“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 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, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live” (Revelation 13:11-14).

That the visions of the two-horned beast and the image of the beast have been specially difficult ones for the earlier expositors who lived during the first half of the Nineteenth Century to understand, may be seen from the words of Mr. Elliott, one of the most noted of them:

“From the difficulties and ill success of commentators in the explanation of the image of the beast here spoken of, it has been designated by Vitringa (and the statement has been repeated by other expositors) as the cross of interpreters, and certainly the unsatisfactoriness of all previous solutions that I have seen of the beast’s image seems to me very obvious.”

It will be our purpose before attempting to discover the fulfillment of this vision in history — if indeed it has had a fulfillment — to consider the meaning of the symbols. Concerning the Scriptural use of a beast as a symbol there should not be any difference of opinion. A beast symbolizes an empire, a kingdom, or a worldly government. “We might here remark [says Mr. Russell] that nothing in this word ‘beast’ [of itself] is specially derogatory or invidious, neither in our use of the word, nor in the Scriptural use. Throughout the. Scriptures, in the symbolisms of Daniel and the Apocalypse, beasts are freely used as symbols for nations, governments, earthly powers, though never used as representing the Divine power — the true Church, the true Kingdom, which shall ultimately prevail.” We might add that for centuries governments have been represented by the symbol of a beast, for instance, the British government is represented by the lion and the unicorn, and the Russian government by the bear. In the Scriptures the nature and character of the government is determined by the beast’s actions and, when represented as speaking, by its words.

It is very important to bear in mind, as definitely stated in the vision, that this is “another beast.” This, it would seem, cannot be consistently interpreted to mean anything else than that it is to be considered as entirely distinct and separate from the power or government represented by the ten-horned beast which preceded it, and which we have interpreted to be, as is quite generally understood, the divided Western Roman Empire, united under one ecclesiastical “head,” the Papacy. In making application, therefore, of the vision in history, we will need to look for a government separate and distinct from the government represented by the first beast, considered in the previous chapter.

Another feature connected with the application of this vision in history is that it follows in point of time the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms, the rise of the Papacy, and the Papacy’s becoming a recognized ruling head in religious matters over these kingdoms. We shall, therefore, look for it some time after this state of affairs has developed in history. Another thing to be observed in an effort to identify it in history is that after its rise, it continues contemporary with the ten- horned kingdom and the Papacy. This is seen in the statement that it exercises in his sight all or, as is probably meant, similar power to the ten-horned kingdom under its Papal head. A further very important feature to be noted in an endeavor to locate it in history is that this two-horned beast, unlike the ten-horned beast, which emerged from the sea, comes up from the earth. The origin of the ten-horned beast and the Papal head, it will be recalled, was in connection with the disturbances amongst the “sea” class — disturbances which were caused by the invasions of the barbaric hordes of the north, and their establishing kingdoms in the territory of the Western Roman Empire. The two- horned beast, on the other hand, rises out of settled governmental conditions; that is, without disturbances among the people incidental to warring invasions. One has said as denoting the symbolic significance of this feature: “The former beast was represented as rising up out of the sea, indicating that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of affairs — like the ocean. This second beast [emerges] from that which was more settled and stable — as the land is more firm than the waters.”

A feature descriptive of both beasts is that they are represented as having “horns”; the distinguishing feature being that the first beast, the one from the sea, has ten, and this one from the earth has but two. As the ten horns of the first beast are divinely interpreted to represent ten kingdoms or governments (Daniel 7:24), so to interpret in harmony with this, the two horns should represent two governments. Furthermore, as the ten governments were united under a religious head, likewise we should look for two governments in a similar way united.

Similarities to Ten-Horned Beast

The horns on the second beast are stated to be like those of a lamb. A lamb uses its horns for defense only, and this would cause us to look for a government that used its religious authority only for defense. Other expressions in the vision denote that the important feature is the religious characteristic of the power represented. There is a marked difference between the use made of the ten horns by Papacy and the use made of the two horns by the ruling authority of this second beast. We learn in Revelation 17, that the ten kingdoms symbolized by the horns gave their power and strength to the beast under the decrees of Papacy. Their power and strength was given not simply for defense, but rather to propagate, increase and spread its religion by force over the whole world.

