The name of blasphemy, on the heads of this beast, identifies it as the
successor and representative of the persecuting power which sought the
life of the Man-child, (12:4), and caused the woman to flee to the
wilderness, 12:14.
Its characteristics resemble those of the lion, bear, and leopard, of
Daniel’s vision (Dan. 7:4-6), which respectively symbolized the
Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian kingdoms. These mark it as their
successor—synchronizing with Daniel’s ten-horned nondescript beast, (Dan.
7:7); which was the fourth kingdom that should exist on the earth, and the
ten horns of which, symbolized the same ten-fold partition of the Roman
empire.
His power, seat, and great authority being given by the dragon, is another
evidence that it is a continuation of that fourth kingdom succeeding to
its sovereignty. The laws of the ancient empire were generally adopted by
the ten kingdoms, which assumed and exercised the prerogatives of ancient
Rome. Says Bossuet: “Whoever carefully examines the laws of the Theodosian
and Justinian codes against heretics, will see that they are the source of
the decrees against them, that the church, aided by the edicts of princes,
enacted in the third and fourth Lateran councils.”
The head, which was as it were wounded to death, would indicate that under
the government symbolized by that head, the life of the beast had become
apparently extinct. This was the case when the empire was subverted. In
the succession of the previous forms of government, the empire itself was
not in any particular peril. They gave place, each to its successor,
without any subversion of the government. But when the seventh head ceased
to exercise sovereignty, the beast itself was apparently dead. The wound,
however, did not prove mortal. The beast still lived. Its sovereignty was
perpetuated by the decemregal governments; which constituted the eighth
form of government—symbolized by the beast that was, is not, and yet is
again in existence and will continue till the day of perdition, 17:11;
19:20.
They worshipped the dragon and beast, by regarding the latter as a
continuation of the former power, and regarding the sovereign power of
Rome as unparalleled and invincible—as is shown by the questions: “Who is
like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” Those combined
governments were regarded by their subjects with wonder and veneration.
Says Mr. Lord: “The serfs and common people, sunk for ages to the most
degraded vassalage, revered the monarchs, the various ranks of nobles, and
their armed followers, as a superior race, while poets and historians
celebrated their warlike exploits, and philosophers and priests justified
their usurpations, and eulogized the wisdom and benignity of their rule.”
The Mouth of the Beast.
“And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and
revilings; and power was given to him to make war forty-two
months. And he opened his mouth in reviling against God, to revile
his name, and his tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And
it was given to him to make war with the saints, and to overcome
them: and power was given him over every tribe, and people, and
tongue, and nation. And all, who dwell on the earth, will worship
him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the slain
Lamb, from the foundation of the world. If any one hath an ear,
let him hear. If any one leadeth into captivity, he will go into
captivity: if any one killeth by the sword, he must be killed with
the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”—Rev.
13:5-10.
The mouth of the beast, must symbolize the agency by which utterance is
given to the great things and blasphemies which are spoken by it. Its
likeness to the mouth of the lion, shows its resemblance to the Babylonian
worship of the dead. Moses was “not eloquent,”—he was “slow of speech and
of a slow tongue,” and the Lord said to him, Aaron “shall be thy spokesman
unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of _a
mouth_,” Ex. 4:10, 16. As Aaron was a mouth to Moses, so did the Papacy
become a mouth-piece for the Roman kingdoms. It was the agency by which
the people were taught; and through which utterance was given to the
blasphemies of the beast. It fills a place analogous to that of the image
afterwards symbolized, which also had like power to speak blasphemies. See
p. 188.
The beast had power to continue to utter blasphemies by the mouth given to
it, forty-two months. This identifies the mouth with that of the “little
horn” (Dan. 7:25), of which it was said, “He shall speak great words
against the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall
be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of
time”—_i.e._ 1260 prophetic days.
1. This mouth uttered blasphemy against God by claiming to be Christ’s
vicegerent—usurping the prerogatives of the Almighty. The Pope claimed
that he was “Judge, as God’s Vicar, and could himself be judged by none.”
