from Clodovæus, (called also Heudvicus, Ludovicus, Ludicin, and Clovis*) considered by some as the founder of the kingdom of the Franks†, would be employed in the prophecy, rather than any other name of the French monarchs in the service of the Papacy.

That peculiar politico-ecclesiastical constitution, which long distinguished the Gallican Church and tyranny from those of each of the other monarchies of the Beast's empire, and which made it something like a Papacy within a Papacy, at once independent, and yet a support, of the Roman monster, makes the hypothesis respecting France, as signified by the second Beast, not so groundless as may at first sight appear. And if there be sufficient reasons for suspecting that France may be the power thus symbolized,-concerning which, however, we do not pretend to determine,-then, what supposition would be more natural than that LUDOVICUS may be the name of the man referred to, which is to designate the intended Tyranny.

We are now arrived at Mr. C.'s fourth chapter, in which he attempts to ascertain the signification of the prophetic symbol, Beast, and the kingdom or empire to which the number 666 is to be applied. We have here a great deal of research. Having informed his readers that a beast is the prophetic symbol for a king, and that as the Greek word Ongior, used by St. John, signifies a wild beast, it follows that the power so represented must partake of the nature of a wild beast. Hence, he argues that an earthly belligerent power is evidently designed, and that

The Beast of the Revelation'-the ten horned Beast' is some secular power, and, consequently, the number of the Beast must be the number of the power represented by the Beast; that is to say, the name of some power now existing must contain the number 666.'

We think more is here assumed than the premises will authorize. The Beast makes war with the Saints,-he is therefore belligerent; but it does not necessarily follow that he is secular. Many think that his power is of a spiritual kind. Nor is it certain that the number of the Beast must be the number of the name of some power; all that seems

* Universal Anc: Ilist. Vol. 17. p. 275. Mod. History, Vol. 19, p. 178.

In the year 486, when he passed the Rhine, and, defeating Syagrius, put an end to the Roman power in Gaul.

certain is, that it is the number of a man, or of a man's name. The reader will perceive that Mr. C. applies the number 666, not only to the second, but to the first Beast. Whether this application of the number is correct may be doubted.

The great object of this chapter is to discover some empire, kingdom, or power, the name of which (in Greek) expressed in the most simple mode, after the manner of the Grecks in definitely naming a power, shall contain the number 666. He has given the names and the numerical amount of the letters which each contains, of more than four hundred kingdoms and states; but in no one of them, nor in any other that he is able to discover, is the number to be found, but in H Aarin Bacinela,' The Latin kingdom.'-Nor is the number to be found in any form whatsoever, which has been used by the Greeks to express the names of the powers mentioned. He therefore concludes that as

It has been proved that the Beast is some kingdom; and the passage in the sixteenth chapter of the Revelation has been produced in which the very term Bazada, or kingdom, is applied to the dominion of the Beast, the kingdom therefore can be no other than 'H Aarion Basisia, The Latin kingdom.

It is thus numbered H, 8, A, 30, a, 1, 7, 300, 4, 10, 50,

7, 8, B, 2, α, 1, e, 200, 1, 10, 2, 30, 1, 5, 1, 10, ∞, 1.

666.

Having thus demonstrated,' he says, that 666 is a distinguishing character of the Beast from an inexpugnable body of evidence, it will now be necessary to examine whether the description of the Beast corresponds exactly with the history of the Latin empire; and that it does even in the minutest tittle, will I trust be fully evident to every person who carefully examines the contents of the following chapters.'

In the fifth chapter we have an exposition of the vision of the "Woman" and the "Dragon." For this unexpecteď transition the Author offers the following apology.

It may seem strange, at first sight, that I should here leave the general subject of this work, and make a digression upon the twelfth chapter of the Revelation: but the reader's surprise will immediately vanish, when he is informed, that the proper understanding of the Beast is so intimately connected with that of the dragon, that they cannot be satisfactorily explained independently of each other.' He adds, In fact, a great portion of the chapter now under consideration, has been generally misunderstood; and this has arisen principally from supposing the heads of the dragon and the beast were the same: a supposition which will in the following pages be proved to be without foundation.'

We are not disposed to withhold the tribute of praise which is due to the learned ingenuity of the respectable Author, but we must confess that we have read this chapter with less satisfaction than any other part of his work; and though the proper understanding of the beast is so intimately connected with that of the dragon, that they cannot 'be satisfactorily explained independently of each other; yet we do not think that the symbols, and general signification of the different scenic representations in this chapter, will be much better understood for his laboured explanation. His mistake on the subject appears so radical and fatal, that whenever the Dragon crosses his path, throughout the whole progress of his Dissertation, the discordance and entanglement of his system, and the embarrassment in his mind, are manifest. The Woman doubtless represents the Christian Church; and the Dragon is the symbol of the Roman Empire, power, or government. This, at least, seems as near the truth as any of our commentators, we believe, have ever approached; but that the "Man-child" which the Woman brings forth, is Constantine, that the Dragon is not the representation of the Roman Empire, but of the Heathen Roman empire only, and, must therefore be the representation of the religion of this empire, and not at all a symbol of the Roman Empire after the abolition of Paganism, as the established religion of the empire, we cannot admit.