It is further said of the two-horned beast government that it exercised all the authority of the ten-horned beast in his presence. This would not necessarily mean similar authority in extent; nor, as some have interpreted it, to have all the power of the first beast government delegated to it. It would seem rather to mean that it exercised a singular authority in its particular sphere or territory; that is, authority or power in both civil and religious matters. The expression, “in his presence” (Diaglott), as we have already explained, would seem to mean that it would (after its rise) exercise this power contemporary with the first beast government.

A very significant feature of this two-horned beast government is its manner of speaking — “he spake like a dragon.” We have interpreted the dragon to represent the imperial, despotic government of the Pagan Roman Empire, and also the paganized Christian government ruled from Constantinople, which succeeded the Pagan. To speak like a dragon would be to exercise authority in issuing decrees in a harsh, proud, arrogant manner, as was the general character of those emperors who ruled the Roman Empire before its division.

The fact that it does great signs, even to causing fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men, by the which it deceives those that dwell on the earth, teaches that in this way the government symbolized by the two-horned beast would claim powers that belong alone to the Almighty, and seek to prove that it enjoys the cooperation and sanction of the Almighty.

Another feature descriptive of it is that it would in some way, not mentioned, cause the earth and those who dwell therein, to worship or reverence the first beast — particularly stated to be the one who received the deadly wound and was healed. And finally, and seemingly the most important feature of all, is that it would be an agency in causing an image or likeness of the first beast government to be made.

Views of Eminent Expositors

Recognizing what seems to be a Divine law in the interpretation and application of these visions — that of a progressive understanding of their fulfillment as history unveils their meaning — we most naturally and properly inquire, what has been the interpretation of this vision by expositors in general? We answer, There has not been that unanimity in the interpretation of this vision that has prevailed in the interpretation and application of the vision of the ten-horned wild beast. We give, in brief, the interpretations of some of the most noted expositors.

Mr. Elliott interpreted this two-horned beast to be “the Papal Clergy, united under the Pope in his ecclesiastical character as the Western Patriarch; and acting so as to support him in his usurped and far loftier character of Christ’s vicar on earth, or Antichrist.” Its two horns were interpreted by him to be its secular and religious powers. This same expositor understood the “image of the beast” to represent “the Papal General Councils of Western Europe.”

Mr. Barnes, in his Notes and Comments, interprets the two-horned beast to represent the Papacy itself in its exercise of ecclesiastical and civil power. The image of the beast, he interpreted to represent the Holy Roman Empire established under Charlemagne in 800 AD. Mr. Lord says that “all the characteristics of the two-horned wild beast are found conspicuously in the hierarchy of the Italian Catholic Church within the Papal dominions.” He interprets its two horns to be the spiritual and temporal power, and not two kingdoms. The image of the beast he understood to have been fulfilled in the Gothic rulers (ten kingdoms) forming a union of their several national churches into a single hierarchy, under Papacy’s prompting, and subjecting it to the Pope as its supreme legislator and judicial head, after the model of the ancient civil empire under Constantine and his successors.

In his Dissertations on the Prophecies, Thomas Newton says: “The beast with two horns like a lamb, is the Roman hierarchy, or body of the clergy regular and secular.” He further says, “This beast is otherwise called the ‘false prophet,’ as we shall see in several instances [Revelation 16:13, 19:20]; than which there cannot be a stronger or plainer argument to prove that false doctors or teachers, were particularly designed. For the false prophet, no more than the beast, is a single man, but a body or succession of men, propagating false doctrines, and teaching lies for sacred truths.” The image of the beast is thus commented upon by this writer: “What appears most probable is, that this ‘image’ and representative of the ‘beast’ is the Pope. He is probably the idol of the Church. He is nothing more than a private person, without power and without authority, till the two-horned beast or the corrupted clergy, by choosing him pope, give life unto him and enable him to speak and utter his decrees, and to persecute even to death, as many as refuse to submit to him and to worship him.”

Stephen N. Haskel, a Seventh Day Adventist, in The Story of the Seer of Patmos, published in 1905, thus writes about this matter: “The beast which came up out of the earth in the sight of the Prophet [St. John], symbolizes the United States; and the two horns represent the two foundation principles of the government, Protestantism and Republicanism. The life of Protestantism is gone, the life of Democracy is lost. The professed Protestant nation is imitating the Papal power of Rome, thus forming the image to the beast. As time progresses, it will be seen that the image will receive, more and more, the life of the beast. America is the home of Protestantism, but her churches today are Protestant only in name.