In A. D. 799, a Roman council declined to hear accusations against the
Pope, declaring that “he who was Judge of all men, was above being judged
by any other than himself.” Febroni wrote of the Pope: “He is the Prince
of princes and Lord of lords. He is, as it were, a God on earth. He is
above right, superior to law, superior to the canons. He can do all things
against right, and without right. He is able to free from obligation in
matters of positive right, without any cause, and they who are so released
are safe in respect to God.” Assuming such prerogatives, and the power to
forgive sins, the Holy name of God was blasphemed.
2. He blasphemed the tabernacle of God by “exalting himself above all that
is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the
_temple_ of God, showing himself that he is God,” 2 Thess. 2:2. The Pope
claimed to be the head of the church and that from himself was derived the
authority of all bishops and other clergy. He usurped the powers in the
church, which only Christ, its Supreme Head and Lawgiver can exercise.
3. Those in heaven were blasphemed, by the ascription to them of the
attributes and prerogatives of God; and by representing them as being well
pleased with the bestowal on them of divine honors. Saint-worship by the
Papists and demon-worship by the Pagans are alike. They both ascribe the
same attributes to the spirits of the departed,—all the gods of the
heathen being the ghosts of their departed heroes. A revival of this
blasphemy, is subsequently symbolized by the frog-like spirits which
emerge from the mouths of the beast, the dragon, and false prophet,
16:13,—see p. 255.
In connection with and in obedience to this mouth, the beast warred with
the saints, and overcame them. Dissenters from the Papacy were subjected
to unheard of cruelties and persecutions. And they whose names were not
written in the book of life, sustained their rulers in these oppressive
acts. In paying more deference to the edicts of government than to the
requirements of Jehovah, they blasphemously bestowed on the beast an
homage which was due only to God.
The revelator being shown what was to be endured by the saints during a
long period of oppression, now receives an annunciation to which all were
to listen,—all who had ears to hear. It was the announcement, that “if any
one leadeth into captivity, he will go into captivity: if any one killeth
with the sword, he must be killed with the sword.” Most commentators have
considered this as applicable to the fate of the wild beast,—that its end
was to be effected by the sword and captivity, as it had in the same way
tyrannized over the saints. Mr. Lord offers some reasons for supposing
that it was a caution to the saints not to resist with the sword the
attacks of enemies, nor to retaliate by making captives of the subjects of
the beast who should fall into their power. He says:
“The prediction that he who led into captivity should himself become a
captive, and he that slew with the sword be himself slain, had a signal
fulfilment in the slaughter and vassalage of all those who attempted to
deliver themselves by force from the religious tyranny of the European
monarchs.
“The Albigenses were nearly exterminated by the cruel armies against which
they attempted to defend themselves, and the small number that remained
after the devastation of their fields, the conflagration of their cities,
and the promiscuous slaughters to which they were subjected, were either
forced to conform to the Catholic church, or driven into other lands. The
Waldenses perished in far greater numbers by the sword, in their struggles
for preservation and freedom, than by the fires of martyrdom; and sunk,
after their contests, to a still more hopeless vassalage to their
persecutors. The resort to the sword by the Bohemians and the Huguenots of
France, to defend their religious freedom, resulted, after vast
slaughters, in their defeat and helpless subjection to the tyranny from
which they endeavored to extricate themselves. And the Protestants of
Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Great Britain, who
succeeded in delivering themselves from the dominion of their ancient
tyrants, instead of securing thereby their religious liberty, only placed
themselves, by the nationalization of their churches, under the tyranny of
Protestant rulers in place of Catholics.”—_Exp. of Apoc._ p. 384.
In this was to be exhibited the patience and faith of the saints, who,
amid all their persecutions, made a wonderful manifestation of these. Of
the many thousands put to death, or subjected to satanic cruelties for
their faith, only a very few apostatized. Says Mr. Lord:
“Of those who, under the insupportable agonies and distraction of the
scourge and the rack, recanted, or promised a recantation, a large
proportion immediately on being released from the sufferings which had
overcome them, abjured their retractions, re-professed with redoubled
energy the faith of Christ, and met without faltering the hideous death to
which they were immediately hurried. Such is their uniform history in
whatever age they fell, or to whatever nation or rank they
belonged.”—_Exp. of Apoc._, p. 385.
If there was no other evidence of their constancy, faith, and patience,
the horrid instruments of torture which were resorted to to terrify them,
testify to their adherence to their principles, which required such
engines for their subversion.
