 17. took the mark of the Beast to be the same with the number of his name; and that in process of time it crept into the text through the carelessness of transcribers.
The solution of the whole mystery is as follows: Both Beasts have the same appellation ; that is to say, the name of the first and second Beast is equally Η Λατίνη Βασιλεία, The Latin kingdom ; therefore, by the “ name of the Beast” is meant The Latin kingdom; and by the “ number of his name” is also meant The Latin kingdom. And as it has been already proved that the name of the Beast is perfectly distinct from the number of his name, it necessarily follows that one of the Beasts is designated by the name of the Beast, and that the other is distinguished from it by the number of his name; hence only one of the Beasts is numbered ; that which is not numbered is termed “the name of the beast,” and the numbered Latin empire is denominated “the number of his name;" i. e. as both Beasts have the same name, 666, the number contained in the name of the Beast not counted, stands for the Latin kingdom which is numbered, exactly agreeable to an ancient practice of representing names by the numbers contained in them, many examples of which have been already given in the second chapter of this work. Therefore, the meaning of the whole passage is, that those whom the false-próphet does not excommunicate, or put out of the pale of his church, have “ the mark” of the Beast, that is, are genuine Papists, or such as are actively or passively obedient to his Latin idolatry. Those also escape his ecclesiastical interdicts which have “ the name of the beast, or the number of his name." By a person having the name of the
Beast is evidently meant, his being in subjection to the Latin empire, and, consequently, an individual of the Latin world; therefore those that have the name of the Beast, or the number of his name, are those that are subjects of the Latin empire, or of the numbered Latin empire, that is to say, who are in subjection' to the Latin émpire secular or spiritual.' All that were in subjection to the secular or spiritual power were not Papists in heart; hence the propriety of distinguishing those which have the mark, from those which have the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. But which of the two Beasts it is which God has numbered has been not a little contested. That it is the first Beast which is numbered' has, I believe, been the prevailing opinion. On this side are Lord Napeir, Whiston, Bishop Newton, Faber, * and others. Among those that have supposed the second Beast to be the one which is numbered are Dr. Henry More, Pyle, Kershaw, Galloway, Bicheno, &c. Dr. Gill and Reader assert, that both Beasts have the same number, and that the name is Aateīvos. The reason of these different opinions arises from its not being directly expressed in the following words, which is the numbered Beast: “ Here is wisdom :
" * It is rather singular that Mr. Faber should assert so 'positively that the number is that of the 11ame of the first Beast, when he himself says in his contents to the second volume of his Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 17, that “ the two apocalyptic Beasts—are the two contemporary Latin empirés secular and Apiritual." 1. H