That in the first compartment of the Dragon scene it is the Heathen Roman Empire exclusively that is represented, may be allowed; but we cannot agree with Mr. Clarke, that it was not the identical monster, though somewhat changed in character, which pursued the woman into the wilderness, and there persecuted her and her seed for " a time and times "and half a time;" which gave to the Beast his power, and his seat, and great authority; out of whose mouth also, the unclean spirits like frogs proceed to go "forth unto the kings of "the earth to gather them to the battle of that great day of "God Almighty;" and which is at the great consummation to be cast into the lake of fire. There appears not even the shadow of a foundation in support of the notion, that the Dragon, as it elsewhere appears, must allude to the restoration of one of the dragonic heads of the Beast,' (p. 261.) or to the civil power that was sometimes exerted against the Christians out of the bouuds of the empire,' (p. 162.) or to the Pagans that remained in the empire, after the established religion was Christian.' (p. 167.) Nor is there the satisfactory proof which is supposed, that the seven heads of the Dragon are not the same as the seven

heads of the Beast. It might rather be supposed that they. are so, even though the heads of one may be subject to some accidental changes, which may not affect the other.

But whatever be signified by the heads and horns, it is clear that a seven headed monster is intended to symbolize the Roman Empire, or something originally and essentially connected with it from its rise to its fall. To those who do not admit that the Dragon is the representation of the religion of the Heathen Roman Empire, exclusively, the whole argument on this head will appear entirely inconclusive.

First, The heads of the Dragon and the Beast cannot be the same, because the Beast is the Latin empire, and the Dragon the Heathen Roman Empire. Secondly, The Angel informs John that the sixth head of the Beast was subsisting in his time, by which is meant the sixth form of government, as shall presently ap pear, but the form of government of the Heathen Roman Empire existing in St. John's time, was the same which it had when Paganism ceased to be the religion of the empire; consequently the imperial power must have been the last head of the Dragon, &c.' pp. 135–137.

The question is also thus taken for granted in several other important propositions which we cannot notice.

The seven heads of this representation of the religion of the Heathen Roman Empire, the Author makes to be the Regal power, the Consulate, the Dictatorship, the Decemvirate, the Consular power of the Military Tribunes, the Triumvirate, and the Imperial government. p. 138. The ten horns of the Dragon he makes to be,

1. The kingdom of the Huns; 2. Of the Ostrogoths. 3. Of the Visigoths. 4. Of the Franks. 5. Of the Vandals. 6. Of the Sueves and Alans. 7. Of the Burgundians. 8. Of the Heruli, Rugii, Scyrri, and other tribes which composed the Italian kingdom of Odoacer. 9. Of the Saxons. 10. Of the Lombards.'

But how, the reader may well ask, could these kingdoms be the horns of the Dragon, when that monster signifies the Heathen religion of the Roman Empire, and these kingdoms did not arise till nearly two centuries after the Empire became Christian?

First, they may be considered as horns of the Dragon, because they were founded by great hosts of Heathen barbarous nations, which at first threatened the utter subversion of Christianity. Secondly, They were horns of the Dragon because it was the Roman monarchy in its seventh dragonic form of Government, which was dismembered by the barbarians.'

This is far from satisfactory.

The "Tail" of the Dragon is the seventh, or last form of government in the Heathen world, viz. the Imperial power. The "stars," which the Dragon drew with his tail and cast down to the earth, represent the whole body of Pagan priests, who were the stars, or lights of the Heathen world. The "third part of the stars," which he drew with his tail and cast down to the earth, means that the Heathen Roman Empire draweth to his side the third part of the priests or ministers; the religious world being, in the time of St. John, divided into three grand branches, viz. the Christian, the Jewish, and the Heathen or Pagan world; and as neither Jews nor Christians were the advocates of the Dragon's idolatry, it is the whole Heathen world which is drawn after him, &c. &c.

Should a second edition of this work be called for, we would advise Mr. C. to reconsider this part of it particularly; for the whole of his argument respecting the Dragon scene, is very unsatisfactory, and by no means equal, either in harmony or rationality, to what precedes it, or to what follows it.

(To be concluded in our next Number.)

Art. XI. A Sermon, occasioned by the Death of Mr. John West, Founder of the Chapelry of Gawcott, near Buckingham: To which is prefixed, a Short Memoir. By Thomas Scott, Jun. A.M. First Minister of the said Chapelry. 12mo. pp. 68. price 1s. 6d. Seeley. 1815.

THE 'Short Memoir' prefixed to this Sermon, is highly interesting. Mr. West appears to have been a person of no ordinary character, and the circumstances under which he at length succeeded in accomplishing his benevolent object, no less than the purity of his motives, entitle him to affectionate veneration. Mr. Scott has selected as an appropriate motto for the Title-page"He loveth our Nation, and he hath built us a Synagogue."

Of the opposition which the Founder of Gawcott Chapelry met with from the Vicar of Buckingham, our readers will entertain but one opinion. Mr. West had, at one time, nearly come to a resolution to give up the Chapel into the hands of the Dissenters.

Perhaps nothing,' observes Mr. Scott, could have been devised more calculated to shake his attachment to the established church, than the difficulties which were now thrown in the way of a design, so