The end of this beast, will be effected by his being cast alive into the
lake of fire and brimstone, when the Lord shall make war with him, 19:20.
This is also the end of Daniel’s fourth beast, whose body is to be given
to the burning flame (Dan. 7:11), and of the scarlet-colored beast on
which the woman was seated, which is to go into perdition, 17:8.
The Two-Horned Beast.
“And I saw another wild beast ascending out of the earth, and he
had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon. And he
exerciseth all the power of the first wild beast, in his sight,
and causeth the earth and those, who dwell in it, to worship the
first wild beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he performeth
great signs, so that he causeth fire to come down from heaven into
the earth in the sight of men. And he deceiveth those, who dwell
on the earth, by means of the signs which it was given him to
perform in the sight of the wild beast; saying to those, who dwell
on the earth, that they should make an image to the wild beast,
that had the wound by a sword, and did live.”—Rev. 13:11-14.
The coming up of another beast must symbolize the rise of another
government. As the two-horned beast exercises its power before (ενωπιον)
_i.e._ _in the presence_, of the first beast, it is a contemporary power,
and must necessarily symbolize a kingdom outside of the territory of the
ten-horned beast. Within that territory it would be one of the horns of
that beast; but a separate beast requires a separate territory. As it
arises out of the earth, while it is outside of the territory occupied by
the ten kingdoms, it must exist within that occupied by the _former_ Roman
empire, and commence its existence during a period of settled government.
All the forms of Roman government symbolized by the dragon, were also
symbolized by the wild beast; and as the deadly wound of the former was
healed in the latter, the two constitute one beast. As that is called the
“first beast,” the rise of the kingdom symbolized by the two-horned beast
must have been subsequent to the commencement of the Roman empire. And as
it caused those who dwell on the earth to worship that beast after its
deadly wound was healed, it must have arisen anterior to the healing of
that wound; and, consequently, before the succession of the ten kingdoms
to the sovereignty of Rome, with which it held an intimate relation.
The only kingdom which has arisen within the geographical locality, and at
the epoch required by these conditions of the symbol, is the Eastern Roman
empire; which, consequently, is the government represented by the
two-horned beast.
The imperial heads of Rome date from the battle of Actium, B. C. 31; but
the Eastern empire was not commenced, till A. D. 324, when Constantine
removed the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople. Rome was, previous
to that removal, the undisputed queen of nations, and Constantine was
without a rival. Why he should abandon Rome, the citadel and throne of the
Cæsars, for an obscure corner of Thrace, has never been satisfactorily
explained. Says Dr. Croly: “The change of government to Constantinople
still perplexes the historian. It was an act in direct repugnance to the
whole course of the ancient prejudices.”
The indifference with which Constantine viewed the country of the Cæsars,
was regarded by Gibbon as the cause of removal.
He transferred the customs and forms of the Roman government, and there
exercised all the powers of the empire,—the Italians still obeying the
edicts which he condescended to address from Constantinople to the Senate
and people of Rome. The western division continued dependent on the
eastern head, till the death of Theodosius, A. D. 395. His two sons,
Arcadius and Honorius, “were saluted by the unanimous consent of mankind,
as the lawful emperors of the East, and of the West,”—the European
boundary being “not very different from that which separates the Germans
from the Turks.”—Gibbon, v. 2, p. 199. Gibbon calls this “the final and
permanent division of the Roman empire.” But its existence as a beast more
properly dates from the removal of Constantine.
Its two horns like a lamb, must symbolize two divisions of the kingdom.
These may be contemporary, like those symbolized by the ten horns (17:12),
or successive, like the two horns of the ram, Dan. 8:3, 20. From the
history of the Eastern empire, the latter is the more probable; and its
historical resemblance to the government symbolized by the ram, may be the
reason of the comparison to “horns like a lamb.” As Persia was a
government outside of Media, and succeeded to its sovereignty, so did the
kingdom of the Turks originate outside of the Eastern empire, and at
length come in, occupy its territory, and succeed to its sovereignty, A.
D. 1253. With this view, the horns would symbolize the kings of Eastern
Rome and of Turkey. See pp. 99-104.
Its dragon-like speech shows it to be a blasphemous, persecuting power,
like that which persecuted the woman, 12:17. Though the Greek empire
claimed to be Christian, a successor of Constantine, Julian the Apostate,
renounced Christianity, endeavored to restore the Pagan service in
Constantinople, and “declared himself the _implacable enemy of Christ_.”
