"Were you to tell us that you faw a man of fuch a description, and then add, and I faw another man, defcribing him by marks entirely different; and were we to contend [that] you meant to convey to us an idea of the fame man, and not of another, would you not conclude that we were deranged in our understandings, or had loft the meaning univerfally affixed to the word another? How then can you expect that mankind can receive a conftruction fo contrary to their fettled ideas? Some apology might be made for your predeceffors in this mischi vous' error, which has thrown the Apocalypfe into great confufion, as they wrote before the second beast had come; and might incautiously conclude [that] no other enemy but the Church of Rome was to come. But for you, who have heard his [i, e, the fecond beaft's] ravings and denunciations against the Church of Chrift, and feen the dreadful progrefs [which] he has made towards its deftruction, to be not only filent, but the first to cenfure with severity all those who have thought it their duty to warn Chriftians against its [his, the fecond beast's] feduction, no apology can be made." (P. xliv.)

We come now to the author's "prophetic history of the Church of Rome," which he confiders as contained in the eleven firft verses of the thirteenth chapter of the Revelation. Our readers will remember with what vehemence Mr. G. in his Commentaries, contended that the fecond beast of St. John is not defcriptive of the Church of Rome. On reading the tract before us, it struck us that he was afraid of the imputaation of favouring that Church; and that for the purpose, chiefly, of warding off fuch imputation the tract was compofed. But, whatever might be the author's motive for writing it, the effay itfelf is a poor production, which difplays neither learning, nor judgment, nor confiftency. It confifts of a minute, continued, cominentary, on the eleven verfes above mentioned. In his introduction to it, Mr. G. obferves that "hitherto commentators upon the Apocalypfe feem to have done more harm to the cause of chriftianity than good." To the truth of the obfervation we most readily affent; and we are forry to add that, in our opinion, the labours of our author on this difficult book will never be confidered as forming an exception to it. Of the elucidations contained in the differtation before us we fhall proceed to prefent our readers with fome fpecimens.

Mr. G. begins with fome fingular remarks on the nature of beasts. "A beaft," he fays" is an animal whofe natural properties are strength, cruelty, and a gratification of its luft." (P. 2.) This is no defcription of beafts in general. The author, indeed, feems to have had wild beafts particularly in his mind; for he immediately adds "fuch are thofe of a tyger, a bear, and a lion;" but the "gratification of luft" is not peculiar to a beast, not even to a wild beast. The four great empires, however, he contends, " are defignated by Daniel by four beafts,' on account of their filthy, and luftful idolatry, and their bloody and destructive wars." It is evidently the latter only of these two circumstances which is fhadowed out by the name of beaft. The name he thinks, is peculiarly applicable to the Church of Rome, which " perfectly," he says, "refembles a beaft." In proof of this we are favoured with

the

the following fentence, which is perfectly in this author's ftyle of writing. Hiftorians inform us that, befides her blafphemous idolatry, exprefsly forbidden by God, and her unrelenting and mercilefs perfecutions of the Church of Chrift during the long period of eight preceding centuries, fhe has practifed and countenanced every kind of crime, and every filthy abomination, fuch as frauds, magic, fimony, fornication, adultery, inceft, fodomy, affaffinations, poisoning and murders; and moreever that her Popes, her head and her great Exemplars, her Cardinals, her Priests, Monks, Nuns, Friars and Jefuits, have lived in, and up to these abominations." (P. 3.) This picture is greatly overcharged, and altogether unfair. If many bad men and women have lived in the Church of Rome, the fame has been the case in other Churches. And it will not be denied that, in all the claffes here mentioned of her members, fhe has produced many excellent and exemplary perfons, who would have done honour to any Church.

a

The rifing of the beaft out of the fea is thus explained. "The fea is a body of water naturally calm and undisturbed, and therefore, an emblem of many nations in a state of peace." (P. 4.) The power foretold muft, confequently, rife when the nations are "calm and at peace." Our author here takes a fummary view of the state of mankind from the flood to the beginning of the 7th. century, in order to fhew that, with the exception of two fhort intervals, t. from the converfion of Conftantine to the death of Theodofius the Great, and 2. from the expulfion of the Oftrogoths about the middle of the 5th. century to the year 630, the nations were never, during this long period, in a state of peace. To the latter interval he affigns the rife of the beaft, when Phocas was emperor A. D. 606. It is needless to examine the truth of a conclufion which is founded in premises so evidently chimerical. But the "fummary view" contains fome notions which deserve to be mentioned. By the flood our author fays, greater number of the human race was deftroyed than now inhabits the carth." This we think is altogether improbable; and Mr. G. we are certain, cannot know it to be true. The Postdiluvians, he tells us, lived for a while under patriarchal dominion, which they afterwards changed for regal;""chufing their kings out of that class of men most eminent for their piety, virtue, and wisdom." This origin of kingly government is wholly fanciful and gratuitous. But the following account of the rife of idolatry is worse than fanciful. It is grofsly contradictory. Men loft, in time, "all knowledge of the true God; and with it all fear of punishment for their evil deeds, either here or hereafter. Yet having," adds our author, "only fome confused and blind traces of an unknown and invifible God, they thought they must have thofe that were vifible, and therefore, they adopted, fome the celeftial bodies and made a variety of others with their hands, images of beasts, fish, ferpents, &c. taking care that they should be fuch as were without the ability to punish or moleft them." (Pp. 5, 6.) But if these men had no fear of punishment, what had they to do with gods at all? And, efpecially, how came they to be fo careful to chufe fuch

