ePub 版
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

to Christ; then, presently after, as harassed and persecuted by Satan, including (Mr. M. seems to imply)* the harass of heresies, and other such evils, within her pale; till at length, in so far as regarded her character of original faithfulness, she ap. peared, as it were, driven out of sight (and that for the fateful period of 3} mystic times) into the wilderness. Whereupon rose up the ten-horned Beast from the sea, implying by the very ten horns upon it (as compared with the prophecy of the ten-horned Beast in Dan. vii.) that at the epoch signified the old Roman empire would have fallen, and been dissolved into ten. Now then, might not this Beast well typify the then apparent polity, or body corporate, of the faithless apostatized majority in the professing Church :-its fated period being 3} times; identically, and conterminously, with that of the isolated faithful members of the professing Church, depicted under type of the exiled Woman?

No doubt, as regards the peculiar characteristics of the apostasy described by St. Paul,-not here indeed, where we have only those of the Man of Sin,—but in 1 Tim. iv. and 2 Tim. iii., (for that the apostasy there spoken of is identical with that predicted in the epistle to the Thessalonians, Mr. M. takes for granted,) viz., the characteristics of “seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, hypocritical lying, a seared conscience, a forbidding of marriage and meats, and form of godliness, while denying the power thereof,”—I say, as regards these, there is no answering to them in the reported characteristics of the great Apocalyptic Beast: the characteristics specified of it (over and above its visible symbols of seven heads and ten horns, which Mr. M. strangely passes over in silence) being those only of Satanic power, a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and cruelty against God's saints.-But then here comes in from Church history the additional light that is needed to complete [?] the parallelism between the Pauline and the Apocalyptic prophecies. For, after the fall of the old Roman empire, it reports that the apostasy and faithlessness which already in the fourth century, before that fall, had appeared most alarming to Cyril, increased still further: till at length, A.D. 787, in the second Council of Nice, there was furnished notable proof of the apostasy being then actually consummated; by its formal injunction, or sanction, of idolatrous practices, creature-worship, and false doctrines and doings, such as are specified in the Epistles to Timothy. Already, therefore, there had then, and

, indeed before then, risen up in the professing Church a boly


* His parallelism of this with the Thess.lonian predictio!) of the gradually increasing apostasy in the Church im. plies it.

† It scems pretty clear that Mr. M.

understands the « doctrines of demons" (διδασκαλιαι δαιμονιων), like Mele, to mean doctrives concerning departed and deified men, is fit objects for worslip


corporate, or polity, answering alike to St. Paul's predicted apostasy, and to the symbol of the great Beast of the Apocalypse.—Moreover, pursuing Church history further, in the (Western] * Church's "acquiescence (about A.D. 1080) in the Hildebrandic theory of Papal supremacy,” we see what may be considered as answering to the further Apocalyptic symbol (Apoc. xvii.) of the Beast taking the Woman that represented the seven-hilled Rome upon its back, as guide and director : -a subjection continued in the corrupted Church to the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century; and, partially, even to the present day.

But what of the Man of Sin, or personal individual Antichrist, of whom the Apostasy was to be the precursor, in the symbo. lizations of the Apocalypse ? May we not recognize him in the second, or two-horned lambskin-covered Beast of Apoc. xiii.? For, says Mr. M., mark this. Though thus figured under a bestial symbol, yet, forasmuch as he is designated also by the masculine singular appellative of o yevôo tipoonins, the false prophet, this allows of our regarding an individual man as the antitype intended. And, moreover, the characteristics distinctively predicated of him (not of the first Beast) well agree with those of St. Paul's Man of Sin; especially his miracle-working power, his power of deceiving men (Apoc. xiii. 14), as if both by those miracles and also such an all-deceivableness of unrighteousness as is ascribed to the Man of Sin: while the outward resemblance to the Messiah assumed by him, as indicated by the symbol of his “having horns like a lamb,” may be considered as answering to the Man of Sin's predicted “sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God.”