He assumed the character of Supreme Pontiff, and thus placed himself at
the head of the Pagan worship. He labored incessantly to restore and
propagate those dragonic rites, and even thought to disprove the
predictions of Christ by rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem. “He affected
to pity the unhappy Christians, as mistaken in the most important object
of their lives; but his pity was degraded by contempt, his contempt was
embittered by hatred; and the sentiments of Julian were expressed in a
style of sarcastic wit which inflicts a deep and deadly wound whenever it
issues from the mouth of a sovereign.” And he intimated that they might
have occasion “to dread, not only confiscation and exile, but fire and the
sword.”—_Gibbon._
The successors of Julian, though Christian in name, issued cruel and
tyrannical edicts. Valens embraced Arianism, and bitterly persecuted the
Orthodox party. Justinian established Catholicism by arms. Theodosius
proscribed Paganism by the infliction of severe penalties. Marcian and Leo
“enforced, with arms and edicts, the symbols of their faith,” and it was
declared that “the decrees of the synod of Chalcedon might be lawfully
supported, even with blood.” And after the accession of the Mohammedan
power, religious intolerance towards dissenting creeds was still more
rigidly enforced.
The Eastern empire exercised all the power of the Western. The original
organization of its government was the same, and it had the same titles
and prerogatives. Gibbon says of Julian: “The spirit of his
administration, and his regard for the place of his nativity, induced him
to confer on the senate of Constantinople the same honors, privileges, and
authority which were still enjoyed by the senate of ancient Rome.”
It caused worship to be bestowed on the first beast, by extending to the
Latin rulers that aid which enabled them to perpetuate their system of
tyranny, to legislate over the laws and subjects of Jehovah, and to claim
the obedience which only God can demand. The arms of Justinian, both in
the East and West, caused the Roman name to be respected, and its favor
sought for.
The wonders to be performed by it, may be as yet involved in some
obscurity. But by these it is identified as the power which afterwards
became the seat of the False Prophet. When the “beast” is taken, “the
false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived
them that had the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image,”
is cast with him “into a lake of fire burning with brimstone,” 19:20. This
identifies the two-horned beast as the Mohammedan kingdom. It also proves
that the Romanic Turkish government will continue till the Second Advent.
Among the wonders it would perform, making fire come down from heaven is
specified. John does not intimate that he saw, in vision, fire thus
descend. The fact is spoken of; and therefore it is not necessarily
symbolic, but may refer to literal fire. Gibbon, in speaking of “the
novelty, the terrors, and the real efficacy of the _Greek fire_,” for
which the Eastern empire was so famous, says:
“The important secret of compounding and directing this artificial flame
was imparted by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in Syria, who deserted
from the service of the caliph to that of the emperor. The skill of a
chemist and engineer was equivalent to the succor of fleets and armies;
and this discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately
reserved for the distressful period, when the degenerate Romans of the
East were incapable of contending with the warlike enthusiasm and youthful
vigor of the Saracens. The historian who presumes to analyze this
extraordinary composition, should suspect his own ignorance and that of
his Byzantine guides, so prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in
this instance, so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps
fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient of the
Greek fire was the _naphtha_, or liquid bitumen, a light, tenacious, and
inflammable oil, which springs from the earth, and catches fire as soon as
it comes in contact with the air. The naphtha was mingled, I know not by
what methods, or in what proportions, with sulphur, and with the pitch
that is extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which produced a
thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a fierce and obstinate flame,
which not only rose in perpendicular ascent, but likewise burned with
equal vehemence in descent or lateral progress; instead of being
extinguished, it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and
sand, urine, or vinegar, were the only remedies that could damp the fury
of this powerful agent, which was justly denominated by the Greeks, the
_liquid_, or _maritime_ fire. For the annoyance of the enemy, it was
employed with equal effect by sea and land, in battles or in sieges. It
was either poured from the rampart in large boilers, or launched in
red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in arrows and javelins, twisted
