The Two-horned Beast

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 30, 1866

The Two-horned Beast.

A REVIEW OF H. E. CARVER.

(Continued from No. 20.)

Our last article on this subject dealt chiefly with the absurdities involved in the view that the two-horned beast is a symbol of the Romish hierarchy, and that the same hierarchy constitutes the beast, image, and horns, all together, as is virtually set forth by the theory under review. A word more on this point, before leaving it. We quote again from the articles of H. E. C.:

“And he had two horns.] As the seven-headed beast is represented as having ten horns, which signify so many kingdoms leagued together to support the Latin Church, so the beast which rises out of the earth has also two horns which must consequently represent two kingdoms; for if horns of a beast mean kingdoms, in one part of the Apocalypse, kingdoms must be intended by this symbol whenever it is used in a similar way in any other part of this book.”

In the above extract we give the italics as we find them. But it would scarcely be possible for a writer to more effectually overthrow his own position, than the one who penned that paragraph has done. The horns of the two-horned beast, he says, denote the same as the horns of the ten-horned beast. And what do the ten horns denote? Ten political kingdoms that arose out of the Roman empire, independent of, and distinct from, each other. Do the two horns of the two-horned beast denote the same? If so, where are the kingdoms? But no; the same writer says, these two horns represent two orders of the Romish clergy, a purely ecclesiastical power. But what was there about these that would correspond to a kingdom? Nothing. A kingdom supposes a king or some person of regal authority, and subjects over whom he has control. In the case of the two orders of the Romish clergy, regular and secular, which are set forth as the two horns, and called two kingdoms, who were the two kings or ruling persons? No such characters can be found. We all know that there is one great authority to which all orders of the Romish clergy bow, and that is the Pope. None can fail to see the utter futility of taking that great unit, the Roman Catholic church, and trying to subdivide it up so as to make it represent a beast, the two horns of a beast, and an image of a beast, all at once.

In our previous article we had occasion to inquire when the two horns of the beast were developed, and found that, according to the theory under review, they were not developed until ages after the image was formed, or the papacy was set up; whereas the prophecy says he had two horns from the very beginning of his career. We now inquire concerning the time of the rise of the beast himself; for it was at some definite time that John saw him “coming up.” On this point H. E. C. shall again speak for himself. A paragraph which he quotes from Clarke and consequently endorses, reads thus:—

“In the time of Charlemagne the ecclesiastical power was in subjection to the civil, and it continued to be so for a long time after his death; therefore the beast, whose deadly wound was healed, ruled over the whole Latin world, both clergy and laity; these, consequently, constituted but one beast, or empire. But the Latin clergy kept continually gaining more and more influence in the civil affairs of the empire, and in the tenth century their authority was greatly increased. In the subsequent centuries the power of the Romish hierarchy ascended even above that of the emperors, and led into captivity the kings of the whole Latin world, as there will be occasion to show in commenting upon the following verses. Thus the Romish hierarchy was at length entirely exempted from the civil power, and constituted another beast, as it became entirely independent of the secular Latin empire.”

This extract is plain as to the time when the beast arose. The Romish hierarchy did not become entirely exempted from the civil power so as to constitute another beast, till centuries subsequent to the “tenth century.” This would place it as late as the 12th, 13th or 14th century. It was not till sometime during these centuries therefore that the two-horned beast arose.

The reader will now please mark the following declaration which H. E. C. quotes from Bishop Newton:

“The influence of the two-horned beast, or corrupted clergy, is further seen in persuading and inducing mankind to make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live. This image and representative of the beast is the pope.” Again he says: “He is nothing more than a private person, without power and without authority, till the two-horned beast, or corrupted clergy, by choosing him pope, give life unto him and enable him to speak and to utter his decrees,” &c. “They first elect and then they worship him, as in the medals of Martin V., where two are represented as crowning the pope, and two kneeling before him, with the inscription, Quem creant, adorant: ‘whom they create they adore.’”

