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 forcible, 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

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


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 France-The third 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 fourth 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 Gullic 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 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

[blocks in formation]

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, un-. der 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 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


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 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 impossi ble 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 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 clergywho 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

[blocks in formation]

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 very popish clergy, 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 repre 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 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 till 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

[ocr errors]
« ElőzőTovább »