… Two things characterize the Remnant [true Church] people during the formation of the image of the beast. According to Revelation 12:17, they keep the commandments of God and have the spirit of prophecy.”

Mrs. E. G. White, another Seventh Day Adventist expositor, in The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, a work published in 1888, has thus commented on this vision: “The prophecy of Revelation 13 declares that the power represented by the beast with lamb-like horns, shall cause ‘the earth and them that dwell therein’ to worship the Papacy — there symbolized by the beast ‘like unto a leopard.’ The beast with two horns is also to say ‘to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast’; and, furthermore, it is to command all, ‘both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond’ to receive ‘the mark of the beast.’ It has been shown that the United States is the power represented by the beast with lamb-like horns, and that this prophecy will be fulfilled when the United States shall enforce Sunday observance, which Rome claims as the special acknowledgment of her supremacy.”

It will be noted that all these expositors, except Adventist, apply this vision of the two-horned beast, to the Papacy — the Roman Catholic Church or hierarchy in some one or other of its forms or aspects. We cannot concur in these interpretations, as it would seem hardly proper to apply the vision in any sense to Papacy in its association with the ten kingdoms of Western Europe, for the simple reason that it is definitely stated to be another, a second beast.

Another strong objection to thus applying the vision is that the Scriptures interpret horns to represent kingdoms or governments. In Daniel 7:24, the ten horns are explained by the revealing angel to represent ten kings or kingdoms. In Daniel 8:20 the two horns seen on the ram are explained to be two kings or kingdoms — the kingdoms of Media and Persia; and the “notable horn” that is seen on the goat is explained to be the king of Grecia, understood quite generally to be Alexander the Great and his sons, the latter reigning for a brief time after his death. This being the very general symbolic significance of horns in Scripture, we cannot, therefore, properly apply this two-horned beast to the United States, because the United States is not made up of two governments. Neither would it seem proper to interpret the two-horned beast as representing a combination of civil and religious authority vested in a single government, or even a succession of governments. For these, and other reasons, which will be referred to later, we will need to look further for a kingdom or government meeting these Scriptural requirements.

It will be noted that the symbols require a government, similar in certain respects to Papacy; that is, a succession of rulers like Papacy, supported by two governments instead of ten, as in the case of Papacy. We are limited it would seem in our search for a government meeting these characteristics to the territory of the ancient Western Roman Empire, where the Papal ecclesiastical head and its ten horns are located. Surely the United States does not in any sense or degree meet this requirement. It is stated in the vision that the two-horned beast causes an image to be made like the first beast that received a deadly wound. If we are correct in our understanding that the beast which received the deadly wound was that form or aspect of the beast under its Papal head, and that this wound began to be inflicted in the Sixteenth Century Reformation, then it seems plain that we should look for the government that would fulfill this vision of the two-horned beast since Papacy received the deadly wound.

As we scan the pages of history, we find that at the beginning of the Sixteenth Century Reformation, all the governments of Western Europe were united under the Papacy as their ecclesiastical head. This combination describes the first beast of this chapter, referred to in the first ten verses. Papacy at this time, as well as for some time prior to this, was vested with full ecclesiastical power, and with authority to set up or depose the kings of these governments. The Reformation, which began in 1517, brought about a great change.

The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

About the year 1534 an event occurred in connection with one of the ten kingdoms that up to the present time has filled nearly all the requirements of the two-horned beast, and from present indications it would seem will fulfill the others; and no other government has come to view since, that has done this. The particular occurrence to which we refer is that of England’s separation from the Papal head, and the events in connection therewith. Let us carefully note the historian’s account of these transactions:

“The Pope issued a decree excommunicating Henry [VIII] and relieving his subjects from their allegiance. Henry on his part called Parliament, and a celebrated bill known as the Act of Supremacy was passed (1534). This statute made Henry the Supreme Head of the Church in England, vesting in him absolute control over all its offices, and turning into his hands the revenues which had hitherto flowed into the coffers of the Roman See. Henry now set up in England a little Popedom of his own. He drew up a sort of creed which everybody must believe.1 Thus was the English Church cared for by its self-appointed shepherd. What it should be called under Henry it would be hard to say. It was not Protestant; and it was just as far from being Catholic [except that it reverenced the Roman Catholic doctrines]” (Myers’ History).