round with flax and tow, which had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil;
sometimes it was deposited in fire-ships, the victims and instruments of a
more ample revenge, and was most commonly blown through long tubes of
copper, which were planted on the prow of a galley, and fancifully shaped
into the mouths of savage monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of
liquid and consuming fire. This important art was preserved at
Constantinople, as the palladium of the state; the galleys and _artillery_
might occasionally be lent to the allies of Rome; but the composition on
the Greek fire was concealed with the most jealous scruple, and the terror
of the enemies was increased and prolonged by their ignorance and
surprise. In the treatise of the administration of the empire, the royal
author suggests the answers and excuses that might best elude the
indiscreet curiosity and importunate demands of the barbarians. They
should be told that the mystery of the Greek fire had been revealed by an
angel to the first and greatest of the Constantines, with a sacred
injunction, that this gift of _heaven_, this peculiar blessing of the
Romans should never be communicated to any foreign nation; that the prince
and subject were alike bound to religious silence under the temporal and
spiritual penalties of treason and sacrilege; and that the impious attempt
would provoke the sudden and supernatural vengeance of the God of the
Christians. By these precautions the secret was confined, above four
hundred years, to the Romans of the East; and at the end of the eleventh
century, the Pisans, to whom every sea and every art were familiar,
suffered the effects, without understanding the composition, of the Greek
fire. It was at length either discovered or stolen by the Mohammedans;
and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they retorted an invention,
contrived against themselves, on the heads of the Christians. A knight,
who despised the swords and lances of the Saracens, relates, with
heartfelt sincerity, his own fears and those of his companions, at the
sight and sound of the mischievous engine that discharged a torrent of the
Greek fire, the _feu Gregeois_, as it is styled by the more early of the
French writers. It came flying through the air, says Joinville, like a
winged long-tailed dragon, about the thickness of a hogshead, with the
report of thunder, and the velocity of lightning; and the darkness of
night was _dispelled by this deadly illumination_.”—_Hist. Rome_, vol.
III., pp. 465-467.
Its use is thus described by the same author, when the Greeks turned its
power against the Saracens, at the siege of Constantinople, A. D. 718:
“The Greeks would gladly have ransomed their religion and empire, by a
fine or assessment of a piece of gold on the head of each inhabitant of
the city; but the liberal offer was rejected with disdain, and the
presumption of Moslemah was exalted by the speedy approach and invincible
force of the natives of Egypt and Syria. They are said to have amounted to
eighteen hundred ships: the number betrays their inconsiderable size; and
of the twenty stout and capacious vessels, whose magnitude impeded their
progress, each was manned with no more than one hundred heavy-armed
soldiers. This huge armada proceeded on a smooth sea and with a gentle
gale, towards the mouth of the Bosphorus; the surface of the strait was
over-shadowed, in the language of the Greeks, with a moving forest, and
the same fatal night had been fixed by the Saracen chief for a general
assault by sea and land. To allure the confidence of the enemy, the
emperor had thrown aside the chain that usually guarded the entrance of
the harbor: but while they hesitated whether they should seize the
opportunity or apprehend the snare, the ministers of destruction were at
hand. The fireships of the Greeks were launched against them: the Arabs,
their arms and vessels, were involved in the same flames, the disorderly
fugitives were dashed against each other, or overwhelmed in the waves; and
I no longer find a vestige of the fleet, that had threatened to extirpate
the Roman name.”—_Ib._, p. 464.
It deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by its miracles. This deception
resulted in the creation of:
The Image of the Beast.
“And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the wild
beast, that the image of the wild beast should even speak, and to
cause, that as many as would not worship the image of the wild
beast, should be killed. And he causeth all, the small and the
great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, to
receive a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead. And that
no one might buy or sell, but he, who had the mark, the name of
the wild beast, or the number of his name.”—Rev. 13:15-18.
This new creation is not another beast, but the image of one. An image is
only the _likeness_ of something. As the beast symbolizes a political
power, its image must symbolize some analogous power of a different
nature; and this likeness can only be found in a religious government.
