« PreviousContinue »
terious name, when we find that he has completely mistaken the one beast for the other, attributing to the second beast the name which in reality belongs to the first. What St. John says, in his particular description of the name, is certainly ambiguous; insomuch that, had he said nothing more upon the subject, it might have been a matter of doubt, whether the name was the name of the first or of ihe second beast. But he has amply cleared up this point in various other passages, wherein he plainly intimates, that the name is the name of that beast for whom an image was made*. But the beast for whom an image was made, is the first beast : consequently the name is the name of the first beast, and not of the second as Mr. Galloway erroneously supposes. Arguing then with him, either upon his own principles, or upon the real state of the case, we shall find it equally impossible to admit that Ludovicus is the name of the beast t.
* See Rev. xiv. 11.--XV. 2.--xix, 20. and xx. 4,
+ Both Mr. Galloway and Mr. Kett suppose, that the twokorned beust of the earth is the same as the beast of the bottomless, pit which makes war upon the witnesses. I have already shewn such an idea to be erroneous (See Galloway's Comment, p. 162 -208. and Hist, the Interp. vol. i. p. 391.). Their sentiments upon this point must necessarily lead them both into the opinion, that the faithful witnesses of God are the popish clergy who were murdered and banished by the atheistical republicans of France. Mr. Galloway accordingly avows without hesitation, that the saints of God, who are mentioned by: Daniel as worn out by the little horn, and who are evidently the
On these grounds I am constrained to think, that both Mr. Kett and Mr. Galloway have erred in their respective interpretations of the prophetic character of the second beast and the image.
same as the apocalyptic witnesses, are those pery popisk clergy, The impropriety and erroneousness of such an opinion has already been so fully pointed out, that it is superfluous pow to resume the subject.
Mr. Sharpe supposes the second benst to be the secular Ro. man empire under Justinian. Justinian however was the repres sentative of the sixth head of the first beast. Hence it is mani, fest, that Mr. Sharpe makes the second beast to be in fact the same as the first, Independent of this palpable tautology, which the prophet carefully guards us against by assuring us that the second beast was another beast, the Emperor Justinian neither performed any miracles for the purpose of deceiving those that dwelt upon the earth, nor can he or any of his suc. cessors be termed a fulse prophet. In short, whatever power be intended by the second beast or the false prophet, it must be some power at this present moment in existence, because the false prophet is not to be destroyed till the battle of Armageddon at the expiration of the 1260 years (Rev. xix. 20.). The second beast therefore cannot be the Empire of Justinian, because that has long since been subverted by the Turks. Yet does Mr. Sharpe censure all preceding commentators, as having entirely misunderstood the character of the second beast, be: cause they apply it to the Pope himself: he ought rather to have said the Roman clergy, for I doubt whether any commentators ever supposed the Pope hinself to be intended by the second beast. Append, to An Inquiry into the Description of Babylon. p. 3-6.
Mr. Bicheno endeavours to prove, that the second beast is the tyranny exercised by the Capets and perfected by Louis XIV. and that the image is the system of persecution adopted by them against the Protestants. The memory of him who revoked
Bp. Newton's scheme is much less objectionable. That valuable commentator clearly saw, that the
the edict of Nantz I detest as much as Mr. Bicheno himself can do: but mere abhorrence is no argument. Not to mention other objections, there is one proininent defect in this scheme, which seems to me to render the whole of it untenable. The second beast or the false prophet, for Mr. Bicheno very justly maintains their identity, is to be overthrown at the buttle of Armageddon under the last rial; and the Ottoman empire, for so Mr. Bicheno with equal propriety understands the mystic Euphrates, is to be subverted under the sixth vial. But the Ottoman empire is not yet subverted; therefore the sixth vial is not yet poured out : and, if the sixth vinl be not yet poured out, of course the serenth is not : and, if the seventh be not, the fulse prophet is not yet overthrown : and, if he be not yet overthrown, he is now in existence. The tyranny of the Capets however is already overthrown: therefore that tyranny cannot be the second beast. Signs of the Times, Part i. p. 17.-25.
In his reply to me, Mr. Bicheno gives up the idea that the second. beast symbolizes the tyranny of the Capets ; and now asserts, that he represents the tyrannical power or monarchy of France, abstracted from every consideration of the dynasty which directed the power of that kingdom, in short, the tyranny of France from Pepin even to Napoleon. This alteration, it is true, removes my objection ; but it renders Mr. Bicheno's scheme altogether contradictory. It makes the beast at once the patron and the persecutor of the witnesses : their patron, when (according to another part of the scheme) the slain witnesses revived under the protection of revolutionary France; their persecutor, when (likewise according to the scheme) they w're slain by the instrumentality of the Capetian tyranny, But see this matter discussed at large in ny answer 10 MF, Bicheno.
Mr. Lownian thinks, that the second berist symbolizes the German ecclesiastical electors, prince-bishops, baronial-ubbots, and other ecclesiastico-temporal stutes the resemble in their cone
two apocalyptic beasts instead of being at utter enmity with each other, were united in the closest bonds of friendship. Having therefore adopted the opinion that the first beast was the Papacy, he concluded that the second was the Roman Church; thus injudiciously separating what ought never to have been divided, and thus rending (as it were) the head from the body*. The fact is, what might appear a contradiction till it was actually fulfilled, the two beasts are two universal empires, not only existing together each under its proper and distinct head, but mutually supporting and strengthening each other. Daniel however declares, that the tenhorned beast is the last universal empire, and yet St. John represents this very beast as co-existing with another beast, or another universal empire : for, that the two beasts are two: powers perfectly
stitution the bishopric of Rome united with St. Peter's patrimony. Independent of every other objection that might be made to this scheme, it has received a practical confutation. The recently adopted system of secularization, for the purpose of indemnifying (as it is called) those German temporal princes who have been despoiled of their territories by the-robberies of France, has effectually slain this supposed sceond beast previous to the war of Armageddon, under the seventh rial, to which period his overthrow is assigned by the prophet. Hence it is manifest, that the second least certainly cannot be what Mr. Lowman supposes him to be." Paraph. in loc.
Mr. Mede more judiciously supposes the second beast to be the Roman pontiff with his clergy. " Bestia bicornis, sive se 'pseudoproprieta, pontifex est Romanus cum suo clero." Com. Apoc, in loc,
distinct from each other, is manifest, not only from their different symbolical conformation, but from the express words of the prophet: “ I beheld," says he, “another beast.” Hence it is plain, that the second apocalyptic beast cannot be a temporal universal empire : both because it is physically impossible, that two temporal empires, each universal so far as the Church is concerned, should exist together; and because, if the second beast of the Apocalypse were a temporal empire, it would be a fifth temporal empire, whereas Daniel declares that there shall only be four. But, if the second beast be not a temporal empire, it must be a spiritual empire ; for nothing but a spiritual empire can coexist with a temporal empire. Accordingly we find this to be the çery case: for St. John, as if to prevent the possibility of error, explicitly informs us, that the second beast should be a false prophet*, or an ecclesiastical power ; which, under the pretence of a divine commission, should grievously corrupt the genuine Gospel of Christ f.
Here then we have a plain prediction of some spiritual power, which should come in the name of God as a sound evangelical prophet or preacher; which should arrogate to itself universal or catholic
* Compare Rev. xiij. 12--17. with Rer. xix. 20.
body or succession of men propagating false doctrine's, and “ teaching lies for sacred truths.” The second brust is manifestly styled a false prophet in direct opposition to the tio mystic zuit. nesses, who are the true prophets of God.