Church of Rome the character of Antichrift, before the latter end o the tenth, and the begining of the eleventh century, 400 years after. her rife." (P. x.) In the 12th. century, indeed, the opinion gained ground. It was adopted by the Albigenfes and Waldenfes, as well as by Wickliffe and his followers. But, although it was fupported by many of the first Reformers, yet, even in England the birth-place of Wickliffe, till we come to the times of the houfe of Stuart, it was, as Bishop Newton confeffes, by no means fashionable. "It may, fays this learned Prelate, "furprize any one that fo little was faid upon the fubject in the long controverfies concerning Popery in the reigns of Charles and James the fecond." Warburton afterwards, which has often furprised us, founded a lecture to promote its diffemination. But even this inftitution has not had the effect of rendering the notion popular among the English divines. 29 Our author having beaten, as he himself imagines, Mr. Whitaker from this ground, with much vehemence urges his own idea, that Antichrift is revolutionary France. He has not, he says, been sparing in expofing the unchriftian practices of the Church of Rome. But "what then," he asks "do you mean to say? is it that no other enemy of the Church of Chrift is, or fhall, come to try the faith and obedience of the Chriftian world to the revealed word of God, during her militant state upon earth!" This it must be confeffed is well put; and he then, with the ufual rough boldness of his pencil, draws a picture of that "MONSTROUS SYSTEM OF ATHEISM" which was eftablished, by the revolutionists, in France, and which, he infifts, is much better entitled to the appellation of Antichrift than the Church of Rome. But he will not treat Mr. W's. book as Mr. W. has treated his; that is, he will not condemn it without difcuffion, and examination. Mr. W. indeed, he fays, "has given us little new, except that jum, ble of wild and eccentric notions-that the Turkish empire is to fall to open the way according to the new doctrine of indemnities, for an exchange with the Pope for the City of Rome;' that the feat of the Papal Church is to be removed to Jerufalem;' that the Pope is to triumph for a time in Jerufalem;' and that the day of vengeance is to be locally in Judea." It must be acknowledged that fome of these notions appear to us abundantly fanciful. But Mr. G. does not stop to comment on them. 'He proceeds to fome of thofe which Mr. W. entertains of prophecies which all acknowledge to be already fulfilled. The firft is that relating to the two witnesses, by whom Mr. W. understands all the true worshippers of God, and especially the preachers of his pure word." But Mr. G. placing much reliance on the word two, contends, as formerly, for these witneffes being the old and new teftaments. His arguments, however, are moft extraordinaryHe quotes Jo. v. 34. "But I receive not teftimony from man, which he thus explains: "I depend not folely nor principally upon; the evidence of man, not upon that of the prophets, nor of the apostles, nor of the preachers of the word of God; nor even upon John, in whom whom for a time ye believed: for there have been false prophets, and there will be falfe apoftles and falfe preachers." (P. xviii.) But that there have been falfe prophets and apoftles is plainly no reason why our Saviour fhould not appeal to the teftimony of the true. The fact is that he did appeal to it, and accordingly our author immediately. after urges that appeal in confirmation of his opinion. "The blefied Son of God enjoins them to fearch the Scriptures, as those fuperior and infallible witneffes. (Jo. v. 39.)" We must give our Saviour's words, as Mr. G. has given them, together with his comment. "Search the (two) Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are THEY which testify of me." The comment is incomparable. << Taking the words they, twice repeated, as they are clearly expreffed, the fentence means nothing fhort of this-that the two Scriptures are they, or thofe two witneffes which teftify of me." (P. xix.) Was our author ignorant that the plural number may be applied to more objects than two? or that there are more Scriptures than two in the old Testament. <6 He is, however, aware he fays, of an objection which may be urged by the cavilling unbeliever, namely that Chrift could not mean, in his life time, to refer to the new Teftament, which did not then exist. "But fuch objection," he adds" could never enter into the mind of a Christian." We trust that we are Chriftians, and not cavilling unbelievers. Yet to us the objection appears infurmountable. How could Jefus, in order to convince the Jews, refer them to Scriptures which were not then written, and whofe authority, if they had been written, the Jews would have rejected? But, fays our author, "Chrift had two witnesses at the time he made that Revelation" to St. John. And hence," he argues, "it was not only natural, but indifpenfibly neceffary, when in his life time he was teaching all future generations the way to everlafting life through faith in him, as well as at the. time of the Revelation to St. John, to refer to both parts of that