cal republic, or the image (as Mr. Kett supposes) of the beast. Now Infidelity placed itself in direct opposition T to all religion; and what Buonapartè has done has been simply to avail himself of the wild confusion excited by Infidelity. The favour therefore, which he has shewn to Popery, can by no ingenuity be construed into an act of that Infidelity which was the parent of French democracy. Since Infidelity then has shewn the most determined hostility to the first beast, whether the Papacy or the divided Roman empire be symbolized by that beast, how is it possible that Infidelity can be the second beast? -Further: a beast, in the language of symbols, is an universal empire either temporal or spiritual. But Infidelity cannot, except by a very strained interpretation, be termed either a temporal or a spiritual universal empire. Infidelity therefore cannot be the second beastThis will be yet more evident, when we consider that St. John, with a view to give us an insight into the true character of the second beast, styles him a false prophet.* Now, since a true prophet is one, who professes himself a servant of God, and who either delivers true predictions, or who faithfully preaches the Gospel of Christ;† a false prophet must be one, who equally prefesses himself a servant of God, but who either delivers false predictions, or who garbles and corrupts the Gospel of Christ. It is evident therefore, that Infidelity cannot be the false prophet of the Apocalypse; because it answers to neither of these descriptions of a false prophet. Infidelity indeed zealously propagated the doctrines of a false philosophy, and is consequently a false teacher: but it certainly cannot be styled, with any propriety, a false prophet; because, so far from claiming a divine commission, like Popery and Mohammedism, it came as an absolutely independent teacher, ridiculing even the very existence of a Deity. Accordingly we find, that St. Peter, when foretelling the atheists of the last days, carefully preserves the distinction between false prophets and false teachers. He observes, that, as there were

Compare Rev. xix. 20. with Rev. xiii. 13, 14.

This last is a signification of the word peculiar to the New Testament. I have already noticed it; and therefore it is superfluous to say any thing more upon the subject.

false prophets among the ancient people of God, who imposed upon them with pretended commissions from heaven; so there should be false teachers among the Christians of the last days, who privily should bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. If then these teachers were to deny the Lord that bought them, it is plain that they could not come in his name like the false prophets of Israel. Hence St. Peter, with the strictest propriety, terms the ancient impostors false prophets; but describes the modern ones, as being only false teachers-In addition to these objec tions, I might inquire with what justice the French Republic can be denominated an image of the beast: but, since it has been shewn that Infidelity cannot be the second beast, it is superfluous to discuss that part of Mr. His main Kett's scheme which is only subordinate. position being subverted, the rest of the edifice falls to the ground of course.

Mr. Galloway's system is nearly allied to that of Mr. Kett, though in some particulars it differs materially from it. He supposes, that the earth, out of which the beast arose, is France; that the beast himself is the French Republic; that his head is the legislature; that his two horns are the two committees of safety; that the fire, which he brought down from heaven to earth, is the wrath of God; that the wonders, which he performed, are the victories of France; that the image, which he set up, and to which he gave life and speech, is the prostitute goddess of reason and liberty; that his mark is the cap of liberty and the tri-coloured cockade; and that the number 666, the number also of a man, must be sought for in the name of the last French monarch Louis, when Latinized, Ludovicus.†

The first objection to Mr. Galloway's interpretation is the same as one that has already been made to Mr. Kett's. It represents the second beast, as hostile, instead of friendly, to the first for Mr. Galloway, like Mr. Kett, supposes the first beast to be the Papacy. This objection Mr. Galloway struggles, and (I think) ineffectually struggles, to remove me at least all his arguments have only served to convince, that it never can be removed either by himself or by Mr. Kett: and, be it again observed, the objection is equally forcibly, whether the first beast be the Papacy, or the divided Roman empire-The second objection is, that without the least authority he pronounces the earth in this particular part of the prophecy to mean France. The earth, as is sufficiently evident from the general context, means throughout the whole Apocalypse the Roman empire. This appears no where more clearly than in the present chapter, where all they that dwell upon the earth are described as worshipping, or devoting themselves to the apostate principles of, the ten-horned beast.* Yet does Mr. Galloway declare, that the earth, in a subsequent part of this very chapter, means FranceThe third objection is, that, according to the analogy of figurative language, France cannot be symbolized by a beast. A beast is an universal empire, either temporal or spiritual and, when it denotes a temporal universal empire, its horns are kingdoms. France however is only one of the ten horns of the great Roman beast; and therefore most assuredly never can be represented by the symbol of a new and distinct beast. Were this the case, St. John would be at open variance with Daniel. The Hebrew prophet expressly maintains, that there shall arise no fifth temporal beast, but that the fourth or Roman beast, shall be the last. Now, if France be the two-horned beast of the Apocalypse, we must conclude that it will become a fifth universal empire altogether distinct from the ancient Roman empire; otherwise it will not be a beast, but only a horn: and, if it do become a beast or universal empire, then it will be the fifth; the existence of which Daniel plainly denies, asserting that the ten

horned beast or divided Roman empire under its last head will be immediately succeeded by the triumphant reign of Christ. So that, let the matter be viewed in what light it may, Revolutionary France cannot be the second apocalyptic beast-The fourth objection is, that the French Republic cannot be denominated a false prophet. The second beast however is the false prophet of the Revelation. Therefore the French Republic cannot be the second beast-The fifth objection is, that, if the wonders performed by the second beast mean only the French victories, it does not appear how he could deceive them that dwell upon the earth with such wonders as these. The miracles, wrought by the beast, are immediately connected with his bringing down fire from heaven, and his giving life and utterance to an image; and by these miracles, thus performed, he is said to deceive the world. Such is the simple assertion of the prophet; an assertion, which no critical art can torture to mean Gallic military exploits-The last objection, which I shall make, is to the notion, that we are to seek for the number of the beast in the name Ludovicus. This notion is perfectly untenable even according to Mr. Galloway's own scheme. He supposes, that the number 666, is the number of the second beast, of that beast in short which he conceives to be the French Republic. Let us for a moment allow 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 per

mitted 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 number 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 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 he plainly intimates, that the name is the name of that beast to whom an image was made.* But the beast, to 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, I 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.†

On these grounds I am constrained to think, that both Mr. Kett and Mr. Galloway have erred in their respec

* See Rev. xiv. 11.—xv. 2.—xix. 20. and xx. 4.

+ Both Mr. Galloway and Mr. Kett are of opinion, that the two-horned beast of the earth is the same as the beast of the bottomless pit which makes war upon the witnesses. This opinion I have already shewn to be entirely 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 strange notion, 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 born, and who are evidently the same as the apocalyptic witnesses, are those very popish clergy. The impropriety and erroneousness of such a notion has already been so fully pointed out, that it is superfluous now to resume the subject.