1. The beast which received its death-wound (v. 14), was the form of
government to which the image was made, _i.e._, the imperial. Of this the
Roman hierarchy was a perfect counterpart. It was an ecclesiastical
government, coëxtensive in its authority with the political power of the
empire. And, like the officers of the civil, there was a regular gradation
of rank in the subordinates of the religious government. The head of the
former was an emperor, chosen by an electoral college,—the senators of
Rome.(3) The head of the latter was a Pope, chosen in a similar manner by
the college of Cardinals,—the ecclesiastical senators of the religious
empire. Each of those bodies constituted the highest deliberative and
legislative body in its respective government. The empire had its
governors of provinces, appointed by the imperial head; and the spiritual
rule of the church was, in like manner, sustained by diocesan bishops who,
in their respective provinces, were governors in spiritual matters and
creatures of the Pope. Subordinate offices in the state and church, also,
singularly corresponded.
2. The religious customs of the empire, as well as its political, were
likewise imitated by the papacy. Rome deified her heroes; the papacy
canonized her saints. The ghosts of the departed were the gods of the
heathen; and the papists supplicate the dead. The Pagans burned incense to
their gods; the Papists burn incense in their religious ceremonies. The
ancient heathen sprinkled themselves with “holy water;” the Papists use
the same material in a similar manner. Lactantius says of the Pagans, they
“light up candles to God as if he lived in the dark; and do they not
deserve to pass for madmen who offer lamps to the author and giver of
light?” This custom is imitated by the Papists in the use of wax candles
on their altars.
The ancient Romans prostrated themselves before images of wood and stone;
and Jerome tells us that “by idols were to be understood the images of the
dead.” In Catholic Rome, worshippers prostrated themselves before images
of departed saints. The old Roman Pantheon, which was dedicated by Agrippa
“to Jove, _and all the gods_,” was re-consecrated by Pope Boniface IV.,
about A. D. 610, “_to the blessed Virgin and all the saints_.” As in the
old pagan temple, any stranger could find the god of his own country; so
in its re-consecrated state, each country could find its patron saint.
Other temples were changed and re-consecrated in the same manner. The
ancient statue of Jupiter stands now as the statue of St. Peter. The
pagans had their vestal virgins; the Papists their nuns.
Dr. Middleton, who visited Rome in 1729, says:
“Nothing, I found, concurred so much with my original intention of
conversing with the ancients; or so much helped my imagination, to find
myself wandering about in old heathen Rome, as to observe and attend to
their religious worship; all whose ceremonies appear plainly to have been
copied from the rituals of primitive Paganism: as if handed down by an
uninterrupted succession from the priests of old, to the priests of new
Rome, whilst each of them readily explained, and called to mind some
passages of a classic author, where the same ceremony was described, as
transacted in the same form and manner, and in the same place where I now
saw it executed before my eyes.”—_Dowl. Hist. of Rom._, p. 114.
Says Mr. Lord:
“After a struggle of more than four centuries, the ecclesiastics of all
the hierarchies in the empire were united in one vast organization, with
the pontiff as their supreme legislative and judicial head, and a single
ecclesiastical government was established over the whole Roman church,
after the model of the civil government of the ancient empire under
Constantine and his successors. It is, accordingly, denominated by
Catholics themselves a monarchy. ‘All Catholic doctors agree in this, that
the ecclesiastical government committed to men by God is a
monarchy.’—_Bellarmini de Rom. Pont._, lib. i., c. v. Bellarmine devotes
his first book ‘of the Pontiff’ to prove that such is and ought to be its
government. ‘If the monarchical is the best form of government, as we have
shown, and it is certain that the church of God instituted by Christ its
head, who is supremely wise, ought to be governed in the best manner, who
can deny that its rule ought to be monarchical?’—_Ib._, i., c. ix., p.
527.
“The canonists are accustomed, accordingly, to denominate the Pope a king.
“The pontiffs were as absolutely the legislative and judicial head of this
ecclesiastical kingdom, as the emperors from Constantine to Augustulus
were of the civil empire, and imposed whatever laws they pleased on
subordinate ecclesiastics and on the church by decrees, in the same manner
as those emperors enacted laws by edicts. The decrees, bulls of
canonization, sentences, charters, and other legislative and judicial acts
of the pontiffs, from Gregory VII., in 1073, to Benedict XIV., in 1757,
collected in the Bullarium Magnum, fill nineteen folios. Many others are
contained in the decretals and councils.
“They appointed to all ecclesiastical offices throughout the empire, as
the Christian emperors appointed to all civil and military offices in
their dominions.