We quote another historian:

“Henry VIII was declared by the Parliament and the people supreme head on earth of the Church of England. Besides, he considered the title of head of the English Church as if it transferred to him the enormous power which had been claimed, and indeed usurped, by the Roman Pontiff, and in consequence of this interpretation of his title he looked upon himself as master of the religious sentiments of his subjects, and as authorized to prescribe modes of faith, according to his fancy. … When Henry VIII was declared supreme head upon earth of the Church of England, George Brown, a native of England, and a monk of the Augustine order, whom that monarch had created in the year 1535 archbishop of Dublin (Ireland) caused the king’s supremacy to be acknowledged in that nation (Ireland)” (Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History).

Concerning the two horns of the beast, Mr. Russell with good reason states: “It is one ecclesiastical system; and the two horns show that it is supported, and its authority recognized by two kingdoms. Remember that [for a church] to be simply aided, or supported by the empire does not make a symbolic ‘beast’; no, a beast is a government, and to become a symbolic beast [in the way described], a church must needs become an element in, or part of the government. This was not the case in those mentioned [the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, the Dutch Reformed Church, nor the Lutheran, in those countries in which those Churches were established]. No. there is but one church which this symbol fits perfectly, viz.: The established ‘Church of England and Ireland.’ This system, like the Papal, was a blending of church and state, an ecclesiastical empire… . Now let us see about the two horns: England of course was one of them, and … Ireland was the other. … History says that in 1537 the Irish Parliament in Dublin ‘passed the Act of Supremacy, declaring Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church, prohibiting intercourse with the court of Rome, and making it treason to refuse the oath of supremacy.’ Henry VIII also took the title of King of Ireland. Thus we see that the second horn came up within the brief space of [about] five years after the first. The fact that Ireland was not a powerful horn matters not, for it was stronger than some that supported the Papal beast.”

(1) This creed embodied most of the false doctrines of Papacy. It was not until after the time of Henry VIII that the Reformation Movement began to affect the Church in England.

History substantiates the words of this author, as we read: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is, since the union of Ireland, the full official designation of the country more generally known as Great Britain, or the United Kingdom” (International Encyclopedia).

“The ‘two horns like a lamb,’ would seem to indicate that this beast would be peaceably inclined — not inclined to be aggressive, but merely using the horns for defense.” This has been a particular characteristic of this politico-religious government during most of its reign, in which particular it has differed from Papacy. It is true that the two-horned beast in the Sixteenth Century, like Papacy, used force to cause its own subjects to submit to its authority in religious matters (which is portrayed in the vision), but it did not attempt to extend its conquests in these matters outside of its own dominion.¹ Papacy, however, sought by force of arms to extend its religious authority over the whole world. In the last two centuries England has become very lamb-like and liberal to its subjects in matters pertaining to religion. “The Reformation Movement had not reached England at this time, and certainly it was much needed. The Clerical Convocation which could acknowledge such a head was not far from being as corrupt as Papacy.”

The requirement of the symbol which describes the two-horned beast as coming up from the earth, in contradistinction from that of the ten-horned beast emerging from the sea, is fully met. The union of Great Britain and Ireland, as to both the civil and the ecclesiastical power or authority under Henry VIII, was introduced without any disturbances or troubles amongst the people from inva- sions by outside people, as was the case in the rise of the ten-horned beast and the subserviency of the ten kingdoms to the Papacy.

(1) Its dominion, however, both civil and ecclesiastical, has since reached all parts of the world.

“And he Spake as a Dragon”

The meaning of this statement as given by Mr. Barnes is that “he spake in a harsh, haughty, proud, arrogant tone — as we should suppose a dragon would if he had the power of utterance.” Thomas Newton explains this: “He had a voice of terror, like the dragon or Roman emperors, in commanding (spiritual) idolatry, and in persecuting and slaying the true worshipers of God and faithful servants of Jesus Christ.” These expositors, as we have seen, apply these words to Papacy. We must remember, however, that this second “beast” is said to exercise a similar, though not so extensive a power as Papacy. In other words, in this second beast we are to look for a government which, like Papacy, would usurp God’s power, and exercise for a time at least, arrogant, persecuting domination in both civil and religious matters. And these characteristics perfectly describe Henry VIII as also some of his immediate successors in the Sixteenth Century.

