Of all the drolleries of controversy none is more amusing than the manner
in which those who provoke a combat expect to lay down the laws of
retaliation. You must not strike this way! you must not parry that way! If
you don't take care, we shall never meddle with you again! We were not
_prepared_ for such as this! Why did we have anything to do with such a
testy person? M. Jourdain must needs show Nicole, his servant-maid, how
good a thing it was to be sure of fighting without being killed, by care
and tierce.[361] "Et cela n'est il pas beau d'etre assure de son fait quand
on se bat contre quelqu'un? La, pousse moi un peu, pour voir. NICOLE. Eh
bien! quoi? M. JOURDAIN. Tout beau. Hola! {219} Ho! doucement. Diantre soit
la coquine! NICOLE. Vous me dites de pousser. M. JOURDAIN. Oui; mais tu me
pousses en tierce, avant que de pousser en quarte, et tu n'as pas la
patience que je pare."
His colleague, my secular tutelary, who also made an anachronistic onset,
with his repartees and his retorts, before there was anything to fire at,
takes what I give by way of subsequent provocation with a good humor which
would make a convert of me if he could afford .01659265 ... of a grain of
logic. He instantly sent me his photograph for the asking, and another
letter in proof. The Thor-hammerer does nothing but grumble, except when he
tells a good story, which he says he had from Dr. Abernethy.[362] A Mr.
James Dunlop was popping at the Papists with a 666-rifled gun, when Dr.
Chalmers[363] quietly said, "Why, Dunlop, you bear it yourself," and handed
him a paper on which the numerals in
I A C O B V S D V N L O P V S
1 100 5 500 5 50 5
were added up. This is almost as good as the _Filii Dei Vicarius_, the
numerical letters of which also make 666. No more of these crazy--I first
wrote _puerile_, but why should young cricketers be libelled?--attempts to
extract religious use from numerical vagaries, and to make God over all a
proposer of _salvation conundrums_: and no more of the trumpery hints about
future destiny which is too great a compliment to call blasphemous. If the
Doctor will cipher upon the letter in [Greek: en hoi metroi metreite
metrethesetai humin][364] with _double Vahu_ cubic measure, he will perhaps
learn to leave off trying to frighten me into gathering grapes from thorns.
Mystical hermeneutics may be put to good use by out-of-the-way people. They
may be made to call the attention {220} of the many to a distinction well
known among the learned. The books of the New Testament have been for 1,500
years divided into two classes: the _acknowledged_ ([Greek:
homologoumena]), which it has always been paradox not to receive; and the
_controverted_ ([Greek: antilegomena]), about which there has always been
that difference of opinion which no scholar overlooks, however he may
decide for himself after balance of evidence. Eusebius,[365] who first (l.
3, c. 25) recorded the distinction--which was much insisted on by the early
Protestants--states the books which are questioned as doubtful, but which
yet are approved and acknowledged by _many_--or _the many_, it is not easy
to say which he means--to be the Epistles of James and Jude, the second of
Peter and the second and third of John. In other places he speaks
doubtingly of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Apocalypse he does not even
admit into this class, for he proceeds as follows--I use the second edition
of the English folio translation (1709), to avert suspicion of bias from
myself:--
"Among the _spurious_ [[Greek: nothoi]] let there be ranked both the work
entitled the _Acts of Paul_, and the book called _Pastor_, and the
_Revelation of Peter_: and moreover, that which is called the _Epistle of
Barnabas_, and that named the _Doctrines of the Apostles_: and moreover, as
I said, the _Revelation of John_ (if you think good), which some, as I have
said, do reject, but others allow of, and admit among those books which are
received as unquestionable and undoubted."
Eusebius, though he will not admit the Apocalypse even into the
_controverted_ list, but gives permission to call it _spurious_, yet
qualifies his permission in a manner which almost annihilates the
distinctive force of [Greek: nothos], and gives the book a claim to rank
(if you think good, again) in the controverted list. And this is the
impression received by {221} the mind of Lardner, who gives Eusebius fully
and fairly, but when he sums up, considers his author as admitting the
Apocalypse into the second list. A stick may easily be found to beat the
father of ecclesiastical history. There are whole faggots in writers as
opposite as Baronius and Gibbon, who are perhaps his two most celebrated
sons. But we can hardly imagine him totally misrepresenting the state of
opinion of those for whom and among whom he wrote. The usual plan, that of
making an author take the views of his readers, is more easy in his case
than in that of any other writer: for, as the riddle says, he is
You-see-by-us; and to this reading of his name he has often been subjected.