“They exacted oaths of fidelity from all whom they advanced to important
offices; as the emperors exacted engagements of fidelity from their civil
magistrates.
“They established courts in which all violations of their laws were tried,
and a tribunal at the capital for the decision of appeals. There were
gradations of rank in the hierarchy, like those of the magistrates of the
civil empire. The hierarchies, as nationalized by Constantine, were formed
in each patriarchate, after the model of the civil government in the
provinces. The hierarchy of the western kingdoms, under the Pope, was
formed after that pattern; having archbishops or metropolitans at the head
of the clergy of each nation, or large district, and bishops, abbots, and
a long catalogue of subordinate ranks, under each metropolitan.
“They levied taxes for their support on ecclesiastics and laics.
“They inflicted ecclesiastical penalties on the violators of their laws;
exclusion from communion, suspension from office, deposition,
excommunication, and a sentence of eternal death.”—_Exp. of Apoc._, pp.
429-432.
These, with many other striking resemblances, demonstrate that the Roman
hierarchy, in all its great features, was a counterpart to imperial
Rome—an image of, and belonging to, the seven-headed, ten-horned monster,
whose deadly wound was healed.
Life was to be given to this image by the two-horned beast. The papal
hierarchy is created when its supremacy over other churches is declared
and _sustained_; and the power by which this is done, is that which gives
life to it. This was done, according to the following history, by the
Eastern empire.
The power of the papacy, symbolized by the image, had been predicted in
Daniel under the symbol of “a Little Horn,” that came up among the
previous “ten horns,” before whom “there were three of the first horns
plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes
of man, and a mouth speaking great things,” Dan. 7:8. These horns were
thus explained to Daniel: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom
upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the
whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten
horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another
shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he
shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most
High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change
times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and
times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall
take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the
kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey
him.” _Ib._ vs. 23-27.
When Paul spoke of the second coming of Christ, in his first epistle to
the Thessalonians, they understood that it was an event then imminent. The
apostle, in his second epistle, corrects this impression, by referring to
the foregoing prediction in Daniel, which must be previously fulfilled. He
assures them that “the day of Christ” “shall not come, except there be” an
apostasy, or “a falling away first, and that Man of Sin,” or the lawless
one, “be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God,
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye
not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye
know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way. 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,” 2 Thess. 2:2-8.
The uniform application of these predictions to the Papacy, by Protestant
writers, renders it unnecessary to argue this point. That power began
early to be manifested, but its full development was “let,” _i.e._,
hindered, by the continuance of the Western empire, which had to be taken
out of its way. Tertullian, near the close of the second century, in
expounding those words, says: “Who can this be but the Roman state, the
division of which into ten kingdoms will bring on Antichrist?” And he
gives as a reason why the Christians of his time prayed for the Roman
empire: that _the greatest calamity hanging over the world was retarded by
the continuance of it_. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century applied
the passage in the same manner, and says:
“Thus the predicted Antichrist will come when the times of the Roman
empire shall be fulfilled, and the consummation of the world shall
approach. Ten kings of the Romans shall arise together, in different
places indeed, but they shall reign at the same time. Among these the
eleventh is Antichrist, who, by magical and wicked artifice, shall seize
the Roman power.” A large number of the ancient fathers interpreted this
text in the same manner.
In A. D. 257, 1260 years before the time of Luther, Stephen, Bishop of
Rome, began to act the pope in good earnest,—excommunicating those who
dissented from the doctrines of Rome.
In 312, 1260 years before the massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572,
Constantine became Emperor of Rome, embraced Christianity, and terminated
the last and bloodiest of the Pagan persecutions—that of Diocletian, which
had continued ten years. Constantine undertook to remodel the church, in
conformity to the government of the state, and the unhallowed union of the
two resulted in the dignities of patriarchs, exarchs, archbishops, canons,
prebendaries, &c., which he endowed with wealth and worldly honors.
