Here's the Doctor again with his figs, and by Heavens!He was always at sixes, and now he's at sevens.
Here's the Doctor again with his figs, and by Heavens!He was always at sixes, and now he's at sevens.
Here's the Doctor again with his figs, and by Heavens!
He was always at sixes, and now he's at sevens.
To understand this fully the reader must know that the greater part of Apocalyptic interpretation has long been condensed, in my mind, into the Turkish street-cry—In thename of the Prophet! figs! I make a few extracts. The reader will observe that Dr. Thorn grumbles at hisprivateletters beingpubliclyridiculed. A man was summoned for a glutolactic assault; he complained of the publication of his proceeding: I kicked etc.in confidence, he said.
"After reading your last, which tries in every way to hold me up to public ridicule for daring to write you privately ['that you would be d——d,' omitted by accident] one would say, Why have anything to do with such a testy person? [Wrong word; no testy person can manage cool and consecutive ridicule. Quære, what is this word? Is it anything but a corruption of the obsolete wordtetchyof the samemeaning? Some thinktouchyis our modern form oftetchy, which I greatly doubt]. My answer is, the poor man is lamentably ignorant; he is not only so, but 'out of the way' [quite true; my readers know me by this time for an out-of-the-way person. What other could tackle my squad of paradoxers? What other would undertake the job?] Can he be brought back and form one of those who in Ezekiel 37 ch. have the Spirit breathed into them and live.... Have I any other feeling towards you except that of peace and goodwill? [Not to your distinct knowledge; but in all those who send people to 'the other place' for contempt of their interpretations, there is a lurking wish which is father to the thought; 'youwillbe d——d' and 'youbed—d' are Siamese twins]. Of course your sneer at 666 brought plain words; but when men meddle with what they do not understand (not having the doubleVahu) they must be dealt with faithfully by those who do.... [They must; which justifies the Budget of Paradoxes: but no occasion to send them anywhere; no preachee and floggee too, as the negro said]. Many will find the text Prov. i. 26 fully realized. [All this contains distinct assumption of a right 'of course' to declare accursed those who do not respect the writer's vagary].... If I could but get theא, the Ox-head, which in Old Hebrew was just the Latin Digamma, F, outof your name, and could then Thau you with the Thau of Ezekiel ix, 4, theχ, then you would bear the number of a man! But this is too hard for me, although not so for the Lord! Jer. xxxii. 17.... And now a word: is ridicule the right thing in so solemn a matter as the discussion of Holy Writ? [Is food for ridicule the right thing? Did I discuss Holy Writ? I did not: I concussed profane scribble. Even the Doctor did notdiscuss; he only enunciated and denunciated out of the mass of inferences which a mystical head has found premises for in the Bible]."
[That ill opinions are near relations of ill wishes, will be detected by those who are on the look out. The following was taken down in a Scotch Church by Mr. Cobden,[358]who handed it to a Roman friend of mine, for his delectation (in 1855): "Lord, we thank thee that thou hast brought the Pope into trouble; and we pray that thou wouldst be mercifully pleased to increase the same."]
Here is a martyr who quarrels with his crown; a missionary who reviles his persecutor: send him to New Zealand, and he would disagree with the Maoris who ate him. Man of unilateral reciprocity! have you, who write to a stranger with hints that that stranger and his wife are children of perdition, the bad taste to complain of a facer in return? As James Smith[359]—the Attorney-wit, not the Dock-cyclometer—said, or nearly said,
"A pretty thing, forsooth!Is he to burn, all scalding hot,Me and my wife, and am I notTo job him out a tooth?"
"A pretty thing, forsooth!Is he to burn, all scalding hot,Me and my wife, and am I notTo job him out a tooth?"
"A pretty thing, forsooth!
Is he to burn, all scalding hot,
Me and my wife, and am I not
To job him out a tooth?"
Those who think parody vulgar will be pleased to substitute for the above a quotation from Butler[360]:—
"There's nothing so absurd or vainOr barbarous or inhumane,But if it lay the least pretenceTo piety and godliness,Or tender-hearted conscience,And zeal for gospel truths profess,—Does sacred instantly commence,And all that dare but question it are straightPronounced th' uncircumcised and reprobate,As malefactors that escape and flyInto a sanctuary for defence,Must not be brought to justice thence,Although their crimes be ne'er so great and high.And he that dares presume to do'tIs sentenced and delivered upTo Satan that engaged him to't."