as

K

as fhould not be able to punish them? This, we really think, approaches to nonfenfe as nearly as poffible.

66

The beaft's "leven heads and ten horns," are explained, as ufually, to mean the "feven different legislative authorities" or feven forms of government of the Roman ftate, and the "ten executive powers" or tates which arofe in the western part of the empire. But the beaft, we have feen, did not, according to our author, appear till 606. This fuppofition is neceffary when the beast is to be interpreted the Church of Rome. But, now the beaft is the fate of Rome, which arose more than 2,500 years ago. On this subject the author's notions are involved in inextricable confufion. On verfe 2d. of the chapter, he fays that the dragon," who "gave his power to the beast, and his feat and great authority," is intended to defignate Phocas, one of the most cruel tyrants and murderers that ever difgraced the imperial throne." (P. 15) If so, and if the beaft denote the Roman state from its commencement, it follows that Phocas "gave his power, and his feat and great authority" to Romulus. But even with regard to the feven heads" or forms of legiflative authority, our author is not confiftent. They are here enumerated in the following order ; "Kings, Confuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, Emperors, and Popes." (P. 10.) But in p. 16, where they are again enumerated, for Decemvirs we have Triumvirs. In this cafe our author could not have pleaded either an unintentional mistake, or an error of the prefs for the triumvirate really conftituted a distinct form of government in Rome. The "ten horns," according to Mr. G. are England, France, Holland, Germany, Pruffia, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, and Naples." (P. 11.) It is obfervable that in fixing on the particular states prefigured by the "ten horns," hardly any two of the commentators agree. Our author here repeats the unaccountable whim (See Anti-Jac. Rev. Vol. XVII. p. 407.) that, before the time of Tarquinius Prifcus, idolatry was not the religion of Rome. "For under all her different forms of government, from the reign of Tarquinius Prifcus, down to the ecclefiaftical dominion of the Popes inclufive, fome kind of blafphemous idolatry has been propagated and prevailed as the ruling religion of the Roman nation."

We have likewife a philofophical account why the beast was "like a leopard (v. 2.). It is because "the ground of the leopard's fkin is of a light yellow colour, a fhade darker than pure white, mixed alfo with fpots black as jet." Hence this animal is employed to reprefent "a power which had already faded or fallen from the pure truths of the gospel into errors; and was from that state to fall into the black blafphemy of heathen idolatry." (P. 12.) But why were the beaft's feet" as the feet of a bear?" Nothing can be more plain. bear with his feet, gathers its food and feizes its prey, and when within the grafp of its paws, embraces it to his bofom, and crushes it to death." (P. 13) This "beautiful figure properly represents the four original clerical orders of the church of Rome; the orders of Cardinals, Bifhops, Priefts, and Deacons; thofe faithful inftruments

The

ever devoted to her will." (Ibid.) It is a little unfortunate for our author's beautiful figure that Cardinals never

ORDER

were A CLERICAL

The prophet (v. 3.) faw one of the heads of the beaft "as it were, wounded to death.' Many commentators, and Mr. W. among the reft, refer this to the civil head. But our author refers it to the Pontifex maximus, or religious head, which was wounded to death by the converfion of Conftantine and his fucceffors to the gospel. The "deadly wound, however, was healed," when Pope Boniface, having been made univerfal Bishop, or High Prieft, over all the Christian Churches, confecrated the Pantheon at Rome to the worship of the images of the dead martyrs, and faints. "Then all the world wondered after the beaft.' Not fatisfied with embracing Europe, he propagated his idolatry," fays our author, "in Afia and Africa, the other two quarters of the world only then known; and fince the difcovery of America, even to its most diftant regions.' (P. 19.) From this laft clause it appears that, fince writing the "Commentaries," Mr. G.'s fentiments had undergone a very confiderable alteration. (See AntiJac. Rev. Vol. XVII. p. 406.)

