the Greeks did anciently use the contraction of sigma and tau, s, with which to express the Number 6. Nor has he on any ONE occasion, throughout his Two publications on the word Asarns, used the term επίσημον, Οι επισημον Ταν, concerning the character or cyphers' or 9, upon which so much is built, that the Sacred Calendar of Prophecy' has been thought worthy to supersede another work, which he had formerly published, in two volumes, on the 1260 Days of Years;' and now he has added a third to establish the second, which is entitled' Recapitulated Apostacy.'

Objection XII. That the epsilon (e) in Aɑtêivos, is rejected by Mr. Faber, upon the authority of Lycophron, and his commentator Tzetzes, as Mr. Faber says:

1 As for the word LATIN US, it cannot be the name of the Beast; for, in the first place, it is not a descriptive name of blasphemy; and, in the second place, it does not contain the fated number 666. That number can only be elicited from it, by writing it with the broad ει, Λατεινος. But I much incline to believe, that no instance can be found, in which it is ever thus expressed by a Greek writer. The form employed, is, I believe, uniformly Aativos. phron writes Tép Aatívous, his commentator, Tzetzes, subjoins and Aatívov. Lycoph. Alex. 1254.'

If Lyco

My objections to the above mode of reasoning are as follows:

1st. Mr. Faber calls the proper Name LATINus, 'the word Latinus;' but because Latinus is the

1 Faber's Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, Vol. iii. Book V. chap. iv. p. 237, and 238.

Proper Name of a Man, (and not simply a word,') therefore it CAN be the Name of the Beast, inasmuch as St. John informs us that "the NAME of the beast ....is the number of a MAN." And this is corroborated by the testimony of Irenæus, who has made use of the name LATEINOS, and two other proper

names.

1

2nd. Mr. Faber tells us that LATINUs cannot be the name of the Beast, because it is not a descriptive name of Blasphemy;' but as BLASPHEMY is not a proper name of a MAN, so it cannot be the proper name of the Beast; besides which Mr. Faber has confessed that Basques does NOT contain the number 666, but the number 1051.

6

3dly. Mr. Faber informs us that LATINUS cannot be the name of the Beast, because it does not contain the fated number 666;' but in this Mr. Faber is also much mistaken, (as will hereafter appear,) for a circumflexed iota ( 7 ) is generally, if not always, equivalent to a diphthong or broad or ; and as old ENNIUS, who lived before the Christian Æra, wrote the name LATINUS by Popolei tenuere LATEINEI,' so his authority (though LATIN) is tantamount to certainty, and justifies the orthography of Irenæus. As Mr. Faber had previously written on the number 666, in favour of the name LATEINOS, in his work entitled The Great Period of 1260 Years,' Vol. II. from Page 330 to 335; he must have known that Dr. Henry More and Bishop Newton had already quoted old ENNIUS, and other

Numerus Hominis' being put for Numerus [Nominis] Hominis.'

writers, in favour of the use of the diphthong or broad or, as used by Irenæus. However, many more authorities will be hereafter produced, to establish the diphthong beyond all possibility of future controversy. Moreover, the iota in Aaríves is written by Mr. Faber with an acute accent, as (í), instead of a circumflex accent, as (7), which is contrary to all Greek precedent; because the iota in Aativos is, by all ancient Greek authors, written with a circumflex accent; and a circumflex accent, over a vowel, generally, if not always, indicates the contraction of a diphthong, as <, «, or 7. Eusebius writes the name of Irenæus, by beginning it with the Diphthong

ει, Ειρηναίος.

Objection XIII. In wrongly quoting Irenæus, concerning the name Tray, by writing it Trav, and so leaving out both the epsilon (e) and circumflex accent (~), and substituting an acute accent, as (') which denotes an incorrect, or at least a careless mode of quotation, on the part of Mr. Faber: which is scarcely excusable in writing polemically on a NAME and NUMBER which have been so much and so long the subject of interminable speculations.

CHAPTER III.

OBJECTIONS TO MR. FABER'S HYPOTHESIS CONTINUED, WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THE EPISEMON S'AND THE CONTRACTION 5.

EVEN if the ancient use of the diphthong or broad «, or, instead of the iota circumflexed, as (7) in the name Aativos, be considered sufficient, on the ground of modern orthography to set aside the legitimate establishment of that proper name of a Man, for the number 666; what critic would not object to the manifold inaccuracies of Mr. Faber, in reference to the word APOSTATÈS, &c. &c. as stated in the thirteen preceding Objections? With With every wish to allow all due merit to the observations of Mr. Faber, I cannot for a moment suppose that Irenæus, who professedly wrote against all Heresies,' ('contra omnes Hæreses,') would have deliberately made choice of two names out of three, viz. TEITAN and LATEINOS, each of which contains the diphthong or broad & or, if such orthography were inadmissible in his day,

or earlier, either among the ancient GREEKS or ROMANS, and, therefore, I must conclude that, as that Greek and Christian Father has made no apology for the two-fold use of the diphthong or broad, that his orthography is correct in these two Names; and that Dr. Henry More, Bishop Newton, and others, have judiciously followed his example, and quoted Ennius as an authority for such usage. It is my intention to bring forward, in my remarks upon the name Aateivos, a multiplicity of proofs, both Greek and Latin, in favour of the ancient use of the diphthong « or d; seeing beforehand how impossible it is to retain the word APOSTATÈS under any circumstances, the noun being too general with regard to identity - the orthography being spurious, and utterly inapplicable as the name of any Man; and thus wholly at variance with the words of St. John. In the only legitimate manner of calculating it as a word (for name it is not), the number produced by its individual Greek letters will amount to 1160, instead of the number 666.

Although Mr. Faber says that, 1 even in the ordinary language of the Gospels, no less than in the prophetic language of the Apocalypse, Blasphemy denotes Apostacy: and consequently the name of Apostacy describes the peculiar nature of the Beast's religion :' yet is it abundantly evident, even if it can be proved that Blasphemy denotes Apostacy,' that, still

1 Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, Vol. iii. Book V. chap. iv. p. 231.