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner,[366] who, though heterodox in doctrine, tries hard
to be orthodox as to the Canon, is "sometimes apt to think" that the list
should be collected and divided as in Eusebius. He would have no one of the
controverted books to be allowed, by itself, to establish any doctrine.
Even without going so far, a due use of early opinion and long continued
discussion would perhaps prevent rational people from being induced by
those who have the _double Vahu_ to place the Apocalypse _above_ the
Gospels, which all the Bivahuites do in effect, and some are said to have
done in express words. But my especial purpose is to point out that an easy
way of getting rid of 665 out of 666 of the mystics is to require them to
establish the Apocalypse before they begin. See if they even know so much
as that there is a crowd of testimonies for and against, running through
the first four centuries, which makes this book the most difficult of the
whole Canon. Try this method, and you will escape beautiful, as the French
say. Dean Alford,[367] in Vol. IV, p. 8, of his New Testament, gives an
elaborate handling of this question. He concludes by saying that he cannot
{222} venture to refuse his consent to the tradition that the Apostle is
the author. This modified adherence, or non-nonadherence, pretty well
represents the feeling of orthodox Protestants, when learning and common
sense come together.
I have often, in former days, had the attempt made to place the Apocalypse
on my neck as containing prophecies yet unfulfilled. The preceding method
prevents success; and so does the following. It may almost be taken for
granted that theological system-fighters do not read the New Testament:
they hunt it for detached texts; they listen to it in church in that state
of quiescent nonentity which is called reverent attention: but they never
read it. When it is brought forward, you must pretend to find it necessary
to turn to the book itself: you must read "The revelation ... to show unto
his servants _things which must shortly come to pass_.... Blessed is he
that readeth ... _for the time is at hand_." You must then ask your mystic
whether things deferred for 1800 years were shortly to come to pass, etc.?
You must tell him that the Greek [Greek: en tachei], rendered "shortly," is
as strong a phrase as the language has to signify _soon_. The interpreter
will probably look as if he had never read this opening: the chances are
that he takes up the book to see whether you have been committing a fraud.
He will then give you some exquisite evasion: I have heard it pleaded that
the above was a _mere preamble_. This word _mere_ is all-sufficient: it
turns anything into nothing. Perhaps he will say that the argument is that
of the Papists: if so, tell him that there is no Christian sect but bears
true witness against some one or more absurdities in other sects.
An anonyme suggests that [Greek: en tachei] may not be "soon," it may be
"quickly, without reference to time when:" he continues thus, "May not time
be 'at hand' when it is ready to come, no matter how long delayed?" I now
understand what *** and *** meant when they borrowed my books and promised
to return them quickly, it was "without {223} reference to time when." As
to time at _hand_--provided you make a long _arm_--I admire the quirk, but
cannot receive it: the word is [Greek: engus], which is a word of
_closeness_ in time, in place, in reckoning, in kindred, etc.
Another gentleman is not surprised that Apocalyptic reading leads to a
doubt of the "canonicity" of the book: it ought not to rest on church
testimony, but on visible miracle. He offers me, or any reader of the
_Athenaeum_, the "sight of a miracle to that effect, and within forty-eight
hours' journey (fare paid)." I seldom travel, and my first thought was
whether my carpet-bag would be found without a regular hunt: but, on
reading further, I found that it was only a concordance that would be
wanted. Forty hours' collection and numerical calculation of Greek nouns
would make it--should I happen to agree with the writer--many hundred
millions to one that Revelation xiii is superhuman. There is but one verse
(the fifth) which the writer does not see verified. I looked at this verse,
and was much startled. The Budget began in October 1863: should it last
until March 1867--it is now August 1866--it is clear that I am the first
Beast, and my paradoxers are the saints whom I persecute.
[The Budget _did_ terminate in March 1867: I hope the gentleman will be
satisfied with the resulting interpretation.]
The same opponent is surprised that I should suppose a thing which "comes
to pass" must be completed, and cannot contain what is to happen 1800 years
after. All who have any knowledge of English idiom know that a thing
_comes_ to pass when it happens, and _came_ to pass afterwards. But as the
original is Greek, we must look at the Greek: it is [Greek: dei genesthai]
for "must come to pass," and we know that [Greek: egeneto] is what is
usually translated "came to pass." No word of more finished completion
exists in Greek.