"There's nothing so absurd or vainOr barbarous or inhumane,But if it lay the least pretenceTo piety and godliness,Or tender-hearted conscience,And zeal for gospel truths profess,—Does sacred instantly commence,And all that dare but question it are straightPronounced th' uncircumcised and reprobate,As malefactors that escape and flyInto a sanctuary for defence,Must not be brought to justice thence,Although their crimes be ne'er so great and high.And he that dares presume to do'tIs sentenced and delivered upTo Satan that engaged him to't."
"There's nothing so absurd or vain
Or barbarous or inhumane,
But if it lay the least pretence
To piety and godliness,
Or tender-hearted conscience,
And zeal for gospel truths profess,—
Does sacred instantly commence,
And all that dare but question it are straight
Pronounced th' uncircumcised and reprobate,
As malefactors that escape and fly
Into a sanctuary for defence,
Must not be brought to justice thence,
Although their crimes be ne'er so great and high.
And he that dares presume to do't
Is sentenced and delivered up
To Satan that engaged him to't."
THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
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 notpreparedfor 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'être assuré de son fait quand on se bat contre quelqu'un? Là, pousse moi un peu, pour voir.Nicole. Eh bien! quoi?M. Jourdain.Tout beau. Hola!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
were added up. This is almost as good as theFilii Dei Vicarius, the numerical letters of which also make 666. No more of these crazy—I first wrotepuerile, but why should young cricketers be libelled?—attempts to extract religious use from numerical vagaries, and to make God over all a proposer ofsalvation 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 inἐν ᾡ μετρῳ μετρειτε μετρηθησεται ὑμιν[364]withdouble Vahucubic 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 attentionof 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: theacknowledged(ὁμολογουμενα), which it has always been paradox not to receive; and thecontroverted(ἀντιλεγομενα), 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 bymany—orthe 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 thespurious[νοθοι] let there be ranked both the work entitled theActs of Paul, and the book calledPastor, and theRevelation of Peter: and moreover, that which is called theEpistle of Barnabas, and that named theDoctrines of the Apostles: and moreover, as I said, theRevelation 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 thecontrovertedlist, but gives permission to call itspurious, yet qualifies his permission in a manner which almost annihilates the distinctive force ofνοθος, and gives the book a claim to rank (if you think good, again) in the controverted list. And this is the impression received bythe 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 thedouble Vahuto place the Apocalypseabovethe 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 cannotventure 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 servantsthings 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 Greekἐν ταχει, rendered "shortly," is as strong a phrase as the language has to signifysoon. 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 amere preamble. This wordmereis 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 thatἐν ταχειmay 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 "withoutreference to time when." As to time athand—provided you make a longarm—I admire the quirk, but cannot receive it: the word isἐγγυς, which is a word ofclosenessin 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 theAthenæum, 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 Budgetdidterminate 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 thingcomesto pass when it happens, andcameto pass afterwards. But as the original is Greek, we must look at the Greek: it isδει γενεσθαιfor "must come to pass," and we know thatἐγενετοis 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 nomore notice until he can contrive to surpass himself, which I doubt his being able to do. He informs me that by changing A intoתin my name he can make a 666 ofme; 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 Morgתn" as have assigned me apartment 7Ain 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 writingתfor 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 beBound each to each by natural piety."
"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 beBound each to each by natural piety."
"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."
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 thedouble 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 usMab, an appropriate suggestion. But when bigotry has the upper hand, we seeBam, 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.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 sametime and until recently, of Renshaw Street Chapel, Liverpool who was one of the minority in the Liverpool controversy when, nearly thirty years ago,threeheretical Unitarian schooners exchanged shotted sermons withthirteenOrthodox ships of the line, and put up their challengers' dander—an American corruption ofd—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 isThe 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 Cæsar Atheus (or Aug.[371]); Diocles Augustus; Ludovicus; Silvester Secundus; Linus Secundus;Vicarius Filii Dei; Doctor et Rex Latinus; Paulo V. Vice-Deo; Vicarius Generalis Dei in Terris; Ipse Catholicæ Ecclesiæ 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;Λατεινος;[372]ἡ λατινη βασιλεια;ἐκκλησια ἰταλικα;εὐανθας;τειταν;ἀρνουμε;λαμπετις;ὁ νικητης;κακος ὁδηγος;ἀληθης βλαβερος;παλαι βασκανος;ἀμνος ἀδικος;ἀντεμος;γενσηρικος;εὐινας;Βενεδικτος;Βονιβαζιος γ. παπα ξ. η. ε. ε. α., meaning Boniface III. Pope 68th, bishop of bishops the first!οὐλπιος;διος εἰμι ἡ ἡρας;ἡ μισσα ἡ παπικη;λουθερανα;σαξονειος;Βεζζα ἀντιθεος(Beza);ἡ ἀλαζονεια βιου;Μαομετις;Μαομετης β.;θεος εἰμι ἐπι γαιης;ἰαπετος;παπεισκος;διοκλασιανος;χεινα;βρασκι;Ιον Παυνε;κουποκς; (cowpox,ςbeing thevau; certainly thevaccinated have the mark of the Beast);Βοννεπαρτη;Ν. Βονηπαρτε;εὐπορια;παραδοσις;το μεγαθηριον.
