Emperor.

Athanasius.
Emperor.

He was to me as to an orphan child,
An eldest, kindest, and most loving brother!
Aspersed thou'st been most foully, Athanasius;
And we, most treacherously been deceived!
I hope my sovereign is satisfied?

And more, good primate! Oh! I shame to think
How I, who should be Heaven's Vicegerent

To hold the scales of Justice evenly,

Have in blind ire, pronounc'd unrighteous judgment !

I thank thee, Athanasius; thy words

Have kindled scourging thoughts within my breast.
Alas! of what I charged thee with, myself
Am guilty-of schism-heresy-and-spare
Oh! spare me! for I cannot utter it:
But they most cruelly deceived me;
Oh Athanasius, you knew my Crispus?

(Covers his face with his hands.)

Athanasius. My gracious Lord! Invoke His holy name
Who knows our frailties, and can wash them out
With his redeeming blood! For thy last sin
Upon the heads of those that thee deceived

Emperor.

Rest all the guilt! My prince! these tears are precious;
The harden'd heart may burst, but cannot melt.

Thy hand, most innocent and injur'd man!

I feel remorseful to behold thee thus ;
And, but that loosen'd has the sudden shock
My joints to langour like to infancy's,
I would dismount to lock thee in embrace,
And by a gentle force (to do thee honour)
Help to raise thee even to this saddle;
Is there, Ablavius, no led horse?

Constantine (Vaulting from his seat). My father,
If mine the good Archbishop will but mount,
I shall high honour deem it.

Athanasius.

Emperor.

And thou walk?
Excellent prince! I cannot have it so;
I e'en will walk, as is my common wont,
And deem that day most bless'd in which I threw
Myself upon the justice of my sovereign.
Nay, my good friend; our son hath spoken well,
And we would have it so. We've much to say,
Much to take counsel on; for sure from thee
I am to hear the honest words of truth.
On godly matters also we would talk,

And balsam for the soul's long rankling wounds.
While thou'rt in safety here, my care 'twill be
For blackest wrongs to make thee large amends:
On, on, I say!—

Exeunt Omnes.

III.-On the Number of the Symbolic Beast, Rev. xiii. Much has been written, and many theories have been advanced by different authors, in attempting to explain the meaning of the symbolic beast mentioned in the latter part of the 13th chapter of the book of Revelation. By protestant writers, it has generally been considered as referring to the papal power of Rome. It is not my design to notice the various methods by which they have arrived at this conclusion; but if you can find a place for the following remarks, they may perhaps interest some of your readers, who either may have forgotten, or are not acquainted with the facts brought forward in them.

In the 18th verse of the above chapter, it is thus written: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred three-score and six." Of this verse various explanations have been given; the most simple and satisfactory of which, as well as the most ancient and the most common, is that of understanding what the monster referred to is, by discovering in its name at the same time its mystical number, 666. Now, it does appear a very remarkable circumstance, that three distinct names of the Roman Catholic Church, or the Papal Empire, in no fewer than three of the ancient languages, should each be found to contain letters amounting in numerical value, to neither more or less than 666. They are to be found in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, though there is a peculiarity in the last of these, which in the opinion of some may be sufficient to destroy its evidence. The words are " (Romiith), " the Roman Church," or Empire. AATEINOE (Lateinos), "the Latin man," and Ecclesia Italica, "the Italic" or Roman "Church;" and the manner in which the number of the beast is found in each of these names will at once be seen in the following tabular view*.

*To such of your readers as may be ignorant of the fact, it may be necessary to observe, that in the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and some other ancient languages, EACH of the letters of the Alphabet denoted a particular number, as well as assisted in forming the words of the language. ONLY SOME charac ters of the Latin or Roman Alphabet, however, were used for the former purpose, and therefore it is necessary to represent the Latin words, Ecclesia Italica, in Greek letters, as is done above.

M

It is easy to invent names which may contain the number 666, or any other number whatever: but these names have not been invented for the purpose of upholding a theory; they were in existence for centuries before the Reformation, and if not of frequent use, they are all at least unobjectionably applicable to designate that once great Anti-christian power, the man of sin.

It is surely difficult to believe, that three so remarkable coincidences should concur, by different words and in different languages, to point out one and the same object, symbolized by "the beast which came up out of the earth"-and that altogether without design, the result of mere chance.

I do not now enter on the consideration which of these names is to be considered as referred to by the prophet, when he speaks of the name of the beast, though I think the Greek AATEINOX has the best claim (see Faber, or the Commentary of the Rev. Thomas Scott, on this verse). But there is one fact connected with the subject (lately pointed out to me by a friend), which also is very remarkable, though I do not recollect to have seen it noticed by any writer. It is, that the Hebrew and Greek words, and AATEINOZ, written in the Persian characters, show exactly the same result-666, when the numerical value of the letters is summed up in the manner already exhibited. Thus

and רומיית

رومیت

[We insert the above, because the subject is exceedingly interesting as connected with the interpretation and fulfilment of prophecy, and not less curions as the source of ingenious speculation. Though introduced in some shape or other into all the larger treatises on prophecy, it may present the freshness of novelty to many of our readers. -ED.]