And now for a last round of biter-bit with the Thor-hammerer, of whom, as
in the other case, I shall take no {224} more notice until he can contrive
to surpass himself, which I doubt his being able to do. He informs me that
by changing A into [Hebrew: t] in my name he can make a 666 of _me_;
adding, "This is too hard for me, although not so for the Lord!" Sheer
nonsense! He could just as easily have directed to "Prof. De Morg[Hebrew:
t]n" as have assigned me apartment 7A in University College. It would have
been seen for whom it was intended: and if not, it would still have reached
me, for my colleagues have for many a year handed all out-of-the-way things
over to me. There is no 7A: but 7 is the Museum of Materia Medica. I took
the only hint which the address gave: I inquired for hellebore, but they
told me it was not now recognized, that the old notion of its value was
quite obsolete, and that they had nothing which was considered a specific
in senary or septenary cases. The great platitude is the reference of such
a difficulty as writing [Hebrew: t] for A to the Almighty! Not childish,
but fatuous: real childishness is delightful. I knew an infant to whom,
before he could speak plain, his parents had attempted to give notions of
the Divine attributes: a wise plan, many think. His father had dandled him
up-side-down, ending with, There now! Papa could not dance on his head! The
mannikin made a solemn face, and said, _But Dod tood_! I think the Doctor
has rather mistaken the way of becoming as a little child, intended in
Matt. xviii. 3: let us hope the will may be taken for the deed.
Two poets have given images of transition from infancy to manhood:
Dryden,--for the Hind is Dryden himself on all fours! and Wordsworth, in
his own character of broad-nailed, featherless biped:
"The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the child imposes on the man."
"The child's the father of the man,
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety."
{225}
In Wordsworth's aspiration it is meant that sense and piety should grow
together: in Dryden's description a combination of Mysticism And Bigotry
(can this be the _double Vahu_?), personified as "the priest,"--who always
catches it on this score, though the same spirit is found in all
associations,--succeeds the boguey-teaching of the nurse. Never was the
contrast of smile and scowl, of light and darkness, better seen than in the
two pictures. But an acrostic distinction may be drawn. When mysticism
predominates over bigotry, we have the grotesque picturesque, and the
natural order of words gives us _Mab_, an appropriate suggestion. But when
bigotry has the upper hand, we see _Bam_, which is just as appropriate; for
bigotry nearly always deals with facts and logic so as to require the
application of at least one of the minor words by which dishonesty is
signified. I think that M is the Doctor's initial, and that Queen Mab
tickles him in his sleep with the sharp end of a 6.
(_Monday, August 21._) Three weeks having elapsed without notice from me of
the Doctor, I receive a reminder of his existence, in which I find that as
I am the Daniel who judges the Magi of Babylon, it is to be pointed out
that Daniel "bore a certain number, that of a man (beloved), Daniel, ch.
10. v. 11, and which you certainly do not." Then, "by Greek power,"
Belteshazzar is made = 666. Here is another awkward imitation of the way of
a baby child. When you have sported with the tiny creature until it runs
away offended, by the time you have got into conversation again you will
find the game is to be renewed: a little head peeps out from a hiding-place
with "I don't love you." The proper rejoinder is, "Very well! then I'll
have pussy." But in the case before me there is a rule of three sums to do;
as baby : Pussy Dr. :: 666 : the answer required. I will work it out, if I
can.
The squaring of the circle and the discovery of the Beast are the two
goals--and goals also--of many unbalanced intellects, and of a few
instances of the better kind. {226} I might have said more of 666, but I am
not deep in its bibliography. A work has come into my hands which contains
a large number of noted cases: to some of my readers it will be a treat to
see the collection; and the sight will perhaps be of some use to those who
have read controversy on the few celebrated cases which are of general
notoriety. It is written by a learned decipherer, a man who really knew the
history of the subject, the Rev. David Thom,[368] of Bold Street Chapel,
Liverpool, who died, I am told, a few years ago.