As to the Apocalyptic name and number of the Beast, it belongs to the first, not the second Beast, so as not any way to affect this point in Mr. Meyrick's argument. And, respecting it, Mr. M., while rejecting all names with numerical letters equivalent to the number 666, such as have been suggested on the Gematria principle, Aarelvos itself inclusive, † inclines to the

* Mr. M. does not thus modify, but ample of interpolation, and a still more must, of course, intend the modification ; curious example of enigmatic corruption as the Greek or Eastern Church did by of the text, long deemed insoluble, I no means acquiesce in it.

think it will interest the more learned + Among solutions of the Beast's readers of the Christian Observer to see name and number, 666, on the Gematria the passage itself, and its correction and system, Mr. Meyrick mentions Genseric solution. as that invented by Rupert. But, in “Numerus ejus sexcenti sexaginta fact, it had been suggested previously sex. Cum attulerit ad literam Græcam, by Ambrose Anspert; and moreover, hunc numerum explebit ; Al. N. L. T. before him, by an interpolator of Victo. CCC. F. V. M. L. X. L. 0. L. XX. rinus, living, I doubt not, in the era of CCC. I. III. EVX, LCC. N. V. III. Genseric's devastations, and persecu- P. CIX. K. XX. O. LXX. CC." tions of orthodox Christians, about the Such is the passage, as printed in middle of the 5th century. And, as

Victorinus's Apocalyptic Commentary. the passage presents a very curious ex- And, by previous expositors who have

view of the 666 being intended to indicate a threefold declension from the holiness and perfection indicated by the sacred number 7; a notion, of the strange incongruousness of which I spoke, a little while since, in my review of Dr. Vaughan.

In fine, concludes our author, "If the Antichrist appears at all in the book of Revelation,* it would seem it is by this second of the two Apocalyptic Beasts he is represented. And, if so, then it follows that he is an individual who, being evolved from the womb of the corrupt Church, will at some future time arise, (for that he has never yet appeared Mr. M. takes for granted,) whether before or after Rome's destruction; and who then, allying himself with that corrupted Church, will represent himself as her minister and vindicator ; compelling men by violent persecution, or seducing them by lying miracles, to pay reverence to her, and so breathe a new life into her de. caying frame : while personally he will be (as described in John ii. 22) an atheistic blasphemer; thus summing up in himself the evil spirit of unbelief which has been ever working in the world, from St. Paul's days even to our own; and uniting the old foes superstition and unbelief, in a combined attack on liberty and religion.”+

I should add that, in regard of the very important designative word Antichrist, Mr. Meyrick, setting aside the explanation of its meaning given both by Mr. Greswell, and also more fully by myself, as a vice-Christ, or_counterfeit Christ, affirms that it may mean, and in St. John's Epistles does mean, simply an enemy of Christ.

Such, Mr. Editor, is as fair and clear a view as I am able to present of Mr. Meyrick's article on the Antichrist. And, I can assure you, it has cost me some considerable trouble to put forward the salient points of his prophetic interpretations


[merged small][ocr errors]

noticed it, it has been abandoned as in.
explicable. So, e.g., by Malvenda, who
(vol. ii. p. 190) says of it,"Locus
obscurus et depravatus, cui sanando non
sum." Also by Dr. Todd, of Dublin,
who in his Apocalyptic Commentary
(p. 28) thus expresses himself:
“Victorinus's explanation of the number
666 is evidently corrupt aud unintelli-
gible.” And so indecd it at first struck
inyself. But, on careful consideration,
the true explanation and rectification
soon suggested itself to me.

Vandal persecutor of the 5th century, Genseric. The correspondence of these solutions with the text, slightly altered, will appear by separating the Greek letters, and their added numeral values in Latin, instead of intermixing them. Thus:

S AN E M 1


The two words meant will be found to be, Αντεμος and Γενσηρικος: of which the first is given by Primasius, in the sense (says he) of honori contrarius, as if for ariuos or aerTIMOS; the other by Ainbrose Ausbert, witli reference to the

III.V.L.CC.VIII.C.XXX. LXX.CC The Greek , we must remember, was often written in the form of C in MSS.

* It may be remarked by readers of my review of Dr. Vaughan's Lectures, that he seems to have been unable to find the Antichrist in the Apocalypse.

+ pp. 74, 75.


[ocr errors]

and argument with even this measure of clearness, imperfect though it be. For his prophetic fittings are really mere incongruities; and his argument by no means so clear and consecutive as on all difficult and controverted subjects is specially desirable. And now let us mark how the theory breaks down, on almost every possible point of critical examination.

