tyranny symbolized by the image is the revolutionary republic of France. Having laid down these principles, The observes, (what no doubt is perfectly true,) that it was Infidelity, which so bewitched the minds of the people as to induce them to set up the atheistical republic; and that, when the image was thus set up, it caused as many as would not worship it to be killed. He further observes, that all, both high and low, rich and poor, were compelled to wear a mark in their foreheads, the tri-coloured cockade, as acknowledging the authority of the beast and his image; and that those, who refused this badge of democratic atheism, were formerly proscribed, and deprived of the common rights of humanity.†

In this interpretation Mr. Kett has only noticed such parts of the prophecy as apparently accord with it: he is totally silent respecting several particulars, which are altogether inapplicable to Infidelity and Revolutionary France. Such being the case, his interpretation cannot be valid for no exposition of a prophecy is admissible, except the prophecy agree with its supposed accomplishment in every particulart-St. John describes the second beast as " doing great wonders, in order that he may make fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men; and as deceiving them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles, which he had power to do in the sight of the first beast." The second beast therefore must plainly be some power, which comes, like the man of sin, with signs and lying wonders, deceiving for a season the whole world with pretended miracles. Such a character as this however by no means answers to Infidelity. Modern philosophers, so far from making any claims to miraculous powers, take a pleasure in scoffing at even the real miracles recorded in Scripture.

* Mr. Kett does not expressly say this; but I fancy it is what he means. See Hist. the Interp. Vol. i. p. 396, 420.

+ Hist. the Interp. Vol. i. p. 413, 419. Vol. ii. p. 152—208.

It is much to be doubted, whether the very principle of this interpretation be admissible, independent of all the objections to which it is liable. It seems to me so little agreeable to symbolical analogy to term Infidelity a beast or an universal visible empire, that I should certainly not have ventured myself to bring forward such an explanation of the symbol in question.

..........

How is it possible then that Infidelity can be the second beast!-So again if we ask an unprejudiced reader of the whole prediction relative to the two apocalyptic beasts, what his sentiments are respecting them; he will answer, that, whatever powers those two beasts may symbolize, they are evidently two co-existing powers, linked together in the closest manner, perfectly friendly to each other, and apparently contributing their mutual strength for the accomplishment of some common design. I confidently appeal to any person not previously wedded to some favourite system, whether this be not the plain and obvious meaning of the prophecy.* Now, whether the first beast be the Papacy, as Mr. Kett supposes, or the Roman empire in its divided state after it had lapsed into idolatry, as I have endeavoured to prove; in either case, if Infidelity be the second beast, it certainly has shewn itself the very reverse of being friendly to the first beast: for the anti-social part of the Jacobiu conspiracy was as steadily directed against all regular government, as its anti-christian part was against all religion. Before Mr. Kett's exposition therefore can be allowed to be wellfounded, he must point out in what manner Infidelity "caused the earth and all them which dwell therein to worship the beast whose deadly wound was healed;" that is to say, in what manner Infidelity caused the whole world to devote themselves to the apostate principles upheld by the beast. He may possibly say, that Buonaparte has now taken those apostate principles, under his special protection, and has formally entered into a league with the Pope. This however is not the point. The question is not what an ambitious individual has done, merely to serve his own purposes; but what Infidelity has done, that Infidelity which set up the atheisti

This point is so self-evident, that some commentators have thence run into the very contrary extreme to that of Mr. Kett; and have imagined, that the two beasts are actually one and the same power, or, as they express it, the same Antichrist under two different symbols. (See Pol. Synop. in loc.) Indeed either this, or something very nearly a kin to it, is the fault chargeable upon the systems both of Mr. Mede, Bp. Newton, Dr. Zouch, and Mr. Whitaker. Such an opinion, although certainly not agreeable to the plain declaration of the Apostle, who assures us that the second beast is "another beast" and therefore not the same as the first beast, serves at least to shew, that none of these commentators ever supposed the two beasts to be hostile to each other. Mr. Mede justly remarks, that they are linked together by the strongest bonds of friendship: "summa necessitudine inter se devinctæ."

cal republic, or the image (as Mr. Kett supposes) of the beast. Now Infidelity placed itself in direct opposition 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 beast— This 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 objections, 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. Kett's scheme which is only subordinate. His main 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 Romun 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