CHAPTER XIII.

AND I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a [395]beast rise up out of the sea, [396]having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the [397]name of blasphemy.

1. _And I stood upon the sand of the sea._ The sand upon the shore of the sea. That is, he seemed to stand there, and then had a vision of a beast rising out of the waters. The _reason_ of this representation may, perhaps, have been that among the ancients the sea was regarded as the appropriate place for the origin of huge and terrible monsters (Professor Stuart, _in loco_). This vision strongly resembles that in Da. vii. 2, seq., where the prophet saw four beasts coming up in succession from the sea. See Notes on that place. In Daniel, the four winds of heaven are described as striving upon the great sea (ver. 2), and the agitated ocean represents the nations in commotion, or in a state of disorder and anarchy, and the four beasts represent four successive kingdoms that would spring up. See Notes on Da. vii. 2. In the passage before us, John indeed describes no storm or tempest; but the sea itself, as compared with the land (see Notes on ver. 11), represents an agitated or unsettled state of things, and we should naturally look for that in the rise of the power here referred to. If the reference be to the civil or secular Roman power that has always appeared in connection with the Papacy, and that has always followed its designs, then it is true that it rose amidst the agitations of the world, and from a state of commotion that might well be represented by the restless ocean. The sea in either case naturally describes a nation or people, for this image is frequently so employed in the Scriptures. Comp., as above, Da. vii. 2, and Ps. lxv. 7; Je. li. 42; Is. lx. 5; Re. x. 2. The natural idea, therefore, in this passage, would be that the power that was represented by the “beast” would spring up among the nations, when restless or unsettled, like the waves of the ocean. ¶ _And saw a beast._ Daniel saw four in succession (ch. vii. 3‒7), all different, yet succeeding each other; John saw two in succession, yet strongly resembling each other, ver. 1, 11. On the general meaning of the word _beast_――θηρίον――see Notes on ch. xi. 7. The beast here is evidently a symbol of some power or kingdom that would arise in future times. See Notes on Da. vii. 3. ¶ _Having seven heads._ So also the dragon is represented in ch. xii. 3. See Notes on that passage. The representation there is of Satan, as the source of all the power lodged in the two beasts that John subsequently saw. In ch. xvii. 9, referring substantially to the same vision, it is said that “the seven heads are seven mountains;” and there can be no difficulty, therefore, in referring this to the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built (comp. Notes on ch. xii. 3), and consequently this must be regarded as designed, in some way, to be a representation of Rome. ¶ _And ten horns._ See this also explained in the Notes on ch. xii. 3; comp. also the more extended illustration in the Notes on Da. vii. 25, seq. The reference here is to Rome, or the one Roman power, contemplated as made up of ten subordinate kingdoms, and therefore subsequently to the invasion of the Northern hordes, and to the time when the Papacy was about to rise. Comp. Re. xvii. 12: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings [marg. _kingdoms_], which have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings with the beast.” For a full illustration of this, see the copious Notes at the close of the seventh chapter of Daniel. ¶ _And upon his horns ten crowns._ Greek, _ten diadems_. See Notes on ch. xii. 3. These indicated dominion or authority. In ch. xii. 3, the “dragon is represented as having _seven_ diadems on his head;” {320} here, the beast is represented as having _ten_. The dragon there represents the Roman domination, _as such_, the _seven-hilled_, or _seven-headed_ power, and, therefore, properly described as having _seven_ diadems; the beast here represents the Roman power, as now broken up into the ten dominations which sprung up (see Notes on Daniel as above) from the one original Roman power, and that became henceforward the supporters of the Papacy, and, therefore, properly represented here as having _ten_ diadems. ¶ _And upon his heads the name of blasphemy._ That is, the whole power was blasphemous in its claims and pretensions. The word _blasphemy_ here seems to be used in the sense that titles and attributes were claimed by it which belonged only to God. On the meaning of the word _blasphemy_, see Notes on Mat. ix. 3; xxvi. 65. The meaning here is, that each one of these heads appeared to have a frontlet, with an inscription that was blasphemous, or that ascribed some attribute to this power that properly belonged to God; and that the whole power thus assumed was in derogation of the attributes and claims of God. In regard to the propriety of this description considered as applicable to the Papacy, see Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4.

2 And the beast which I saw was [398]like unto a leopard, and his feet were as _the feet_ of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and [399]the dragon gave him his power, and [400]his seat, and great authority.

