that he is right in this supposition, and discuss the point accordingly. St. John informs us, that the second beast should permit no man either to buy or to sell,"save he that had the mark, or "the name of the beast, or the number of his "name." Hence it is evident, that the name of the beast (supposing with Mr. Galloway that the second beast is here intended), which comprehends his mystic number, should be something so peculiarly dear to him, that he should compel all his votaries, in some manner or another, to bear it, under pain of a severe interdict. But has this been the case with the chaotic republic and the name Ludovicus? Has she forbidden all to buy or sell, except those who bore, or (to admit the lowest sense) who reverenced, the name of her last unfortunate sovereign? Is it not notorious to the whole world, that her conduct has been exactly the reverse? So far from none being permitted by her to exercise the common rights of society except the royalists, or, (to bestow upon them the name of their king) the Ludovicians, these of all others are the very persons whom she has formally proscribed. We may reasonably then conclude, that, although the word Ludovicus happens to contain the num→ ber 666, it is not on that account alone the name of the beast, any more than various other words, which may possibly contain the same number. Thus it appears, that, even upon Mr. Galloway's own principles, Ludovicus cannot be the name of the beast much less therefore can it be that mysterious

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 the second beast. But he has amply cleared up this point in various other passages, wherein le 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.

On

+ Both Mr. Galloway and Mr. Kett suppose, that the twohorned beast 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

same

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 *.

3. Bp.

same as the apocalyptic witnesses, are those very popish olergy. The impropriety and erroneousness of such an opinion has already been so fully pointed out, that it is superfluous now to resume the subject.

* Mr. Sharpe supposes the second beast to be the secular Roman empire under Justinian-Justinian however was the representative of the sixth head of the first beast. Hence it is manifest, 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 suceessors be termed a false 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 until the battle of Armaged don 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, because 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 himself 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

the

3. 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 prominent 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 battle of Armageddon under the last vial; 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 vial be not yet poured out, of course the seventh is not: and, if the seventh be not, the false 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 wit nesses revived under the protection of revolutionary France; their persecutor, when (likewise according to the scheme) they were slain by the instrumentality of the Capetian tyranny. But see this matter discussed at large in my answer to Mr. Bicheno.

Mr. Lowman thinks, that the second beast syinbolizes the German ecclesiastical electors, prince-bishops, baronial-ubbots, and other ecclesiastico-temporal states that resemble in their con

VOL. II.

U

stitution

the 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.

II. The second beast appears to me, as he did to Mr. Mede, to be the line of the Roman pontiffs at the head of their clergy. The fact is, what might seem 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 ten-, horned 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 patrimonyIndependent 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 second beast previous to the war of Armageddon, under the seventh vial, to which period, his overthrow is assigned by the prophet. Hence it is manifest, that the second beast certainly cannot be what Mr. Lowman supposes him to be. Paraph. in loc.

* "Bestia bicornis, sive pseudopropheta, pontifex est Ro46 manus cum suo clero." Com. Apoc. in loc.

distinot