Our readers, we prefume, will eafily excufe us from following. Mr. G. with particular exactnefs, through the reft of this Commentary. But the expofition of the words, "and all that dwell upon the earth fhall worship him," (v. 8.) furnishes fuch a fpecimen of critical (or, to speak more properly, nonfenfical) interpretation as will hardly, we think, be met with twice in a century. It is proper, therefore, that it should remain on record.

"The earth is a dark body in the natural world, which will not receive, but rejects the light of the sun, and therefore is an accurate fymbol of that state of human darkness and degeneracy, that will not receive the light of the revealed love of God." [Mr. G.'s philofophical tenets, with regard to the earth, remained unaltered to the last. See our 17th Vol. Pp. 235, 395.] "St. John ufes it in this fenfe: He that is of the earth is earthly;' fo St. Paul, when speaking of the enemies of the cross of Chrift, whose end is deftruction, whofe god is their belly, and whofe glory is in their fhame, who mind earthly things.' And St. James, when fpeaking of earthly wisdom, tells us, 'this wildom defcendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish;' and it is evident from the context, that the phrafe 'them that dwell upon the earth,' alludes to those who lived in that state of schismatic degeneracy and darkness, which so generally prevailed among the professors of Christianity, before and in the beginning of the 7th century, when the church of Rome reared her idolatrous head. Here the prophet afferts that 'them [they] that dwell,' that REST OR RELY

UPON THOSE FALSE AND MYSTERIOUS DOCTRINES, INCONSISTENT WITH

THE DOCTRINES OF CHRIST, should worship the beast. And what he afferts is strictly come to pass: for it was those profeffors of Chriftianity, who had tortured and perverted the true and plain word of God into ftrange and unintelligible doctrines, to answer their earthly and fenfual purposes; and who thus prepared, were ready to worship the Beaft, by embracing his idolatry, yet more mysterious, earthly, and fenfual." (Pp. 38, 39.)

This

This reasoning puts us strongly in mind of that of the writer who, in jeft, we fuppofe, and in ridicule of fuch bafelefs interpretations, finds BUONAPARTE in the number of the Beaft. (See Vol. XIX. p. 205.) We must take leave of this treatife after pointing out one other glaring inftance of our author's inconfiftency. "There is," he fays, "the ftrongest of all prefumptive evidence that the Popes of Rome, during many centuries paft, have been led into the horrid captivity of ATHEISM by Satan himself; and that, at leaft, the generality of them have believed neither in a future ftate of rewards and punishments, nor any GOD to beflow and inflict them." (P. 46.) And again: "Looking at their actions, do they not demonftrate that they have neither believed in a fate of future rewards and punishments, nor in a God; but have been led into captivity by a ftrong delufion,' according to St. Paul, 'that they should believe a lie,' the lie of Atheism, THAT THERE IS NO GOD." (P. 48.) Suppofing all this true, who could poffibly expect what we are going to tranfcribe? "In the days of their authority and influence, they (the Popes) began their myfterious and iniquitous frauds, and have been conftantly adding to them, age after age, ever fince, until the apoftafy itself, fickened with their blafphemous prefumptions, have caft them up, but unfortunately to prepare the ftomach for a more deadly draught, the poifon of French atheism. (P. 49.) It is, furely, not unreasonable to ask why French atheism fhould be a more deadly draught than the atheism of the Popes.

We proceed to take fome notice of the "Pill for the Atheist and Infidel." And, first of all we must observe that here the author, for what reason we know not, begins to number his pages anew, which enumeration is, however, regularly continued, through the three remaining treatifes, to the end of the book. The "Pill" is ufhered in by an Introduction, in the opening of which Mr. G. obferves as follows: "that the Apocalypfe was written in the end of the first century, and that, though its language was then obfolete, mysterious, and confeffedly unintelligible, the Antient Fathers and Elders of the Church, the immediate fucceffors of the Apoftles, received it into their churches, as canonical, and of divine authority, are truths which have been often proved, and never denied." We know not what our author means by faying that the language of this book, at the time of its publication, was obfolete. But in the third century, he fays, fome perfons arose who denied its infpiration, contending that it is "obscure, unintelligible, and inconfiftent." This flander continued, in fome degree, till it was overcome, "by the general prevalence of truth, in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries," which Mr. G. departing widely from the common opinion, calls "thofe brighter ages of Chriftianity." During the eight or nine next centuries, the Apocalypfe, as well as the rest of the Scriptures, were, our author remarks, almost forgotten. And when, at the Reformation, the attention of men was excited to study the facred records of truth, Mr. G. com plains that this interefting portion of them was generally neglected. Neither Wickcliffe, nor Luther, nor Calvin attempted to vindicate its

authority,