2. _And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard._ For a description of the leopard, see Notes on Da. vii. 6. It is distinguished for bloodthirstiness and cruelty, and thus becomes an emblem of a fierce, tyrannical power. In its general character it resembles a lion, and the lion and the leopard are often referred to together. In this description, it is observable that John has combined in _one_ animal or monster, all those which Daniel brought _successively_ on the scene of action as representing different empires. Thus in Daniel (vii. 2‒7) the _lion_ is introduced as the symbol of the Babylonian power; the bear, as the symbol of the Medo-Persian; the leopard, as the symbol of the Macedonian; and a nondescript animal, fierce, cruel, and mighty, with two horns, as the symbol of the Roman. See Notes on that passage. In John there is one animal representing the Roman power, as if it were made up of all these: a _leopard_ with the feet of a _bear_, and the mouth of a _lion_, with two horns, and with the general description of a fierce monster. There was an obvious propriety in this, in speaking of the Roman power, for it was, in fact, made up of the empires represented by the other symbols in Daniel, and “combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive, which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that preceded it.” At the same time there was an obvious propriety in the symbol itself; for the bloodthirstiness and cruelty of the leopard would well represent the ferocity and cruelty of the Roman power, _especially_ as John saw it here as the great antagonistic power of the true church, sustaining the Papal claim, and thirsting for blood. ¶ _And his feet mere as |the feet| of a bear._ See Notes on Da. vii. 5. The idea here seems to be that of _strength_, as the strength of the bear resides much in its feet and claws. At the same time, there is the idea of a combination of fierce qualities――_as if_ the bloodthirstiness, the cruelty, and the agility of the leopard were united with the strength of the bear. ¶ _And his mouth as the mouth of a lion._ See Notes on Da. vii. 4. The mouth of the lion is made to seize and hold its prey, and is indicative of the character of the animal as a beast of prey. John has thus brought together the qualities of activity, bloodthirstiness, strength, ferocity, all as symbolical of the power that was intended to be represented. It is hardly necessary to say that this description is one that would apply well, in all respects, to Rome; nor is it necessary to say, that if it be supposed that he _meant_ to refer to Rome, this is such a description as he would have adopted. ¶ _And the dragon._ See Notes on ch. xii. 3. ¶ _Gave him his power._ Satan claimed, in the time of the Saviour, all power over the kingdoms of the world, and asserted that he could give them to whomsoever he pleased. See Notes on Mat. iv. 8, 9. How far the power of Satan in this respect may extend, it may not be possible to determine; but it cannot be doubted that the Roman power _seemed_ to have such an {321} origin, and that in the main it was such as, on that supposition, it would be. In its arrogance and haughtiness――in its thirst for dominion――in its persecutions――it had such characteristics as we may suppose Satan would originate. If, therefore, as the whole connection leads us to suppose, this refers to the Roman secular power, considered as the support of the Papacy, there is the most evident propriety in the representation. ¶ _And the seat_――θρόνον. Hence our word _throne_. The word properly means a seat; then a high seat; then a _throne_, as that on which a king sits. Here it refers to this power as exercising dominion on the earth. ¶ _And great authority._ The authority _was_ great. It extended over a large part of the earth, and, alike in its extent and character, it was such as we may suppose Satan would set up in the world.

3 And I saw one of his heads, as it were [401]wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all [402]the world wondered after the beast.