Anybody who reads his book will be inclined to parody a criticism which was
once made on Paley's[369] Evidences--"Well! if there be anything in
Christianity, this man is no fool." And, if he should chance to remember
it, he will be strongly reminded of a sentence in my opening chapter,--"The
manner in which a paradoxer will show himself, as to sense or nonsense,
will not depend upon what he maintains, but upon whether he has or has not
made a sufficient knowledge of what has been done by others, _especially as
to the mode of doing it_, a preliminary to inventing knowledge for
himself." And this is reinforced by the fact that Mr. Thom, though a
scholar, was not conspicuous for learning, except in this his great
pursuit. He was a paradoxer on other points. He reconciled Calvinism and
eternal reprobation with Universalism and final salvation; showing these
two doctrines to be all one.
This gentleman must not be confounded with the Rev. John Hamilton Thom[370]
(no relation), at or near the same {227} time and until recently, of
Renshaw Street Chapel, Liverpool who was one of the minority in the
Liverpool controversy when, nearly thirty years ago, _three_ heretical
Unitarian schooners exchanged shotted sermons with _thirteen_ Orthodox
ships of the line, and put up their challengers' dander--an American
corruption of _d--d anger_--to such an extent, by quiet and respectful
argument, that those opponents actually addressed a printed intercession to
the Almighty for the Unitarian triad, as for "Jews, Turks, Infidels, and
Heretics." So much for the distinction, which both gentlemen would thank me
for making very clear: I take it quite for granted that a guesser at 666
would feel horrified at being taken for a Unitarian, and that a Unitarian
would feel queerified at being taken for a guesser at 666. Mr. David Thom's
book is _The Number and Names of the Apocalyptic Beasts_, Part I, 1848,
8vo.: I think the second part was never published. I give the Greek and
Latin solutions, omitting the Hebrew: as usual, all the Greek letters are
numeral, but only M D C L X V I of the Latin. I do not give either the
decipherers or their reasons: I have not room for this; nor would I, if I
could, bias my reader for one rather than another.
D. F. Julianus Caesar Atheus (or Aug.[371]); Diocles Augustus; Ludovicus;
Silvester Secundus; Linus Secundus; {228} Vicarius Filii Dei; Doctor et Rex
Latinus; Paulo V. Vice-Deo; Vicarius Generalis Dei in Terris; Ipse
Catholicae Ecclesiae Visibile Caput; Dux Cleri; Una, Vera, Catholica,
Infallibilis Ecclesia; Auctoritas politica ecclesiasticaque Papalis (Latina
will also do); Lutherus Ductor Gregis; Calvinus tristis fidei interpres;
Dic Lux ; Ludvvic; Will. Laud; [Greek: Lateinos];[372] [Greek: he latine
basileia]; [Greek: ekklesia italika]; [Greek: euanthas]; [Greek: teitan];
[Greek: arnoume]; [Greek: lampetis]; [Greek: ho niketes]; [Greek: kakos
hodegos]; [Greek: alethes blaberos]; [Greek: palai baskanos]; [Greek: amnos
adikos]; [Greek: antemos]; [Greek: genserikos]; [Greek: euinas]; [Greek:
Benediktos]; [Greek: Bonibazios g. papa x. e. e. e. a.], meaning Boniface
III. Pope 68th, bishop of bishops the first! [Greek: oulpios]; [Greek: dios
eimi he heras]; [Greek: he missa he papike]; [Greek: loutherana]; [Greek:
saxoneios]; [Greek: Bezza antitheos] (Beza); [Greek: he alazoneia biou];
[Greek: Maometis]; [Greek: Maometes b.]; [Greek: theos eimi epi gaies];
[Greek: iapetos]; [Greek: papeiskos]; [Greek: dioklasianos]; [Greek:
cheina]; [Greek: braski]; [Greek: Ion Paune]; [Greek: koupoks]; (cowpox,
[Greek: s] being the _vau_; certainly the {229} vaccinated have the mark of
the Beast); [Greek: Bonneparte]; [Greek: N. Boneparte]; [Greek: euporia];
[Greek: paradosis]; [Greek: to megatherion].
All sects fasten this number on their opponents. It is found in _Martin
Lauter_, affirmed to be the true way of writing the name, by carrying
numbers through the Roman Alphabet. Some Jews, according to Mr. Thorn,
found it in [Hebrew: JSHW NTSRJ] _Jesus of Nazareth_. I find on inquiry
that this satire was actually put forth by some medieval rabbis, but that
it is not idiomatic: it represents quite fairly "Jesus Nazarene," but the
Hebrew wants an article quite as much as the English wants "the."