The first of these extracts says that the corrupted clergy induced mankind to make an image to the beast, and that image is the pope. But we ask, when did ever the clergy induce mankind to set up the pope? and who were the mankind whom they induced to do it? Where is the record of any such events as these? The second part of the extract says that the corrupted clergy themselves created the pope or made the image. Rather serious contradictions to occur within six lines of each other. But which is correct? The prophecy says, not that the two-horned beast made the image, but that he said to those who dwelt on the earth that they should make an image. Now if the Romish clergy are the beast, whom did they induce, as we have already inquired, to make the image? We call for the history on the point. But if they are the beast, and made the image themselves, they do not fulfill the prophecy. So that, take which course they will, the Bible or history overthrows their theory.

But the point to which we set out to call especial attention is this: In one of the quotations above introduced, it is stated that the two-horned beast was not developed so as to constitute a separate beast, till subsequent to the tenth century. Another quotation says the pope is the image which the two-horned beast caused to be made. But when was the pope set up? or, as this theory has it, when was this image made? As early, certainly, as the year 538. Now put the two statements together. The image which the beast caused to be made was set up in 538; but the beast himself was not developed till subsequent to the tenth century, over five hundred years later. In other words, the beast caused an image to be made, which the Bible represents as one of his very last acts, over five hundred years before he had an existence! What marks of astonishment shall we place to such an exposition as this? Does any rational man suppose that such a disjointed theory will be accepted by Seventh-day Adventists!

But on what ground is the two-horned beast taken to represent the “spiritual element” of the Roman empire? It is on this ground: It is claimed that the ten-horned beast of Rev. xiii, represents exclusively the civil power of the Roman empire; that the symbols of chapter xiii, are identical with the symbols of chapter xvii; that as we have in the latter chapter both the civil and ecclesiastical powers represented by different symbols, the first by a beast, and the second by a woman seated upon him, so it must be in chapter xiii; and that as the first beast of chapter xiii, is the same as the beast of chapter xvii, the two-horned beast of chap. xiii, must be the same as the woman of chapter xvii.

This reasoning is not sound. The most cursory examination is sufficient to show that there is a greater distinction between the two beasts of Rev. xiii, than between the woman and beast of chapter xvii. The two-horned beast is not represented as having any connection with the ten-horned beast that precedes him. He does not interfere with the affairs of that power, nor exercise any control over him; but simply comes out and does certain actions in his presence, and causes those under his control to worship that beast. Now if this beast was not a distinct power, and occupying different territory, and ruling over a different class of subjects, there would be no need that he should enforce the worship of the beast; for the beast could enforce its own worship in all the territory over which it had jurisdiction. But in Rev. xvii, the woman, the ecclesiastical power, is represented as seated upon the beast, the civil power, exercising control over all his actions, and guiding his movements at her pleasure; and if it was the design of the prophecy to show the same thing in chapter xiii, the two-horned beast should have been represented as in some way having control of, and exercising authority over, the ten-horned beast; which is not the case.

But the fact that there is a distinction made in Rev. xvii, between the civil and ecclesiastical elements of the empire, is good proof that such distinction does not exist in chap. xiii. For if it does, if all the particulars respecting the civil and ecclesiastical elements are fully brought out in chap. xiii, why are the symbols again introduced in chap. xvii? for prophecy never introduces a power, either by the same or different symbols, twice, except to convey some further information, and introduce some additional particulars respecting it. Let this principle be ever borne in mind. A notable illustration of this is seen in Dan. ii; vii; and viii. Here the same powers are several times introduced; but each subsequent introduction from the first, is for the purpose of introducing some additional features. So in Rev. xiii, and xvii. We claim that the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of Rev. xiii, is a symbol of the Roman empire in the exercise of all its powers, civil and ecclesiastical, and that in Rev. xvii, the prophecy is dealing specially with the ecclesiastical power, and hence represents it by a different symbol from the civil power, to show the relation and distinction that exist between them.

Here is a vital point in the argument. If it can be shown that the symbol of the ten-horned beast embraces within itself the religious element of the empire, it is fatal to the theory that the two-horned beast must be taken to represent that element; and every subsequent argument in support of that theory is left entirely without foundation. This point will be examined in our next.

(To be continued.)