The Two-horned Beast

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 16, 1866

The Two-horned Beast.

(Continued.)

Of all the views that have ever been promulgated relative to the two-horned beast, making it symbolize any other than our own government, bad as they all are in our estimation, none appears to us more mixed, inconsistent, and unscriptural than that which makes it mean the Roman Catholic church in any or all of its parts. That Bishop Newton, who died as long ago as 1782, should perceive no other place to apply it, and so tax his ingenuity to find a place for it in some feature of the Romish church, is not strange. Nor is it to be wondered at that Dr. Clarke, or rather his son, who wrote the notes on Rev. xiii, should adopt the same view, they both being Englishmen, and of course seeing no particular importance to be attached to the United States, and consequently finding no power to which it seemed that they could better apply this symbol than to the Romish church. But that a person in our own land, familiar with the principles of Adventism, living down at this late day, when knowledge has been so wonderfully increased, especially in all that relates to the closing scenes of this world's history, and to those powers which are to act a prominent part therein;—that such a person should go to another hemisphere, and to the works of a commentator of a hundred years ago, for light on these questions, is a matter of profound astonishment.

What then constitutes the two-horned beast, as set forth by H. E. C.? In looking over his articles we find all of these expressions applied to it: Paul's “Man of sin,” 2 Thess. ii, 3, “the Harlot of Rev. xvii,” the “Roman Hierarchy,” the “Romish Church Hierarchy,” the “Ecclesiastical element,” and the “Spiritual Latin Empire.” By these designations we are left in the most sublime bewilderment as to whether the Pope alone is meant, or the Pope and clergy, or the Pope, clergy, and laity, all together; for one of the expressions means only one, others include two, and others embrace all three, of these divisions.

But the Pope alone cannot be meant; for a little further along in H. E. C.'s exposition, the Pope turns out to be the image. The clergy alone cannot be meant; for they turn out to be the horns. The laity alone cannot be meant; for, independent of the Pope and clergy, they constitute no power whatever. Then where is the beast?

One of the names by which it is described above, is the “Roman Hierarchy,” or the “Romish Church Hierarchy.” What is a hierarchy? The second definition of the word given by Webster is, “The persons who have the exclusive direction of things sacred; used especially of a body of clergy of different ranks or orders.” And he defines the word “hierarch” thus: “One who rules or has authority in sacred things.” The “Roman Hierarchy” is therefore the Roman clergy or the Roman priesthood. But is not the Pope included among these? By all means. He is the highest hierarch among them. His “authority in sacred things” is supreme throughout all the Romish church. The Roman Catholic clergy, therefore, with the Pope at their head, constitute the Roman Hierarchy; and this, says H. E. C., is the two-horned beast. But we have just noticed the fact that he makes the Pope the image; hence we have the two-horned beast taking a part of himself and making an image of it; while the image must still be included in the beast himself, he not being complete without it! Puppet-shows sometimes exhibit the singular spectacle of strange figures swallowing themselves, turning inside out, &c.; but prophecy is never guilty of making its symbols perform any such antics.

But the two-horned beast, says H. E. C., is the Roman Hierarchy; and we have seen that this hierarchy is the clergy; but we find as already noticed that he subsequently takes the clergy to make the horns. We quote from his articles: “As the second beast is the spiritual Latin empire, the two horns of this beast denote that the empire thus represented is composed of two distinct spiritual powers. These, therefore, can be no other, as Bishop Newton and Faber properly observe, than the two grand independent branches of the Romish hierarchy, viz., the Latin clergy, REGULAR and SECULAR. “The first of these comprehends all the various monastic orders, the second comprehends the whole body of parochial clergy.” These two grand branches of the hierarchy originally constituted but one dominion, as the monks, as well as the other clergy were in subjection to the bishops; but the subjection of the monks to their diocesans became by degrees less apparent, and in process of time, through the influence and authority of the Roman pontiffs, they were entirely exempted from all episcopal jurisdiction, and thus became a spiritual power, entirely independent of that of the secular clergy.”

There is no possibility of mistaking the import of this extract: the Latin clergy constitute the two horns of the beast. But the beast himself symbolizes the Roman Hierarchy according to H. E. C.; and the hierarchy is the clergy. Thus the beast is confounded with his horns. Horns are beast, and beast is horns. Such confusion is inadmissible. There must be a great scarcity of material here to make beast and horns of, to force a person to try to make them both out of the same. But they cannot both denote the same thing. And which is it? If the clergy constitute the beast, what constitutes the horns? And if the clergy are the horns, what is the beast? And if the clergy are the horns, according to the view before us, the prophet should have said, “I beheld two horns coming up out of the earth!”

But again, “These two grand branches of the hierarchy,” says the extract, “originally constituted but one dominion.” Then, we answer, the beast originally had but one horn, which horn finally branched out into two. Does the prophecy represent any such thing? No. The beast has two horns on his first introduction into the prophecy, and they are ever separate and distinct.

But further, we inquire, when did these horns develop themselves? The extract says that the monastic orders (one horn) did not become entirely independent of the secular clergy (the other horn) except through “process of time,” and “through the influence and authority of the Roman pontiffs,” or Popes. Then it was not till long after the Popes had arisen that the beast had two horns; and this change in the beast was brought about by their influence and authority. But remember that the Pope is the image of the beast. Then we have the two-horned beast coming up with only one horn. He goes on his career, performing his works, and even makes the image while yet he has but one horn. And finally, long years afterward, the image turns around to the one-horned beast that made him, and splits his one horn in two, and makes a two-horned beast of him! Does the prophecy represent anything of this kind? Far from it. It declares that the beast from the moment that it emerges into sight, has two horns like a lamb. Then it speaks like a dragon, exercises all the power of the first beast before him, causes men to worship that beast, does great wonders, makes fire come down from heaven; and carries on a work of deception among the people; all before the image is formed. And after he has given life unto the image which they that dwell upon the earth have made at his dictation, the only act ascribed to him is to cause all to receive a mark on pain of being deprived of the privilege of buying or selling. This is a power which occupies the stage of action till the Lord comes; and giving life to the image of the beast is next to his very last act; and any view which, like the one we are examining, makes out that he does not have two horns till ages after the formation of this image, is the baldest nonsense.

And yet this is good sense compared with some other absurdities belonging to this view, which we have yet to notice.

(To be continued.)