Some have classed Henry VIII as a reformer. History, however, shows that he was in no sense a reformer. Indeed he was a great foe of the Protestant reformers. D’Aubigne, the great historian, said in this connection:

“The moment when Henry aimed his first blows at Rome was also that in which he began to shed the blood of the disciples of Christ. Although ready to throw off the authority of the Pope, he would not recognize the authority of Christ: Obedience to the Scriptures is, however, the very soul of the Reformation.

“The king’s contest with Rome had filled the friends of the Scriptures with hope. ‘The king is one of us,’ they used to boast; ‘he wishes his subjects to read the New Testament.’ … Language such as this aroused the clergy ‘If we would not have Luther’s heresy pervade the whole of England, we must hasten to throw it (Tyndale’s Translation of the New Testament) in the sea.’ The bishops led the attack. ‘We must clear the Lord’s field of the thorns which choke it,’ said the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Convocation on the 29th of November 1529; immediately after which the bishop of Bath read to his colleagues the list of books that he desired to have condemned. There were a number of works by Tyndale, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Ecolampadius, Pomeranus, Brentius, Bucer, Jonas, Francis Lambert, Fryth, and Fisk. The Bible in particular was set down. ‘It is impossible to translate the Scripture into English,’ said one of the prelates. ‘It is not lawful for the laity to read the Bible,’ said another, ‘you will make us all heretics.’ ‘By circulating the Scriptures,’ exclaimed several, ‘you will raise up the nation against the king.’ Sir Thomas More laid the bishops’ petition before the king, and some time after, Henry gave orders by proclamation that ‘no one should preach, or write any book, or keep any school, without his bishop’s license; that no one should keep any heretical book in his house; that the bishops should detain the offenders in prison at their discretion, and then proceed to the execution of the guilty; and, finally, that the chancellor, the justices of the peace, and other magistrates, should aid and assist the bishops.’ Such was the cruel proclamation of Henry VIII, the father (?) of the English Reformation.”

The historian then recited the martyrdom of many of the noble Reformers, and summing up he says: “Thus died in the Sixteenth Century, the disciples of the Reformation sacrificed by Henry VIII. Thus were the witnesses to the truth struck down by the priests, by Sir Thomas More, and by Henry VIII.”

Henry’s reign wrought very little change in the forms and doctrinal teachings of the Roman Church; and so we read further: “It is carefully to be observed here that this downfall of the Papal authority in England was not productive of much benefit, either to the friends or to the cause of the Reformation. For the same monarch, who had so resolutely withdrawn himself from the dominion of Rome, yet superstitiously retained the greatest part of its errors along with its impe- rious and persecuting spirit. He still adhered to several of the most monstrous doctrines of Popery, and frequently presented the terrors of death to those who differed from him in their religious sentiments” (Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History).

King of England Head of the Church

Edward, son of Henry VIII, succeeded him as supreme head of the Church of England and Ireland. During his reign many changes of this character were instituted. The historian in referring to this informs us: “These sweeping changes in the old creed and in the services of the Church would have worked little hardship or wrong had only everybody been left free to follow what religion he would. … By royal edict, however, all preachers and teachers were forced to sign the Forty-two Articles; and severe enactments, known as ‘Acts for the Uniformity of Service,’ punished with severe penalties any departure from the forms of the new prayerbook. … Many persons during the reign [of Edward] were imprisoned for refusing to conform to the new worship; while two at least were given to the flames as ‘heretics and contemners of the Book of Common Prayer’ ” (Myers’ History).

That the sovereigns of these latter times still possess the same title, the same historian bears testimony: “This title (Defender of the Faith) was retained by Henry after the secession of the Church of England from the Papal See, and is borne by his successors at this day, though they are ‘defenders’ of quite a different faith from that in the defense of which Henry first earned the title.”