IV. On the Connection between the Vedas and the Vedant.-Art. I. No one who knows any thing of what is going on among the Hindoo population of Calcutta, can fail to perceive that a spirit of religious inquiry has now occupied the room of that listlessness and

apathy which were so long the characteristics of the votaries of the Brahminical faith. It is well known also, that one of the sects which have lately arisen, at the head of which is the celebrated Rammohun Roy, professes the Vedanti system, which is alleged to be the original faith of the Hindoos, and to have its foundation in the Vedas. The adherents of that sect appeal to the Vedant, the Upanishads, and the Vedas, as all speaking the same language and teaching the same doctrines. Nay, Rammohun Roy does not scruple to call the Upanishads "chapters of the Vedas*,” and the Vedant" the principal parts of the Vedast." Conceiving, that such views and such language tend to introduce confusion into our ideas, and give an erroneous impression of the above-mentioned treatises, I propose to consider how far the Vedas and Upanishads are parts of the same work, and how far the doctrines of the one agree with those of the other.

It has always been asserted by Europeans, and admitted by native Pundits, that the style of the Vedas is very different from that of other Sunskrit works; while it is evident, from the slightest inspection, that the language of the Vedant and Upanishads is essentially the same as that of the Purans, and more modern works composed in the ancient language of the Brahmans. As however general assertions of this kind' come home to us with more force when proved by particular examples, we instance the following as peculiarities in the style of the Vedas.

1st. In the Inflections of Nouns and Verbs.

In the inflections of masculine nouns in (a) in the Nom. Ob. and Voc. Du. 3⁄4 (á) is generally used for 3⁄4 (au), when a consonant follows, as for example, (nara) is frequently used for (narau). In the Dat. and Abl. Plur. also f: (ebih) is used for: aih, as af: (devebih) for: (devaih)§.

In the conjugations of verbs also, many variations from the common Sunskrit occur; as for example, in the 1st Plur. Pres. Ind. we have frequently af (masi) for : (mah), thus instead of Ħ: (ágachhámah), we have एमसि (emasi) ||, and for आयाम: (áwhayámah), we have जुद्धमभि (juhumasi¶).

In the 2nd Imperative of the verb to come, we have constantly if, आयातं, आयात for आग, आगरतः आगत: and not to adduce any more examples under this head, in one line of four words, three have forms • Def. of Hindoo Theism.

+ Pref. to the Kuth-Upanishad.

Rig. Sanhita Ashtak 1st, Adhyaya 1st, Warg. 4th, Rich 1st. See also Warg. 5th, et passim.

R. S. Ash. 1st, Adh. 1st, Warg. 1st, R. 5.

Do. Warg. 2nd, R. 2.

Do. Warg. 7th, R. 1st.

not used in modern Sunscrit; thus we have af af* (teshám páhi shrudhi hawam) for if (tesham pib shrunu áwhánam). Drink of them, hear our invitation.

2nd. In regard to verbal roots.

There are many roots marked in the Native Vocabularies as peculiar to the Vedas. By running down a few pages of Wilkin's Sanskrita Radicals, recollecting that such roots are marked, any one may soon convince himself of this fact. I observed five such roots in hastily looking down the first 20 pages, which will give, if the proportion be the same afterwards, about 40 roots peculiar to these ancient writings.

3rd. In regard to words peculiar to the Vedas.

There are many words peculiar to the Vedas to be found in Dictionaries, and many not be found in any Native Sunscrit Dictionary, several not even in Wilson's New Edition of his Dictionary†, as for example, f: aid, protection, used in the Dat. as at R. S. A. 1st, Adh. 1st, 7th W. R. 1, et passim. :, an invitation, whence in the line quoted a little higher up. f, a cow, R. S. As. 1st, Adh. 1st, Warg. 11, R. 1, TT: in the sense of bodily strength, Do. Warg. 15, R. 5, wealth, &c.

The first verb in the Rig Veda, I praise, is found in no Dictionary. Indeed the letter is not at all used in modern Sunscrit; the is always found changed either to or, and accordingly we find the verbal root दुङ in Wilson, and the adjective इलितः - ता-तं.

From the references, the reader will see, that these examples of marked difference of dialect are all to be found within a few pages of one another. It will be difficult however to point out any of these peculiarities of style in the Vedant and Upanishads translated by Rammohun Roy. Those works belong to a later era, and were composed not in the infancy of the language like the Vedas, but when it was fully formed. The writings of the Vedanti and other philosophical schools, hold the same relations to the Vedas, that systems of theology among Christians hold to the Scriptures; and we must compare the one with the other, before we can determine how far the Vedanti doctrines are the same as those contained in the more ancient Brahminical records. This however I reserve for a future communication.

*R. S. Ash. 1st, Adh. 1st, Warg. 3. R. 1st.

स. य.

+ In making this observation, I by no means intend to detract from the great merits of the work in question; for it was not to be expected, that the author should be able to insert all the words peculiar to a book so little accessible to Europeans.