3. _And I saw one of his heads, as it were wounded to death._ The phrase “wounded to death” means properly that it received a mortal wound, that is, the wound would have been mortal if it had not been healed. A blow was struck that would be naturally fatal, but there was something that prevented the fatal result. John does not say, however, by whom the wound was inflicted, nor does he describe farther the nature of the wound. He says that “_one_ of the heads”――that is, one of the seven heads――was thus wounded. In ch. xvii. 9, he says that “the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” In ch. xvii. 10, he says, “there are seven kings.” And this would lead us to suppose that there were “seven” administrations, or forms of dominion, or dynasties, that were presented to the eye of John; and that while the number “seven,” as applied to the “heads,” so far identified the power as to fix its location on the seven “hills” (ch. xvii. 9), in another respect also the number “seven” suggested forms of administration of dynasties, ch. xvii. 10. What is meant by saying that one of these heads was wounded to death has been among the most perplexing of all the inquiries pertaining to the book of Revelation. The use of the word _seven_, and the explanation in ch. xvii. 9, make it morally certain that _Rome_, in some form of its administration, is referred to. Of this there can be no doubt, and in this all are agreed. It is not, however, the _Papal_ power as such that is here referred to; for (a) the Papal power is designated under the image of the second beast; (b) the descriptions pertaining to the first beast are all applicable to a secular power; and (c) there was no form of the Papal spiritual dominion which would properly correspond with what is said in ch. xvii. 10. The reference in this place is, therefore, to Rome considered as a civil or secular power, yet Rome regarded as giving support to the second beast――the Papal power. The _general_ idea here is, that a state of things would exist in regard to that power, at the time referred to, _as if_ one of the seven heads of the monster should receive a wound which would be fatal, if it were not healed in some way. That is, its power would be weakened; its dominion would be curtailed, and that portion of its power would have come to an end, if there had not been something which would, as it were, restore it, and save it from the wrath that was impending. The great point of difficulty relates to the _particular_ application of this; to the facts in history that would correspond with the symbol. On this there have been almost as many opinions as there have been interpreters of the Apocalypse, and there is no impropriety in saying that none of the solutions are wholly free from objection. The _main_ difficulty, so far as the interpretation proposed above is concerned, is, in the fact that “_one_” of the seven heads is referred to as wounded unto death; as if _one-seventh part_ of the power was endangered. I confess I am not able wholly to solve this difficulty; but, after all, is it certain that the meaning is that just _one-seventh part_ of the power was in peril; that the blow affected just such a portion that it might be described as the one-seventh part? Is not the number _seven_ so used in the Scriptures as to denote a considerable portion――a portion quite material and important? And may not all that is intended here be, that John saw a wound inflicted on that mighty power which would have been fatal if it had not been marvellously healed? And was it not true {322} that the Roman civil and secular power was _so_ waning and decaying, that it might properly be represented _as if_ one of the seven heads of the monster had received a fatal wound, until its power was restored by the influence of the spiritual domination of the church of Rome? If this be the correct exposition, then what is implied here may be thus stated: (a) The general subject of the representation is the Roman power, as seen at first in its vigour and strength; (b) then that power is said to be greatly weakened, as if one of its heads were smitten with a deadly wound; (c) then the wound was healed――this power was restored――by being brought into alliance with the Papacy; that is, the whole Roman power over the world would have died away, if it had not been restored and perpetuated by means of this new and mighty influence, ver. 12. Under this new form, Rome had all the power which it had ever had, and was guilty of all the atrocities of which it had ever been guilty: _it was Rome still_. Every wound that was inflicted on that power by the incursion of barbarians, and by the dividing off of parts of the empire, was healed by the Papacy, and under this form its dominion became as wide and as formidable as under its ancient mode of administration. If a more _particular_ application of this is sought for, I see no reason to doubt that it may be found in the quite common interpretation of the passage given by Protestants, that the reference is to the _forms_ of administration under which this power appeared in the world. The number of distinct forms of government which the Roman power assumed from first to last was the following:――kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military, tribunes, emperors. These _seven_ forms of administration were, at least, sufficiently prominent and marked to be represented by this symbol, or to attract the attention of one contemplating this formidable power――for it was under these forms that its conquests had been achieved, and its dominion set up over the earth. In the time of John, and the time contemplated in this vision, all these had passed away but the _imperial_. That, too, was soon to be smitten with a deadly wound by the invasion of the Northern hordes; and that would have wholly and for ever ceased if it had not been restored――the deadly wound being healed――by the influence of the Papal power, giving Rome its former ascendency. See Notes at the close of ver. 15. ¶ _And his deadly wound was healed._ That is, as explained above, the waning Roman secular power was restored by its connection with the spiritual power――the Papacy. This was (a) a simple matter of fact, that the waning secular power of Rome was thus restored by connecting itself with the spiritual or ecclesiastical power, thus prolonging what might properly be called the _Roman_ domination far beyond what it would otherwise have been; and (b) this would be _properly_ represented by just the symbol employed here――the fatal wound inflicted on the head, and the healing of that wound, or preventing what would naturally be the effects. On the fulfilment of this, see Notes on ver. 15, at the close. ¶ _And all the world wondered after the beast._ The word here used――θαυμάζω――means, properly, to be astonished; to be amazed; then to wonder at; then to admire and follow (Rob. _Lex._). In ver. 4, it is said that the world “_worshipped_” the beast; and the general idea is, that the beast received such universal reverence, or inspired such universal awe, as to be properly called worship or adoration. There can be no doubt of the propriety of this, considered as applicable to that secular Roman power which sustained the Papacy. The homage was as wide as the limits of the Roman empire had ever been, and might be said to embrace “all the world.”

