The Two-horned Beast

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 13, 1866

The Two-horned Beast.

A REVIEW OF H. E. CARVER.

(Continued.)

GREAT stress is laid upon the declaration concerning the two-horned beast, that he “exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him.” So important a place is this statement made to fill in the theory we are reviewing, that it is the great proof offered to show that the two-horned beast must be associated with the leopard beast to make a power identical with the little horn of Dan. vii; a view which we sufficiently disproved in our last. It is also urged to prove that the two-horned beast must be the representative of the spiritual element of the Latin empire. How does it prove this? By showing, it is claimed, that this beast exercises the same power for the same length of time, and hence must be some organization working in connection with the Latin empire; or if it is not, then there must be another power to continue the same length of time, 1260 years, and do a work as oppressive and bloody as that of the papacy. This erroneous conclusion all arises from the very singular assumption that the idea of duration is embraced in that expression. All can readily see that the idea of the continuance of the exercise of that power does enter in any wise into the expression. Should the two-horned beast continue only six months, if during that time he exercised the same absolute control over those within his jurisdiction, as the first beast did over his subjects, then it could be said of him that he exercised all the power of the first beast before him.

But the expression, instead of proving that the two-horned beast exercises power for as long a period as the other beast, proves that he does not; for that beast is called the first beast. Mark that. Why is he called the first beast? Simply because he had a prior existence, and came on to the stage of action before the two-horned beast. Their existence ends together; for the two-horned beast, being the same as the false prophet of Rev. xix, 20, is cast into the lake of fire and perishes at the same time with the first beast. He, therefore, does not exercise power for the same length of time as that beast; for that beast existed before him, and is for that reason called the first beast.

Again, the two-horned beast exercises his power in the presence of the first beast; for the expression “before him” is, from the Greek word ἐνώπιον, which means “in the sight of,” or “in the presence of.” In the light of this fact, look at the theory of H. E. C. He has the leopard beast represent the civil power of Rome, while the two-horned beast represents the Ecclesiastical. The two-horned beast exercises his power in the presence of the first beast; that is, the ecclesiastical element exercises its power in the presence of the civil! But not only this, it exercises all the power of the civil element; that is, of course, the same kind, and same amount. Then we have two elements in the same empire, each represented by a separate beast, and each exercising exactly the same power and authority at the same time! This is just about as consistent as to talk of two straight lines between any two given points! But if the two-horned beast, the ecclesiastical element, exercises all the power of the first beast, the civil element, we want to know if it does not itself exercise civil power. And if it does, then what is the difference between this beast and the first beast? Does it not thus coalesce with, and become a part of that beast? And again, if the power of the first beast is just the same as that exercised by the two-horned beast, and that of the two-horned beast is ecclesiastical, does not the first beast exercise ecclesiastical power also? In other words, how, if we put these two beasts under one empire, can we keep them separate and distinct? It cannot be done.

Hence those two beasts cannot denote, the one the civil, and the other the ecclesiastical, power, of the same empire, as H. E. C. contends.

Appeal is made to Rev. xvii, 8, for proof that the leopard beast of Rev. xiii, represents simply the civil power. The scarlet beast of the 17th chapter, it is claimed, is exactly the same as the leopard beast of the 13th chapter; and as the former represents simply the secular or civil power, the latter must represent the same, and nothing more. This is a conclusion for which it would be very agreeable to see a little proof before we are required to adopt it. That the scarlet beast of Rev. xvii, 8, represents in that verse the civil power of the empire, we admit. But no one can fail to notice that the symbol as there used is not designed to stand alone. The woman, the church proper, is immediately associated with it, as a controlling power seated upon, and directing it. The symbols are evidently, to be taken together, representing the church of Rome in control of the civil power. The woman and the beast together, therefore, answer to the leopard beast of chap. xiii, bringing out additional particulars, as suggested in our remarks on this subject in No 22. This is evident, as we have already showed by unanswerable arguments, that the leopard beast does exercise ecclesiastical authority; and it further appears from a comparison of Rev. xiii, with chapter xvii. In chapter xiii, it is the leopard beast that makes war with the saints, sheds their blood, and overcomes them. In chapter xvii, it is the woman seated upon the beast, that is drunken with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus. Here the same character and the same acts are ascribed to the woman, which in chapter xiii are ascribed to the leopard beast; showing conclusively that that element or organization of the empire here represented by the woman, is there included in the beast himself. Thus the argument of H. E. C. fails again of showing that the leopard beast of Rev. xiii, represents the civil power, merely, of the empire, and the two-horned beast the ecclesiastical.

Another argument to prove that the two-horned beast is the Romish hierarchy, is introduced as follows: The two-horned beast is the same as the false prophet of Rev. xix; and this is the same as the wonder-working power brought to view in 2 Thess. ii, 9, 10, “which” says H. E. C., “all Protestant writers agree in applying to the Roman hierarchy.”