“These matters,” says Mr. Russell, “are very imperfectly understood by people in general [today]. But are the same titles — ‘Supreme head of the church on earth,’ etc., still applied to the English sovereigns? Yes; and, furthermore, the crown worn shows the title, for it is surmounted by a cross. And the present ‘Great Seal of England,’ besides describing Victoria [who reigned when this was written] as the defender of the faith, illustrates it by a picture of the Queen, supported on either side by figures representing Justice and Religion, which sit at her feet. The Queen is shown as holding in her hand a globe (representing the earth), the upper half of which is light colored (representing Christianity), and thus surmounted by a cross which in symbol declares her to be the supporter or head of the Church universal. This is the same exactly as seen in the hands of the Popes in many pictures. It represents as a whole that this head of the Church on earth is the upholder, supporter, of the truth. Paul said: ‘Christ is the head of the Church,’ and that we are to ‘grow up into him in all things, which is the head even Christ.’ Again he repeats that ‘God gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body.’ (Ephesians 1:20-22, 4:15, 5:23, Colossians 1:18). It is the Church on earth that St. Paul is speaking of, hence any Pope, Queen, Council, Assembly, Conference, or any other man or company of men, who claim or exercise the powers of the true Head, Jesus, are opposing him.”

As bearing still further on the present condition of the national church government of England, and the interpretation of this vision, the same writer continues: “From 1538 to 1871 — 333 years — the title of the Church was, ‘The Church of England and Ireland,’ thus recognizing both ‘horns.’ On January 1, 1871 (by action of Parliament and the consent of the Queen, the head of the Church), the Irish Church was dis-established, or that horn cast off. So, too, all of the horns which once supported Papacy have broken off from her; the difference being that in Papacy’s case the horns have turned against her, and in the case of the second beast, it casts off the Irish horn of itself, believing it to be a weakness, rather than a strength.”

Makes the Earth and Those Who Dwell Therein to Worship the First Beast

The expression, “All the authority of the first beast [Papacy] he executes in his presence,” very fittingly applies to Henry VIII, and simply means that in his own territory, he executed a similar authority to that of Papacy; that is, an authority in both civil and religious matters, and that he did this in the presence or sight of the Papacy — while Papacy was ruling. It will be admitted that the expres- sion, “and makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship [to respect, to reverence, to honor] the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed,” seems difficult to interpret as applying to the influence Henry VIII exerted over the people toward the Papal system. The language at first seems to imply that the two-horned beast acts in sympathy and cooperation with the first beast, Papacy; and this is one of the chief utterances in the vision that causes commentators so generally to apply the vision to some phase or aspect of Papacy. It will be noted, however, that a similar expression is found in the vision of the first beast, where it is said that the people “worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast.” This does not mean that the people under Papacy worshipped, or reverenced, intentionally, knowingly, the imperial Roman government either in its Pagan or Christianized form, which the dragon represented, but rather, that they did so by supporting and submitting to the imperial government’s decree, respecting the paganized Christianity that the Papacy established.

Applying this to the words: “and makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship [to respect, to reverence, to honor] the first beast,” etc., the thought would seem to be that because of Henry VIII’s assumption and usurpation of the same Divine power as Papacy, not only did the two-horned beast fail to enlighten mankind concerning the erroneous and indeed blasphemous claims and usurpations of Papacy, and its influence over the people, but rather it served to encourage, to establish these claims, because it became apparent that Papacy’s power and influence was so much greater and wider that it caused the great masses of men to hold to that one, which, because of its longevity, seemed to be the one of Divine origin. Thus it has been truthfully set forth that:

“The Church of England claimed all the powers and authority which Papacy claimed. [Note Mosheim previously quoted.] It claimed to be the Church; it acknowledged and repudiated some of the corruptions complained of by the Reformers, such as the sale of indulgences, transubstantiation [this last not in Henry’s day], etc., and abandoned those as well as the name Roman, for which they substituted the word Holy, calling it the original ‘Holy Catholic [universal] Church.’ It claims the same governmental authority and the same veneration for its decrees as Papacy. And by establishing a similar system, devoid of some of the grosser Papal errors, it attracted attention of all to those errors, as being the only possible fault of Papacy. And when some of those errors were shortly after discarded by Papacy, the inference was that both beast systems were right. People of that day, as now, seemed to think those systems proper and right, if their powers, etc., were properly exercised; but from God’s standpoint the systems are abominations, and wrong from the very center. The systems are based upon errors, and, like a corrupt tree, ‘cannot bring forth good fruit.’

“The very basis of both those systems is their claim to be the ‘Kingdom of God’ in reigning power. That idea once admitted justifies their persecution of individuals and nations, forcing them to submit and bow in obedience. Scripture accords these powers to the ‘Kingdom of God’ — when ‘the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He is the governor among the nations; all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee.’ (Psalms 22:27,28). He shall ‘dash them in pieces as a potter’s vessel.’ (Psalms 2:9). Unto him every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess (Philippians 2:11). And if their claim be good, who can object to them for carrying out the Scriptural statements?