Mr. David Thom's own solution hits hard at all sides: he finds a 666 for
both beasts; [Greek: he phren] (the mind) for the first, and [Greek:
ekklesiai sarkikai] (fleshly churches) for the second. A solution which
embodies all mental philosophy in one beast and all dogmatic theology in
the other, is very tempting: for in these are the two great supports of
Antichrist. It will not, however, mislead me, who have known the true
explanation a long time. The three sixes indicate that any two of the three
subdivisions, Roman, Greek, and Protestant, are, in corruption of
Christianity, six of one and half a dozen of the other: the distinctions of
units, tens, hundreds, are nothing but the old way (1 Samuel xviii. 7, and
Concordance at _ten_, _hundred_, _thousand_) of symbolizing differences of
number in the subdivisions.
It may be good to know that, even in speculations on 666, there are
different degrees of unreason. All the diviners, when they get a colleague
or an opponent, at once proceed to reckon him up: but some do it in play
and some in earnest. Mr. David Thom found a young gentleman of the name St.
Claire busy at the Beast number: he forthwith added the letters in [Greek:
st klaire] and found 666: this was good fun. But my spiritual tutelary,
when he found that he could not make a beast of me, except by changing
[Hebrew: A] into [Hebrew: T], solemnly referred the difficulty to the
Almighty: this was poor earnest. {230}
I am glad I did not notice, in time to insert it in the _Athenaeum_, a very
remarkable paradoxer brought forward by Mr. Thom, his friend Mr.
Wapshare[373]: it is a little too strong for the general public. In the
_Athenaeum_ they would have seen and read it: but this book will be avoided
by the weaker brethren. It is as follows:
"God, the Elohim, was six days in creating all things, and having made MAN
he entered into his rest. He is no more seen as a Creator, as Elohim, but
as Jehovah, the _Lord_ of the Sabbath, and the Spirit of life in MAN, which
Spirit worketh _sin in the flesh_; for the Spirit of Love, in all flesh, is
Lust, or the spirit of a beast, So Rom. vii. And which Spirit is
_crucified_ in the flesh. He then, as Jehovah--as the power of the Law,
_in_ and _over_ all flesh, John viii. 44--increases that which he has made
as the Elohim, and his power shall last for 6 days, or 6 periods of time,
computed at a millennium of years; and at the end of which six days, he who
is the Spirit of all flesh shall manifest himself as the Holy Spirit of
Almighty Love, and of all truth; and so shall the Church have her Sabbath
of Rest--all contention being at an end. This is, as well as I may now
express it, my solution of the mystery in Hebrew, and in Greek, and also in
Latin, IHS. For he that was lifted up _is_ King of the Jews, and is the
Lord of all Life, working in us, both to will and to do; as is manifest in
the Jews--they slaying him that his blood might be _good_ for the healing
of the nations, of all people and tongues. As the Father of all _natural_
flesh, he is the Spirit of Lust, as in all _beasts_; as the Father, or King
of the Jews, he is the Devil, as he himself witnesseth in John viii.,
already referred to. As lifted up, he is transformed into the Spirit of
Love, a light to the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.... For
there is but ONE God, ONE Lord, ONE Spirit, ONE body, etc. and he who was
Satan, the Spirit of life in that body, is, in {231} Christ crucified, seen
in the Spirit that is in all, and through all and over all, God blessed for
ever."
All this seems well meant, and Mr. Thom prints it as convinced of its
piety, and "pronounces no opinion." Mystics of all sorts! see what you may
come to, or what may come to you! I have inserted the above for your good.
There is nothing in this world so steady as some of the paradoxers. They
are like the spiders who go on spinning after they have web enough to catch
all the flies in the neighborhood, if the flies would but come. They are
like the wild bees who go on making honey which they never can eat, proving
_sic vos non vobis_ to be a physical necessity of their own contriving. But
nobody robs their hives: no, unlike the bees, they go about offering their
ware to any who will take it as a gift. I had just written the last
sentence (Oct. 30, 1866, 8.45 A.M.) when in comes the second note received
this morning from Dr. Thorn: at 1.30 P.M. came in a third. These arise out
of the above account of the Rev. D. Thom, published Oct. 27: three notes
had arrived before.
For curiosity I give one day's allowance, supposing these to be all: more
may arrive before night.
29th Oct. 1866.
"Dear Sir,--