evidence by which that faith was to be established." (P. xxi.) This, certainly is, to fay the leaft of it, a very "lame and impotent conclufion." But, what will not fail to aftonifh the reader, Mr. G. himfeif, in a fubfequent tract, the laft in the volume, expressly contradicts it. He is treating again of our Saviour's words (Jo. v. 39.) "Search the Scriptures,' "It may here," he fays, "be asked what did Chrift mean by the Scriptures? The answer is, he could mean nothing but the prophecies of the old Teftament. The doctrines of the new Teftament were not in exiflence, or then compofed and it is only the prophetic part of the old in which the Jews placed their hope of eternal life, and which foretells or treats of Chrift and his offices." (P. 108.) The idea, however, that by the two witneffes are to be understood the old and new Testaments is fupported by fome general reafoning which we really think to be fui generis, and of which the following is an ample specimen. "I imagine you will not deny that the fpirit of prophefy must have represented future events, to the minds of the prophets, in a manner con B 3 formable 6 formable to their ideas of things, and the terms fixed on by mankind to convey them. For otherwife neither the prophets themselves, nor mankind 'could underftand them. Nor will you contend that John did not underftand the Revelation when made to him. Now Chrift, who made the Revelation, having occafion, in the courfe of it, to point out certain unerring and infallible teftimonials of himfelf and his miffion, refers, and expreflly limits their number, unto two: And I will give power to my two witneffes.' The prophet understood the number in the fame limited fenfe, and in that identical fenfe records them for the ufe of mankind. And mankind, by their univerfal agreement, have affixed to the word two, a certain definite meaning, whieb is one added to or conjoined with one; as in English, two; Latin, duo; French, deux; &c. But you, Sir, and the learned commentators whom you have followed, in the teeth of that agreement of the plain meaning of the prophet, and the infallible authority of Chrift himself, have perverted and tortured the plain definite meaning of the word two into an indefinite one, into indefinite millions, and in that fenfe applied it to all the true worshippers of God and preachers of his pure word.' By what authority or licence you have taken this prefumptuous l.berty, of thus expounding the word of God according to your arbitrary notions, it is impoffible to conceive. It would, however, be well in you to confider, that fhould you perfift in affixing your own arbitrary ideas to terms, and should others follow the example, the terms compofing human languages may be thrown into greater confufion of tongues than they were at the building of the tower of Babel; and the pure and holy word of God perverted into a blafphemous jargon." (Pp. xxi, xxii.) Mr. G. next attacks Mr. W.'s ideas of the man child (Rev. xii. 5.) brought forth by the woman, and afterwards caught up unto God and to his throne." Mr. W. follows the general train of the commentators, who fuppofe this man child to fignify Conftantine the great. Mr. G. repeats and preffes, on this fubject, all his former unintelligible reveries (See Anti-Jac. Rev. Vol. XVII. Pp. 235, 237.) "You contend," he lays, "with your predeceffors, that Conftantine the great is the man child referred to in the text, brought forth by the woman, or Church; but you do not explain how the Church brought him forth, as a woman brings forth a child out of her body; nor how a man child' applies to him at the time of his birth, more than to any other child or man ever yet born; nor how, nor when, nor where, he ruled over all nations with a rod of iron." (P. xxvii.) It is obvious that by all nations is meant the Roman empire, which was commonly enough called the world, and even all the world (St. Luke ii. 1.) The relt of this paffage is fo extravagant as to deferve no obfervation. But our author, who makes the man child mean the word of God, infifts that Mr. W. degrades the subject by " reducing” (as he expreffes it) the word of God, and the MAJESTY of his power, to a level with thofe of a man" (P. xxvii.) He farther complains that Mr. W.'s fcheme is unfatisfactory in another refpect. have not," he fays explained the fimilitude of a man's being caught up to God,' to his becoming the fole emperor of a temporal ftate; For the refemblance of the throne of the most high God, which is in "You heaven heaven, and whence, he eternally manifefts his wifdom, power, and "Let us, however, inquire whether a little common fenfe, aided by Scripture, will not help us to the true interpretation of the figurative expreffion' caught up unto God and to his throne.' In common language and common sense, by a man taking up a child or a thing, we understand that he takes it under his care, to his bofom, to his more especial protection. And, when we fearch the Scriptures, we find that God and his throne are in heaven; in his boundless, immenfe, and fpiritual heaven. There Chrift commands us to pray to our father which art [is] in heaven.' And God himfelf declares that the heaven