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who _is_ like unto the beast? [403]who is able to make war with him?

4. _And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast._ Notes, chap. xii. 3; xiii. 2. That is, they _in fact_ worshipped him. The word _worship_――προσκυνέω――is not always, however, used in a _religious_ sense. It means, properly, _to kiss_; to kiss towards anyone; that is, to kiss his own hand and to extend it towards a person, in token of respect and homage (Rob. _Lex._). Comp. Job xxxi. 27. Then it means to show respect to one who is our superior; to kings and princes; to parents; and pre-eminently to God. See Notes on Mat. ii. 2. The word may be used here to mean that homage or reverence, {323} as to a higher power, was rendered to the “dragon;” not strictly that he was openly _worshipped_ in a religious sense as God. Can anyone doubt that this was the case under Papal Rome; that the power which was set up under that entire domination, civil and ecclesiastical, was such as Satan approved, and such as he sought to have established on the earth? And can anyone doubt that the homage thus rendered, so contrary to the law of God, and so much in derogation of his claims, was in fact homage rendered to this presiding spirit of evil? ¶ _And they worshipped the beast._ That is, they did it, as is immediately specified, by saying that he was _incomparable_ and _invincible_; in other words, that he was superior to all others, and that he was almighty. For the fulfilment of this, see Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4. ¶ _Who is like unto the beast?_ That is, he is to be regarded as unequalled and as supreme. This was, in fact, ascribing honours to him which belonged only to God; and this was the manner in which that civil and secular power was regarded in the period here supposed to be referred to. It was the policy of rulers and princes in those times to augment in every way possible the respect in which they were held; to maintain that they were the viceregents of heaven; to claim for themselves sacredness of character and of person; and to secure from the people a degree of reverence which was in fact idolatrous. Never was this more marked than in the times when the Papacy had the ascendency, for it was its policy to promote reverence for the power that sustained itself, and to secure for itself the idolatrous veneration of the people. ¶ _Who is able to make war with him?_ That is, he is invincible. They thus attributed to him omnipotence――an attribute belonging only to God. This found a fulfilment in the honour shown to the civil authority which sustained the Papacy; for the policy was to impress the public mind with the belief that that power was invincible. In fact, it was so regarded. Nothing was able to resist that absolute despotism; and the authority of princes and rulers that were allied with the Papal rule was of the most absolute kind, and the subjugation of the world was complete. There was no civil, as there was no religious liberty; and the whole arrangement was so ordered as to subdue the world to an absolute and uncontrollable power.

5 And there was given unto him a[404] mouth speaking great things and blasphemies: and power was given unto him to [405]continue [406]forty _and_two months.

5. _And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things._ John does not say _by whom_ this was given; but we may suppose that it was by the “dragon,” who is said (ver. 2) to have given him his power, and seat, and authority. The fulfilment of this is found in the claims set up by the princes and rulers here referred to――that mighty secular power that sustained the Papacy, and that was, in some sort, a part of the Papacy itself. These arrogant claims consisted in the assertion of a divine right; in the power assumed over the liberty, the property, and the consciences of the people; in the arbitrary commands that were issued; and in the right asserted of giving absolute law. The language here used is the same as that which is found in Daniel (vii. 8) when speaking of the “little horn:” “In this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” For an illustration of the meaning of this, see Notes on that passage. Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 25. ¶ _And blasphemies._ That is, the whole power represented by the “beast” will be blasphemous. See Notes on ver. 1. Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 25. ¶ _And power was given unto him to continue forty and two months._ Three years and a half, reckoned as months; or twelve hundred and sixty days, reckoning thirty days for a month; or twelve hundred and sixty years, regarding the days as prophetic days. For the evidence that this is to be so regarded, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. This is the same period that we meet with in chap. xi. 2, and in chap. xii. 6. See Notes on those places. This fact proves that the same power is referred to in these places and in Daniel; and this fact may be regarded as a confirmation of the views here taken, that the power here referred to is designed to have a connection in some form with the Papacy. The duration of the existence of this power is the same as that which is everywhere ascribed to the Papacy, in the passages which refer to it; and {324} all the circumstances, as before remarked, show that the same _general_ power is referred to by the two “beasts” which are described in this chapter. If so, the continuance or duration may be supposed to be the same; and this is indicated in the passage before us, where it is said that it would be twelve hundred and sixty years. In regard to the application of this to the Papal power, and the manner in which the calculation is to be made of the duration of that power, see the Notes on Da. vii. 25, and the remarks at the end of that chapter. The meaning in the passage before us I take to be, that the Papal power, considered as a civil or secular institution, will have, from the time when that properly commenced, a duration of twelve hundred and sixty years. In the Scriptures there is nothing more definite in regard to any future event than this.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and [407]his tabernacle, and [408]them that dwell in heaven.

