said with truth, that no fewer human victims have been immolated than to the demons of Paganism. One special mark of heresy was a refusal to worship images; and that refusal, like the similar refusal of the primitive Christians to adore the idols of the Gentiles, never failed to subject the martyrs under Popery, those second men of understanding mentioned by Daniel*, to the horrors of the most dreadful of deathst. While every impurity and abomination, both in practice and doctrine, was tolerated and sanctioned by the adulterous church of Rome; those holy and godly men, whose sole crime was a determined rejection of the poisoned cup of the mystic harlot, were inhumanly persecuted and tormented. "Blessed however are "the dead which die in the Lord, for they rest from "their labours, and their works do follow them."

In this interpretation of the image I have followed Dr. Zouch, infinitely preferring it to that proposed by Bp. Newton. His Lordship, from an idea that this image was to be some power which should be a sort of representation or effigies of the wounded imperial head of the secular beast, endeavours to prove that it is the Pope; who, says he, "is the most perfect likeness and resemblance of "the ancient Roman Emperors." Now, whatever

* Dan. xi. 35.

+See Bp. Newton's account of the Witnesses. One of the crimes, for which those convicted of heresy were condemned, is almost invariably a refusal to pray to dead saints, angels, and their images.

degree

degree of similiarity there may be between the Em-· perors and the Popes, I can find no warrant in the plain letter of the text for such an exposition of the prophecy relative to the image. As I have already observed, the making an image to or for that beast whose head was wounded with the sword (a peri-· phrastic mode of pointing out the secular beast, in order that we may certainly know what beast is here intended by the Apostle) can scarcely mean the setting up a representation of the beast. And, that such is not the meaning of the passage, will, I think, undeniably appear, if we consider the strange confusion which this interpretation if admitted must necessarily introduce. Bp. Newton supposes, that the last head of the secular beast is the Pope, and that the two-horned beast is the Romish hierarchy. If then the two-horned beast be the Romish hierarchy, the head of that beast must undoubtedly be the Pope; for the Romish hierarchy has no other head except the Pope. In this case therefore, the head of the first beast, and the head of the second beast, will both equally be the Pope: and yet, according to the Bishop's scheme, the image is the Pope likewise: consequently the image of the beast is at once the same as the head of the ecclesiastical beast, and as the secular beast under its last head, for St. John identifies the last head with the whole secular beast. His Lordship himself indeed does not make this assertion totidem verbis, though he assuredly makes it in fact; but Mr. Mede, whose scheme is the same, expressly and

Y 4

and unreservedly maintains the identity of the image and of the secular beast under his last head*. To confute this opinion, it seems to me to be only necessary, that any unprejudiced person should attentively read those passages of the Apocalypse, in which the two beasts and the image of the first beast are mentioned together; for such a person must, I apprehend, be convinced, that, whatever they may be designed to symbolize, the heads of the two beasts and the image cannot all symbolize the same thing. The expression the beast and his image, which perpetually occurs in the Apocalypset, obviously implies, that the beast is one thing, and that the image is another. To suppose otherwise makes the prophet use a most singular kind of tautology: for, if the first beast and his image be the same, both equally symbolizing the Pope, then the expression the beast and his image is precisely equivalent to the Pope and the Pope. So again the two beasis and the image are all described at large in one chapter; and the second beast is plainly distinguished from the first, both by the general tenor of the description, and by its being styled another beast: can we then reasonably suppose, that these two different beasts have a head in common, and that that head is the very same as a certain image which the second beast

કંદ

* "Bestia Romana capitis novissimi est imago bestiæ sexto

capite mactatæ." Comment Apoc. in best. bicorn.

+ See Rev. xiv. 9. 11. xvi. 2. xix. 20.

causes

causes to be made for the first beast. Nay more: the first beast, his image, and the second beast under the name of the false prophet, are all mentioned together in a single verse. "And the beast "was taken, and with him the false prophet that "wrought miracles before him, with which he "deceived them that had received the mark of "the beast and them that worshipped his image. "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire

66

burning with brimstone*." Can any one from this passage reasonably infer, that the beast under his last head is the same as his image, and that both are the same as the head of the second beast or the false prophet? It is worthy of notice, that, although St. John here makes joint mention of the two beasts and the image, he only states, that these both (in the original it is these two) were cast into the lake of fire. Hence we may infer, both that the image was not cast into the fiery lake; and that the two beasts are really two distinct beasts, not two (as the scheme of Bp. Newton necessarily supposes) subsisting under a common head. Let us then only adopt the mode of interpretation which I have been endeavouring to establish, and we shall immediately perceive the exact propriety of the language here used by the prophet. The secular beast under his last or patricio-imperial head (whatever family may be the representative of this head at that time), the great supporter of the abominations of Popery

*Rev. xix. 20,

and

and the cruel persecutor of the saints; and the ecclesiastical beast under his spiritual head the Pope, the deceiver of the whole earth and the diabolical promoter of the first beast's persecutions: these two main enemies of the Messiah are taken in open rebellion against his authority, and cast into the lake of fire. But the image, which was a mere senseless tool of monastic imposture, and therefore incapable of punishment, is neither said to be engaged in this rebellion, nor to incur the divine vengeance, like its contrivers and worshippers*.

There have been other opinions respecting the image besides this of Bp. Newton. Some have supposed it to be the Carlovingian empire, the express image of the old Roman empire. But the

* Mr. Whitaker's sentiments respecting the image of the beast are nearly the same as those of Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton. He supposes the image to mean the Papal authority and empire actually established over the world by the instrumentality of the monastic orders. Every objection, that has been made to the scheme of Mr. Mede and the Bishop, applies with equal force to that of Mr. Whitaker. Sir Isaac Newton thinks that the making an image to the beast means only the assembling a body of men, or the calling a council of men, like the beast in point of religion. This opinion seems to me to accord very ill with the simple language of St. John. I cannot but think indeed, that the whole of Sir Isaac's explanation of this prophecy is radically erroneous. His idea, that the second apocalyptic beast is the Greek church entirely violates the order and regularity of the prediction: for the little book treats entirely of the affairs of the West. See Observ. on the Apocalypse, Chap, iii. and Addenda to Observ.

Car