While paganism was superseded by Christianity under Constantine, its
ceremonies were not suppressed. The senate was still pagan; and “the
title, the ensigns, and the prerogatives of Sovereign Pontiff, which had
been instituted by Numa, and assumed by Augustus, were accepted, without
hesitation, by seven Christian emperors.”—_Gibbon_, v. 2, p. 183. Gratian
became emperor, A. D. 376, and was the first who refused the pontifical
robe. In 378, he invested Theodosius with the Empire of the East; under
their rule paganism was “wholly extirpated,” and the senate was suddenly
converted.—_Ib._ That which hindered was thus taken out of the way. In
378, also, Gratian refusing the office, Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, was
“declared Pontifix Maximus,”(4) and made “the sole judge in religious
matters.” All who would not adhere to the religion “professed by the
Pontiff Damasus, and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria,” were declared
heretics.—_Gibbon_, v. 2, p. 156. Damasus, by virtue of his power,
introduced the worship of the saints, and of Mary, “the mother of
God,”—excommunicating those who dissented. Thus the apostasy, by adopting
the gods of the heathen, and the name of the heathen pontiff, began to be
set up, and the excommunicated church disappeared in the wilderness.
In the ninth century a document was produced, which claimed to be a deed
of gift from Constantine to the Pope, dated A. D. 324, ceding him the city
of Rome and all Italy, with the crown, the mitre, &c.; but the forgery of
this has been fully exposed. With the removal of the capital of the world
to Constantinople, the empire began to decline; but the church augmented
as fast. A provisional synod at Sardica, in A. D. 344, and a decree of the
Emperor Valentinian III., in 445, had acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as
the primate of the five patriarchs, and as the last tribunal of appeal
from the other bishops; but the edicts of the Pope were often disregarded
and opposed, and he continued subject to the civil power till the
subversion of the Western empire by Odoacer, King of the Heruli, in A. D.
476.
The ten kingdoms which had arisen on the ruins of the Western empire (p.
169), had nearly all embraced Christianity, corrupted by Arianism. And the
barbarians transferred to their Christian instructors, the profound
submission and reverence which they were accustomed to yield to the
teachers of paganism,—many of the rites and ceremonies of which had been
incorporated into the Catholic service. Ecclesiastical courts were
established, in which were tried all questions relating to character,
office, or property of the clergy; and thus they became nearly independent
of the civil judges.
The Heruli, which was the first of the ten horns plucked up, were
conquered by the Ostrogoths, in A. D. 493, when all Italy submitted to
Theodoric. He fixed his capital at Ravenna, which left the Pope the only
Prince of Rome; and the Romans, for protection, were forced to pay more
deference to him.
About A. D. 500, two Popes were simultaneously elected, when Theodoric
gave the papal chair to Symmachus. Gross crimes being alleged against him
by the defeated party, the king summoned a council in A. D. 503 to
investigate the charges; and he was acquitted. The other party being
dissatisfied, Ennodius, Bishop Ticonum, drew up an apology for the Pope
and council, in which, for the first time, the Pope was styled a “Judge in
the place of God, and Vicegerent of the Most High;” and “subject to no
earthly tribunal.” Thus did the Lawless One attempt, “as God,” to “sit in
the temple of God.”
In A. D. 533, Justinian, Emperor at Constantinople, being about to attack
the Vandals in Africa, and wishing first to settle the religious disputes
of his capital in which he felt a great interest, he submitted the
controversy to the primate of Rome. To induce a decision in his own favor,
or to give force to it, he acknowledged the Bishop of Rome the Chief of
the whole Ecclesiastical body of the empire; and thus addressed him, in a
letter sent by two distinguished prelates:—
“Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant emperor,
consul, &c., to John, the most holy Archbishop of our city of
Rome, and patriarch.
“Rendering honor to the Apostolic chair, and to your Holiness, as
has been always and is our wish, and honoring your blessedness as
a father; we have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your
Holiness all matters relating to the state of the churches. It
having been at all times our great desire to preserve the unity of
your Apostolic chair, and the constitution of the holy churches of
God which has obtained hitherto, and still obtains.
“Therefore we have made no delay in subjecting and uniting to your
Holiness all the priests of the whole East.
“For this reason we have thought fit to bring to your notice the
present matters of disturbance; though they are manifest and
unquestionable, and always firmly held and declared by the whole
priesthood according to the doctrine of your Apostolic chair. For
we cannot suffer that anything which relates to the state of the
Church, however manifest and unquestionable, should be moved,
without the knowledge of your Holiness, who are The Head of all
the Holy Churches, for in all things, as we have already declared,
we are anxious to increase the honor and authority of your
Apostolic chair.”