All sects fasten this number on their opponents. It is found inMartin 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 inישו נצריJesus 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;ἡ φρην(the mind) for the first, andἐκκλησιαι σαρκικαι(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 atten,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 inστ κλαιρεand found 666: this was good fun. But my spiritual tutelary, when he found that he could not make a beast of me, except by changingאintoת, solemnly referred the difficulty to the Almighty: this was poor earnest.
I am glad I did not notice, in time to insert it in theAthenæum, 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 theAthenæumthey 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 madeMANhe entered into his rest. He is no more seen as a Creator, as Elohim, but as Jehovah, theLordof the Sabbath, and the Spirit of life inMan, which Spirit workethsin 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 iscrucifiedin the flesh. He then, as Jehovah—as the power of the Law,inandoverall 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 upisKing 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 begoodfor the healing of the nations, of all people and tongues. As the Father of allnaturalflesh, he is the Spirit of Lust, as in allbeasts; 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 butONEGod,ONELord,ONESpirit,ONEbody, etc. and he who was Satan, the Spirit of life in that body, is, inChrist 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, provingsic vos non vobisto 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, 8.45A.M.) when in comes the second note received this morning from Dr. Thorn: at 1.30P.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,—
In reswastika.[374]
"So that 'Zaphnath Paaneah' may be after all the revealer of the 'Northern Tau'Φανεροω—To make manifest, shew, or explain; and this may satisfy the House of Joseph in Amos 5c. While Belteshazzar = 666 may be also satisfactory to the House of David, and so we may have Zech. 10c. 6v. in operation when Ezekiel 37c. 16v. has been realised;—but there, what is the use of writing, it is all Copticto a man who has notswastika, The Thau of the North, the double Vahuוָו. Look at Jeremiah 3c. 8v. and then to Psalm 83 for 'hidden ones'צְפוּנֶי יְהוָה—The Zephoni Jehovah, and say whether they have any connection with the ZephonThau. The Hammer of Thor of Jeremiah 23c. 29v. as I gave you in No. 3 of my present edition.
Yours truly
Le Chevalier Au Cin."
By Greek Power.
There will be thousands of Morgans who will be among the wise and prudent of Hosea 14c. 9v. when the Seventh Angel sounds, let me numberthat Oneby Greek, Rev. 17c. 1v:
V and G = 12 ought to be equal to one Gammadion or3swastika3 × 4 = 12, what say you?
V and G = 12 ought to be equal to one Gammadion or3swastika3 × 4 = 12, what say you?
London, October 29, 1866.
"Dear Sir,—
In reswastikaversusmaltese cross.
However pretentious the X ormaltese crossmay be, and it is peculiarly so just now in this land; after all it is only made of two Roman V's—and so is only =two Vs(10)—and therefore is not the perfect number 12 of Reveln, but is the mark of the goddessDecima!
Yours truly
Wm. Thorn."
Had theonewho sent forth a pastoral (Romish) the other day, remained amongst the faithful expectants, see how he would have numbered, whereas he sold himself for the privilege of signing
maltese crossHenry E. Manning.[375]
Transcriber's note.
Can you now understand the difference betweenswastikaandmaltese crossor X? Look to my challenge.
Can you now understand the difference betweenswastikaandmaltese crossor X? Look to my challenge.
Cutting from newspaper:—
ITALY.
Rome (viaMarseilles), October
Mr. Gladstone has paid a visit to the Pope.
And what thenswastika?
In other lettersJohn Stuart Millis 666 if theabe left out;Chasubleis perfect.John Brighte[376]is afait accompli; and I am asked whether intellect can account for the finale. Very easily: this Beast is not the M. P., but another person who spells his name differently. But if John Sturt Mill and John Brighte choose so to write themselves, they may.
A curious collection; a mystical phantasmagoria! There are those who will try to find meaning: there are those who will try to find purpose.