is my [his] throne and the earth my [his] footstool.' And we read that the Lord took up Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind,' from the threatened destruction of Jezebel [deftruction threatened by Jezebel]: meaning under his divine and spiritual protection: and that Jesus Christ, after his dreadful crucifixion and death, was taken up into heaven, to fit at the right hand of the throne of God': that is, under the efpecial and eternal protection of his Father. And in the text under our confideration, the man child was to be caught up unto God and bis throne, to bis throne itself, because, we are told, the word was God.' It was his truth, IT WAS OF HIS DIVINE ESSENCE, IT WAS HIMSELF. It emanated from him through his ever bleffed Son, and therefore, he would not suffer it to be hurt or impaired, during the temporary wilderness ftate of the Church, that he might in his own appointed time return it to her." (Pp. xxix, xxx.) Of this we think nothing at all is to be made, Mr. W. it seems, has quoted in juftification of his notion, I Chron. xxix. 23. where it is faid that Solomon fat on the throne of the Lord, as king instead of David his father." But our author contends that this expreffion is not analogous to that in the Revelation. It means only, he fays, "that Solomon fat upon the throne of his father David, given of the Lord to him." Granted; but why may not the phrafe in the Apocalypfe, in like manner, mean that Conftantine fat upon the throne of the Roman empire, given of God to him? Mr. G. however, endeavours to fix abfurdity on Mr. W.'s expofition in as curious an attempt as we have ever feen. "In this fenfe," he fays, meaning his own fenfe," and in no other, I apprehend every judicious reader has ever understood the text” in Chronicles, "and none of them ever conceived that David ever fat upon the throne of God in heaven, which your conftruction strongly implies." (Pp. xxx, xxxi.) Mr. Whitaker has faid that "Solomon in the earlier part of his B 4 glorya glory, was made a type of that perfect character which has fince appeared as the true King of Ifrael." Our author denies that any fuch typical refemblance is to be found in Scripture. "I have," he says, fearched for it, and it is not there." Nothing ever furprised us more than this affertion. Not to mention other places of Scripture, the 45th. and 72d. pfalms, of which Solomon was, undoubtedly, the primary fubject, have, by almost all interpreters, both Jewish and Chriftians, been applied to the Meffiah. Mr. G. however, contends that Solomon could not poffibly have been a type of Chrift; and his reasons amount to this, that their characters were, in many respects, not only unlike but oppofite. He has, accordingly, drawn out a ftatement of nine particulars, in which they are contrafted. But this mode of arguing discovers great defect either of knowledge or of judgment. David was an eminent type of Chrift, and fo was Jonah; yet no one supposes that to the crimes of the one or the difobedience of the other there was any thing correfpondent in his immaculate character. Indeed if a perfect refemblance be required, no two things whatever can be faid to be like. On this fubject our worthy author writes with more than common weakness. "I would have dwelt longer," he says, "on the diffimilitude, or rather ftriking contraft, between your type and your prototype; but the ferious mind recoils from the comparison at every ftep." The fentence which immediately follows is directly against himself, and fhould have fhewn him the futility of his own argument. "Far be it from us then to feek for any thing like a perfect type of the immaculate Son of the most high God, among the frail, fallen, finful race of Adam; for we may be affured it is not to be found among them." We have fomething, however, yet more Extraordinary. "Were it otherwife," fays Mr. G. "there have been many more righteous and perfect characters than Solomon, who yet fall infinitely fhort of that refemblance neceffary to conftitute a type of our Redeemer; fuch as Noah, Job, Mofes, Abraham, Ifaac, Jacob, Jofeph, Samuel, &c.' (PP. xl, xli) Was our author perfuaded that none of these perfons were types of Chrift? So, at leaft, he seems to fay, but on what principle we know not; for that feveral of them were fuch we have the infallible authority of Scripture. Our author, however, preffes with confiderable effect, on Mr. W. the inconfiftency of confounding the two beafts defcribed in the 13th. chapter of the Revelation, by interpreting them both of the Church of Rome. Of that Church, he thinks with Mr. W., the first beaft which "rofe up out of the fea," the reprefentative. But the fecond beaft, which "came up out of the earth," he understands, as our readers will remember, of revolutionized France. But though his expofition is not very convincing, we are inclined to agree with him that the prototypes of thefe two beafts must be different. The second beaft is exprefsly called "another beaft," and is invested with attributes totally diftinct from those of the first. The following remarks are threwd and well urged, though the conclufion is rather too bitter as well as too confident. "Were |