The issue which we take with this is, that all Protestant writers do not agree in applying 2 Thess. ii, 9, 10, to the Roman hierarchy. We have never so believed, nor has the Review at any time so taught. In verse 8 reference is made to the destruction of the man of sin, the papacy, by the coming of the Lord. In verse 9 the words “even him,” it will be noticed, are supplied words, as signified by their being in italics. The verse properly commences with the words, “Whose coming is after the working of Satan,” &c. This makes the coming of verse 9, refer to the coming of the Lord in verse 8. In the Greek this appears still plainer. The two comings are there very closely connected together, thus: Τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ· οὗ ἐστὶν ἡ παρουσία, &c.: “The coming of him; of whom the coming is” after the working of Satan, &c. Can there be any doubt here as to what the relative, οὗ, refers to for its antecedent, seeing it immediately follows the pronoun αὐτοῦ, and is separated from it only by a colon? None at all. The coming, then, is the coming of the Lord. But what is meant by this coming being after the working of Satan? The word “after” does not here mean, through, or by means of, but at the time of. The original word, κατά, is defined to mean, when referring to time, “at, about, during;” and the construction here is exactly the same as in 2 Tim. iv, 1, where this word is rendered at, meaning at the time of: “I charge thee, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom.”

According to these criticisms, 2 Thess. ii, 8, 9, expressed in full, would read thus: “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; the coming of whom is at the time of the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” And what is this

working of Satan with all power, signs and lying wonders? It certainly is not the work of the papacy ages in the past, but is the last crowning work of Satan to deceive the world, just prior to, and in connection with, the second advent of the Son of man. It is the “spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” Rev. xvi, 14. A work preparatory to what is here brought to view is now going forward. The fulfillment of this work of Satanic power and lying wonders, has already commenced, and will soon be accomplished, as we verily believe, in the further developments of Spiritualism. And now, if these wonders, mentioned in 2 Thess. ii, are the same as those performed by the two-horned beast, or false prophet, as H. E. C. claims, and as we have no occasion to dispute, then the two-horned beast must symbolize that power in connection with which these wonders are manifested, which is emphatically our own country.

Before passing to notice the acts of the two-horned beast, there is one point introduced by H. E. C. respecting the leopard beast, which we cannot pass unnoticed. It is in relation to the head that was wounded, as it were, to death, and afterward healed. “I saw,” says John, “one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed.” Rev. xiii, 3. Which head was this? and when was the wounding and healing accomplished? There is, we believe, perfect unanimity in the view that the seven heads of the beast denote seven successive forms of government in the Roman empire. These are usually enumerated as follows: 1. The Kingly. 2. The Consular. 3. The Decemvirate. 4. The Dictatorial. 5. The Triumvirate. 6. The Imperial; and 7. The Papal. Five of these forms of government had passed away in John’s day, and he was living under the sixth, or Imperial. And this is the head, says H. E. C., which was wounded to death. Then passing to the healing of this head, he speaks as follows:

“If it was the sixth head that was wounded, that wound could not be healed by the rising of the seventh head, as interpreters commonly conceive; the same head which was wounded must be healed; and this was effected by the Pope and people of Rome revolting from the exarchate of Ravenna and proclaiming Charles the Great Augustus and emperor of the Romans. Here the wounded imperial head was HEALED again, and hath subsisted ever since.”

If, as this extract says, the sixth, or imperial head was wounded and healed, and “hath subsisted ever since,” then the beast has had but six heads, instead of seven as the prophecy says; for if it hath subsisted ever since, it has never been succeeded by the seventh head, and Rome is still under its imperial form of government! This is certainly news to us, and will be to many others; for the impression, we believe, very generally prevails, that Rome, for quite a length of time, has been under the papal form of government!

All this error arises from overlooking one very obvious principle, namely, whatever is spoken in prophecy of the symbol of any government, applies to that government only while it is represented by that symbol. Now Rome is represented by two symbols, the dragon and the leopard beast, because it has presented two phases, the Pagan and the Christian; and whatever is said of the dragon, belongs to Rome only in its pagan form; and whatever is said of the leopard beast, belongs to Rome only in its professedly Christian form. But Rome was pagan in John’s day, who lived under the sixth or imperial head. This shows us at once that six of the heads, including the imperial, belong to the dragon; and if it was the sixth or imperial head that was wounded to death, as H. E. C. claims, then it was one of the heads of the dragon, or one of the forms of government that belonged to Rome in its pagan form, and not one of the heads of the beast; and John should have said, I saw one of the heads of the dragon wounded to death. But he does not say so. It was one of the heads of the beast that was wounded to death. In other words, this wound fell upon some form of government that existed in the Roman empire, after its change from paganism to Christianity. But after this change, there was but one head, except the exarchate of Ravenna, which “continued a short space,” Rev. xvii, 10, and that was the papal. Hence it is placed beyond controversy

that it was the papal head and no other that was wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed. This wound is the same as the going into captivity of Rev. xiii, 10. It was inflicted when the pope was taken prisoner by Bonaparte and the papal government for a time abolished, in 1798. It was healed when the pope was re-installed, and his government revived. With this view there is harmony in the prophecy. With any other there is not.

(To be continued.)