“These Antichrists [that is, rulers in Christ’s place], to make their claims of Kingdom power appear true, had simply to take another step in compelling obedi- ence, backing up their right to do so by the Scriptures just quoted. And not only was this great evil sanctioned, but their claim once admitted, that the Kingdom was established and the reign in progress, those who admitted it were hindered from looking for the true Head of the Church to set up the true Kingdom under the whole heavens, which shall break in pieces present imperfect governments— establish righteousness in the earth and cause every knee to bow and every tongue to confess, to the glory of God’ ” (C. T. Russell).

Thus by falling into and adopting the same errors as the Papacy, the two- horned beast causes its subjects to worship or honor the first beast.

It should be borne in mind, however, that if we are correct thus far in adopting this interpretation and application of this vision, there is much of it yet awaiting fulfillment. One of these features is that regarding the image of the beast. It is stated that this two-horned beast government is in some way to be used to make an “image” or likeness to the first beast; and that in some way it is to give life, or Divine authority, so-called, to this image. This seems to teach that under the leadership, or at least under the influence of this Church of England government, the Protestant sects or denominations will become united in a great federation; and this federation will be that which will constitute what in the vision is called the “image of the beast.” Other visions of the Revelation seem to teach that this great religious federation will in some way become united to the beast, Papacy, or at least that it will cooperate with Papacy as a necessary policy to uphold the present governmental order, which will then, because of world-wide revolutionary troubles and disturbances, be threatened with an overthrow. It is not difficult even now for prophetic students to see that in this way there will be created a very general respect or reverence for Papacy, because of its supposed, far-reaching authority over its own adherents, supporters; and because of the use that could be made of that authority in an attempt to hold back the rising tide of revolution and anarchy.

“He Doeth Great Wonders”

Another way by which the government symbolized by this two-horned wild beast may be identified is that it possesses a characteristic that has been peculiar to all the false religious systems or governments of the centuries of the past. This is described in the words: “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men” (verse 13).

This has always been a characteristic of the Papal Antichrist, and many, in fact all of its supporters have been deceived by these so-called miracles or signs. In the case of the two-horned beast, the symbol in the verse quoted that is designed to picture this is drawn from a literal fact of Old Testament history. The special instance referred to is recorded in 1 Kings 18:19-39, where a scene is described in which Elijah proved the Divine authority of his call as a prophet of Israel, in contradistinction to the Baal prophets who claimed miraculous powers from their god, Baal. Concerning which was the true God (Jehovah or Baal) was to be demonstrated by fire coming down from heaven in the sight of the people, and lighting the wood under the altar upon which a sacrifice had been placed as a burnt offering. The miracle was wrought in answer to Elijah’s prayer; but failed in the case of the prophets of Baal.

The thought evidently designed to be conveyed by this symbol is that the power symbolized by the two-horned beast would seek to prove its so-called Divine authority by signs or evidences. It is stated that this two-horned beast exercised the same authority as the first beast, Papacy. It is a well known fact that the performance of miracles was a characteristic claim of Papacy. The most preposterous, indeed, blasphemous claim of Papacy is that of authority to dele- gate to its priests the power to change the bread and wine of the Memorial Supper into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has been this, more than anything else that has blinded the people, and hindered their understanding God’s Plan of Salvation in Christ. In this connection, as applied to the Church of England, hear again the historian:

“The overthrow of Papal supremacy was indeed effected by Henry VIII; but that Monarch rather hindered than favored the reformation of doctrine [justification through faith in Christ as the sin-bearer]” (International Encyclopedia). “As regards the relations of the English people to the Catholic Church, all that had been done thus far (by Henry VIII) was to declare that the Pope had no jurisdiction in England. There was no thought of secession from the unity of the Catholic faith, and this fact Parliament in 1534 took pains to declare. Hitherto,though professing independence of the Church of Rome, Henry still maintained and enforced by bloody laws most of its doctrines” (Swinton, Outlines of the World’s History). “The doctrines of purgatory, of indulgences, of masses for the dead, of pilgrimages, of the adoration of images and relics, were (after his day) condemned; but the doctrines of transubstantiation and of confession to a priest were retained” (Myers’ History).