6. _And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name._ By his own arrogant claims; by his assumed authority in matters of conscience; by setting aside the divine authority; and by impious declarations in derogation of the divine claims. See Notes on ver. 1. ¶ _And his tabernacle._ Literally, his “_tent_”――σκηνὴν. This is the word which is commonly applied to the sacred tent or tabernacle among the Hebrews, in which the ark was kept, and which was the seat of the Jewish worship before the building of the temple. It is thus used to denote a place of worship, considered as the dwelling-place of God, and is in this sense applied to heaven, He. viii. 2; ix. 11; Re. xv. 5. It seems to be used here in a general sense to denote the place where God was worshipped; and the meaning is, that there would be a course of conduct in regard to the true church――the dwelling-place of God on the earth――which could properly be regarded as blasphemy. Let anyone remember the anathemas and excommunications uttered against the Waldenses and Albigenses, and those of kindred spirit that appeared in the long period of the Papal rule, and he will find no difficulty in perceiving a complete fulfilment of all that is here said. ¶ _And them that dwell in heaven._ The true worshippers; the members of the true church, represented as dwelling in this holy tabernacle. No one acquainted with the reproaches cast on the devoted and sincere followers of the Saviour during the dark periods of the Papal rule can fail to see that there was in that a complete fulfilment of all that is here predicted.

7 And it was given unto him [409]to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and [410]power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

7. _And it was given unto him._ By the same power that taught him to blaspheme God and his church. Notes on ver. 2, 5. ¶ _To make war with the saints._ See this fully illustrated in the Notes on the parallel passage in Da. vii. 21, and at the end of that chapter, (f). ¶ _And to overcome them._ In those wars. This was abundantly fulfilled in the wars with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the other sincere followers of the Saviour in the time of the Papal persecutions. The language here used is the same as that which is found in Da. vii. 21: “The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” See Notes on that passage. ¶ _And power was given him._ See Notes on ver. 2. ¶ _Over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations._ For the meaning of these words see Notes on ch. vii. 9. The meaning here is, that this dominion was set up over the world. Comp. Da. vii. 25. The fact that so large a portion of the kingdoms of the earth was under the influence of the Papacy, and sustained it, and the claim which it set up to universal dominion, and to the right of deposing kings and giving away kingdoms, corresponds entirely with the language here used.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in [411]the book of life of the Lamb slain [412]from the foundation of the world.

8. _And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him._ That is, as immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On the word _worship_, see Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _Whose {325} names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb._ That is, of the Lord Jesus――the Lamb of God. See Notes on Phi. iv. 3. Comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain everlasting life. ¶ _Slain from the foundation of the world._ See Notes on ch. v. 6. Comp. Notes on ch. iii. 5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so _certain_ that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. See Ro. iv. 17. The purpose was so certain, it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was “slain from the foundation of the world.” Professor Stuart, however (_Com._ _in loco_), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence, “whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain. ” Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

9. _If any man have an ear, let him hear._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. The idea here is, that what was here said respecting the “beast” was worthy of special attention, as it pertained to most important events in the history of the church.

10 He[413] that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: [414]he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the [415]patience and the faith of the saints.