1st, Mr. M., as I said, lays down against Mr. Greswell, as to the force of the very remarkable and fundamental appellative Antichrist, that, besides his version of it as a pro-Christo or counterfeit Christ, it may mean simply and absolutely also an adversary of, or opponent to, Christ. I say absolutely, and unrestrictedly, any kind of adversary. And he appeals to the compounds with avti in Greck lexicons, in proof of his assertion. Now I have myself, in the 1st volume of my Horæ Apocalypticæ,* given a complete list of all Greek nouns compounded of functionaries with avti, ranged in two columns : those of the first signifying a vice-functionary, of the kind indicated by the noun in composition; those of the second, an antagonistic functionary of the same kind. Among which, three appear in either column, as nouns used both in the vice and the antagonistic sense; such, e.g., as avtLotpatnyos,


may mean either a vice-general, or an antagonistic general, as of some hostile army. But, observe, the word cannot mean any other kind of antagonist of the general. It must be his antagonist in the same character of general. So, similarly, avtIXPLOTOS, from its simple etymological force, cannot mean a professedly atheist enemy of Christ ; for the setting himself up either as Christ, or Christ's Vicar, would imply his recognition of God's Bible, which speaks of Christ, and so be ipso facto an abandonment of his atheism. It can only be a vice-Christ, or an antagonistic Christ : which latter, indeed, a self-appointed usurping vice-Christ must be. Just, in short, like the appellative anti-Pope:-a word cited long since by me in illustration; and now cited by Mr. Meyrick, quite forgetful how it tells against himself. For, as anti-Pope, in the middle ages, was only used of an opposition Pope, not of any other kind of adversary of the Roman Pope, (e.g. the hostile Ghibellin emperor of the time), so too in regard of the word Antichrist. With which (even were this the only objection) Mr. Meyrick's fundamental view of an avowed atheist Antichrist falls to the ground.-And, indeed, it was just in the way thus defined by me that the Gnostics of St. John's time were, on a small scale, Antichrists. They denied the Father only by denying the Son; as St. John himself clearly implies. And they denied the Son, as the apostle also tells us, by denying either his having come in the flesh, or else his divine sonship, as the Son of God: and then, in the spirit of an


* Horæ Apoc. vol. i. p. 65. 5th edition,

Antichrist, (according to the precise sense of that most remarkable, and in St. John's time newly formed Greek appellative for the occasion,) claimed to themselves, in Jesus Christ's stead, some of those glorious offices and functions on behalf of fallen man,-e.g. that of the divinely endowed communicator to them of righteousness and wisdom,---which, except as having been both truly inan (not a phantom), and truly God, our Lord Jesus Christ could not have fulfilled for us.*---How, moreover, an arowed atheist could answer to the Man of Sin's predicted sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God, and how, too, answer to his predicted deceivableness of unrighteousness, is quite beyond my comprehension.

2. As regards Mr. Meyrick's principle of bipartition of the chief prophecies concerning Antichrist, into some predictive of an individual man, the real personal Man of Sin and Antichrist, others predictive only of an antichristian body connected some way with the Antichrist, a reader of common intelligence can really scarce look carefully right or left into those prophecies without seeing its instant refutation in them. For, as before mentioned, it is the mere designation of the party intended in the masculine singular, both personally and in respect of character, (the Antichrist, the man of sin, the lawless one, the son of perdition, which, in St. Paul's and St. John's prophecies, according to Mr. Meyrick's canon, shows it to be one individual man that is meant ; and absolutely excludes the idea of a polity, such as in Daniel vii. and Apoc. xiii. 1. But why might not he be a man, and yet have subject to him a kingdom, or (as Mr. M. curiously affects that word) a polity; usable, with all the power inherent in it, for his purpose? And, if so, why might not the ruler, for the time being, of such a polity (o ael kpar@v) be meant, in an ex officio sense, and as including the series and succession of its rulers; they themselves answer to the Beast's head, in the correspondent bestial prefigurative symbolization? In this selfsame prophecy by St. Paul, we read of him who hindereth, ó katexwv, in the masculine singular, as synonym with that which hindereth, to katexov, in the neuter : and Mr. M. himself expounds the one (as did the early fathers) of the Roman empire; the other evidently being “the person" (p. 75) wielding that empire's restraining power; i. e., the Roman emperor for the time being. Similarly in Dan. vii

. the little horn of the fourth or Roman Beast is explained to be a king, as well as a kingdom; and moreover to have had eyes

* 'Ere passing from this part of my argument, I must not omit to notice the following extraordinary reason for characterizing the Gnostic deniers of Jesus Christ's divine sonship as Antichrists, which Mr. Meyrick declares

(p. 69) to be inferable from St. John's notice of them ; viz., that "they were Antichrists, as being wanting in that divine principle of love, which with Jolin is the essence of Christianity.” If so, how few would not be Antichrists!

« 上一頁繼續 »