Concerning Henry’s persecution of those who refused to acknowledge him as the Supreme Head of the Church, and give assent to the doctrines of the same, the following is to the point:

“The royal reformer (?) persecuted alike Catholics and Protestants. Thus, on one occasion, three Catholics who denied that the king was the rightful Head of the Church, and three Protestants who disputed the doctrine of the real presence [of Christ] in the sacrament (a dogma which Henry had retained in his creed), were dragged on the same sled to the place of execution. The most illustrious of the king’s victims were the learned Sir Thomas More and the aged Bishop Fisher, both of whom were brought to the block because their consciences would not allow them to acknowledge that the king was rightfully the Supreme Head of the Church of England.”

“Transubstantiation is a word used by the scholastic writers of the Roman Catholic Church to designate the change which Roman Catholics believe to take place in the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine, in virtue of the consecration. Some Anglican [Church of England] divines who hold the real presence of the body and blood, would appear to content themselves [at the present time] with remaining silent as to the mode of the presence. Dr. Pusey [a celebrated English clergyman, and one of the chief promoters of the high-church movement in the Church of England, who died in 1882] goes so far as to say that the dispute between Anglicans and Romanists [concerning this doctrine] is ‘probably a dispute about words.’ According to the Catholic doctrine which has been explicitly defined as an article of faith (Council of Trent), ‘the whole substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine into his blood.’ …

“The Anglican Church [of today] is divided on this into two parties; with one, the symbolical view of the rite is predominant; the other party reprobate this view as ‘low’ and maintain an objective mystical presence” (International Encyclopedia).

Who among intelligent Bible students can fail to see the falsity of this so-called miracle! In this connection Mr. Russell further observes:

“This government, like Papacy’s, claimed heavenly power, and its denunciations were regarded as from heaven judgments or fire [the symbol employed in the vision] being called down upon offenders. ‘And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by the signs which it was given him to do in the presence of the (first) beast’ (verse 14). We make a distinction between the earth and those who dwell on it. As the earth symbolizes those obedient to and supporting the beast, so ‘those dwelling on the earth,’ we understand to mean independent Christians who do not support either of these systems.”

In summing up our conclusions we note that the requirements of all the symbols thus far cited in connection with this two-horned beast have met their fulfillment in the civil and ecclesiastical government of England. This may be seen by placing in contrast the doings, etc., of the first beast and its Papal head, with this second and its head:

The first beast (government) has ruled by a long line of popes from the city of Rome. The second lamb-like beast has ruled by its kings and queens from London, England.

The first beast had ten horns or governments which for long centuries supported it. The second beast had two horns or governments which for over three centuries supported it.

The first beast, at the present time, has lost the support of nearly all these ten governments. The second beast has likewise lost the support, religiously, of one of the governments that supported it.

The first beast in its ruling head for centuries exercised and still claims both civil and ecclesiastical powers over its subjects, thus arrogating to itself powers belonging only to God. The second beast in its ruling head, as represented in its kings and queens, has exercised and still claims both civil and ecclesiastical power over its subjects, thus arrogating to itself powers belonging only to God.

Through the enlightening influences since the Sixteenth Century Reforma- tion both the first and the second beasts have been led or compelled to yield reli- gious freedom to their subjects. Both of these powers are becoming more and more influential in political and religious matters as a result of the great troubles that have come to the earth through the World-war.

The second beast is seeking measures toward a union of all the Protestant religious systems, and making overtures to the Papacy for a union with it.

The Sovereignty of God

God Almighty! King of nations! earth Thy footstool, heaven Thy throne!
Thine the greatness, power, and glory, Thine the Kingdom, Lord, alone!
Life and death are in Thy keeping, and Thy will ordaineth all,
From the armies of Thy heavens to an unseen insect’s fall.

Reigning, guiding, all-commanding, ruling myriad worlds of light;
Now exalting, now abasing, none can stay Thy hand of might!
Working all things by Thy power, by the counsel of Thy will,
Thou art God! enough to know it, and to hear Thy word: “Be still!”

In Thy sovereignty rejoicing, we Thy children bow and praise,
For we know that kind and loving, just and true, are all Thy ways.
While Thy heart of sovereign mercy, and Thine arm of sovereign might,
For our great and strong salvation in Thy sovereign grace unite.