10. _He that leadeth into captivity._ This is clearly intended to refer to the power or government which is denoted by the beast. The form of expression here in the Greek is peculiar――“If any one leadeth into captivity,” &c.――Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει. The statement is _general_, and is intended to make use of a general or prevalent truth with reference to this particular case. The general truth is, that men will, in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest――or that they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others. This general statement accords with what the Saviour says in Mat. xxvi. 52: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” This has been abundantly illustrated in the world; and it is a very important admonition to nations not to indulge in the purposes of conquest and to individuals not to engage in strife and litigation. The particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power here referred to that it would “lead others into captivity.” This would be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty. It is unnecessary to say that this is strikingly descriptive of Rome, considered in any and every point of view, whether under the republic or the empire, whether secular or ecclesiastical, whether Pagan or Papal. In the following forms there has been a complete fulfilment under that mighty power of what is here said: (a) In the desire of conquest or of extending its dominion, and, of course, leading others captive as prisoners of war or subjecting them to slavery. (b) In its persecutions of true Christians, alike pursued under the Pagan and the Papal form of the administration. (c) Especially in the imprisonments practised under the Inquisition, where tens of thousands have been reduced to the worst kind of captivity. In every way this description is applicable to Rome, as seeking to lead the world _captive_ or to subject it to its own absolute sway. ¶ _Shall go into captivity._ As a just recompense for subjecting others to bondage, and as an illustration of a general principle of the divine administration. This is yet, in a great measure, to be fulfilled; and, as I understand it, it discloses the manner in which the Papal secular power will come to an end. It will be by being subdued, so that it might _seem_ to be made captive and led off by some victorious host. Rome now is practically held in subjection by foreign arms, {326} and has no true independence; perhaps this will be more and more so as its ultimate fall approaches. ¶ _He that killeth with the sword._ See Notes, as above, on Mat. xxvi. 52. There can be no doubt that this is applicable to Rome in all the forms of its administration considered as a Pagan power; or considered as a nominally Christian power, either with reference to its secular or its spiritual dominion. Compute the numbers of human beings that have been put to death by that Roman power, and no better language could have been chosen to characterize it than that which is here used――“killed with the sword.” Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28, II. (3), (g). ¶ _Must be killed with the sword._ This domination must be brought to an end by war and slaughter. Nothing is more probable than this in itself; nothing could be more in accordance with the principles of the divine dealings in the world. Such a power as that of Rome will not be likely to be overcome but by the force of arms; and the probability is that it will ultimately be overthrown in a bloody revolution, or by foreign conquest. Indeed, there are not a few intimations now that this result is hastening on. Italy is becoming impatient of the secular power swayed in connection with the Papacy, and sighs for freedom; and it is every way probable that that land would have been free, and that the secular power of the Papacy, if not every form of the Papacy itself, would have come to an end in the late convulsion (1848), if it had not been for the intervention of France and Austria. The period designated by prophecy for the final overthrow of that power had not arrived; but nothing can secure its continuance for any very considerable period longer. ¶ _Here is the patience and the faith of the saints._ That is, the trial of their patience and of their faith. Nowhere on earth have the patience and the faith of the saints been put to a severer test than under the Roman persecutions. The same idea occurs in ch. xiv. 12.

11 And I beheld [416]another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

11. _And I beheld another beast._ Comp. Notes on ver. 1. This was so distinct from the first that its characteristics could be described, though, as shown in the Analysis of the Chapter, there was in many points a strong resemblance between them. The relations between the two will be more fully indicated in the Notes. ¶ _Coming up out of the earth._ Professor Stuart renders this, “ascending from the land.” The former was represented as rising up out of the sea (ver. 1); indicating that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of affairs――like the ocean. This, from that which was more settled and stable――as the land is more firm than the waters. It may not be necessary to carry out this image; but the _natural_ idea, as applied to the two forms of the Roman power supposed to be here referred to, would be that the former――the secular power that sustained the Papacy――rose out of the agitated state of the nations in the invasions of the northern hordes, and the convulsions and revolutions of the falling empire of Rome; and that the latter, the spiritual power itself――represented by the beast coming up from the land――grew up under the more settled and stable order of things. It was comparatively calm in its origin, and had less the appearance of a frightful monster rising up from the agitated ocean. Comp. Notes on ver. 1. ¶ _And he had two horns like a lamb._ In some respects he resembled a lamb; that is, he seemed to be a mild, gentle, inoffensive animal. It is hardly necessary to say that this is a most striking representation of the actual manner in which the power of the Papacy has always been put forth――putting on the apparent gentleness of the lamb; or laying claim to great meekness and humility, even when deposing kings, and giving away crowns, and driving thousands to the stake, or throwing them into the dungeons of the Inquisition. ¶ _And he spake as a dragon._ See Notes on ch. xii. 3. The meaning here is, that he spoke in a harsh, haughty, proud, arrogant tone――as we should suppose a dragon would if he had the power of utterance. The general sense is, that while this “beast” had, in one respect――in its resemblance to a lamb――the appearance of great gentleness, meekness, and kindness, it had, in another respect, a haughty, imperious, and arrogant spirit. How appropriate this is, as a symbol, to represent the Papacy, considered as a spiritual power, it is unnecessary to say. It will be admitted, whatever may be thought {327} of the design of this symbol, that if it was in fact _intended_ to refer to the Papacy, a more appropriate one could not have been chosen.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, [417]whose deadly wound was healed.

12. _And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him._ The same amount of power; the same kind of power. This shows a remarkable _relationship_ between these two beasts; and proves that it was intended to refer to the same power substantially, though manifested in a different form. In the fulfilment of this, we should naturally look for some government whose authority extended far, and which was absolute and arrogant in its character, for this is the power attributed to the first beast. See Notes on ver. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8. This description had a remarkable fulfilment in the Papacy, considered as a spiritual dominion. The relation to the secular power is the same as would be indicated by these two beasts; the dominion was as wide-spread; the authority was as absolute and arrogant. In fact, on these points they have been identical. The one has sustained the other; either one would long since have fallen if it had not been upheld by the other. The Papacy, considered as a spiritual domination, was in fact a new power starting up in the same place as the old Roman dominion, to give life to that as it was tending to decay, and to continue its ascendency over the world. These two things, the secular and the spiritual power, constituting _the Papacy_ in the proper sense of the term, are in fact but the continuance or the prolongation of the old Roman dominion――the fourth kingdom of Daniel――united so as to constitute in reality but one kingdom, and yet so distinct in their origin, and in their manifestations, as to be capable of separate contemplation and description, and thus properly represented by the two “beasts” that were shown in vision to John. ¶ _And causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast._ That is, to respect, to reverence, to honour. The word _worship_ here refers to _civil_ respect, and not to _religious_ adoration. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning here, according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter, is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a spiritual power――represented by the second beast――secured for the civil or secular power――represented by the first beast――the homage of the world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it its ascendency among the nations of the earth. The _truth_ of this, as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since the irruption of the northern barbarians, and the changes which their invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the form of the Papacy――represented in Daniel (ch. vii. 8) by the “little horn.” That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its authority. ¶ _Whose deadly wound was healed._ See Notes on ver. 3. That is, was healed by the influence of this new power represented by the second beast. A state of things occurred, on the rise of that new power, _as if_ a wound in the head, otherwise fatal, was healed. The striking applicability of this to the decaying Roman power――smitten as with a deadly wound by the blows inflicted by the northern hordes, and by internal dissensions――will occur to every one. It was as if a healing process had been imparted by some life-giving power, and, as a consequence, the Roman dominion――the prolongation of Daniel’s fourth kingdom――has continued to the present time. Other kingdoms passed away――the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian; Rome alone, of all the ancient empires, has prolonged its power over men. In all changes elsewhere, an influence has gone forth from the seven-hilled city as wide and as fearful as it was in the brightest days of the republic, the triumvirate, or the empire, and a large part of the world still listens reverently to the mandates which issue from the seat which so long gave law to mankind. The fact that it _is_ so is to be traced solely to the influence of that power represented here by the second beast that appeared in vision to John――the Papacy.

13 And he doeth [418]great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

{328} 13. _And he doeth great wonders._ _Signs_――σημεῖα――the word commonly employed to denote _miracles_ (comp. Notes on Ac. ii. 19); and the representation here is, that the power referred to by the second beast would found its claim on pretended miracles, and would accomplish an effect on the world _as if_ it actually did work miracles. The applicability of this to Papal Rome no one can doubt. See Notes on 2 Th. ii. 9. Comp. ver. 14. ¶ _That he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men._ That is, he pretends this; he accomplishes an effect _as if_ he did it. It is not necessary to suppose that he actually did this, any more than it is to suppose that he actually performed the other pretended miracles referred to in other places. John describes him as he saw him in the vision; and he saw him laying claim to this power, and actually producing an effect _as if_ by a miracle he actually made fire to descend from heaven upon the earth. This is to be understood as included in what the apostle Paul (2 Th. ii. 9) calls “signs and lying wonders,” as among the things by which the “man of sin and the son of perdition” would be characterized, and by which he would be sustained. See Notes on that passage. Why this particular pretended miracle is specified here is not certain. It may be because this would be among the most striking and impressive of the pretended miracles wrought――as if lying beyond all human power――as Elijah made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice (1 Ki.