9. The Ten Diadems
“And upon his Horns ten Diadems.”
The Horns on the Dragon had no diadems upon them; because the nations of the abyss had not then issued forth to erect kingdoms upon the Roman Habitable. But in the chapter before us, the Dragon-Horns of the sea are exhibited with diadems upon them, indicating that they were not Republics; but States, whose chief magistrates were enthroned, and diademed, and who would figure in the unmeasured Court of the Gentiles (ch. xi. 2) as “the Crowned Heads of Europe.”
The diadems upon the ten horns is a symbolical rebuke of the foolish prediction of republican politicians and prophets, who deceive their worshipers with the conceit, that the kingdoms of Europe are to become republics after the type of the “MODEL REPUBLIC” of this western world! A horn with a diadem upon it is nowhere to be found, in sacred or profane heraldry, as the symbol of a republic. It always represents a kingly power, or dominion. The Gothic nations of the Abyss acquiesced in the military leaders who had led them to victory, and founded States upon the Roman territory, being recognized as kings, and decorated with diadems, by the Dragon-power. Hence they were kingdoms in their beginning; and will continue p. 176 kingdoms until the Ancient of Days shall come, and by their overthrow, transfer the many diadems of these horns of the sea to his own glorious and snowy head—Apoc. xix. 12; i. 14; xi. 15. The very reverse of these republican prophecies is the real truth of the matter. Instead of the kingdoms of the world becoming republics, all the republics of the world will become kingdoms. This will be a great blessing to mankind, who have proved themselves incompetent for self-government upon wise and righteous principles, under any form of rule they may devise. It is the divine purpose to bless mankind in Abraham and his seed. This is the great gospel prophecy of the word—Gal. iii. 8, 9: and when the nations rejoice in peace and security under their own vines and fig-trees, they will be interested in nobler themes than the crude, unprofitable and lying vanities of those who now deceive them. Their political interests will be supervised by kings, who will then reign “by the grace of God.” It will be theirs to command of their own sovereign will and pleasure; and for all nations simply to obey without question or dispute; for then, “judgment will be given to the Saints;” who will take the kingdom and the dominion under the whole heaven, and possess them for a thousand years and more—Dan. vii. 22, 27, 18; Apoc. xx. 4, 6. Then the universal world will be “ruled in righteousness,” and truly “blessed in Abraham and his seed.”
A few last words may be added in reference to the diadems, which I find collected by the industry of Mr. Elliott, from Gibbon, and other writers with whom the reader will never probably become acquainted. What follows, he says, he has borrowed from Lelewel’s great work on the coinage of the Middle Age. “It is well known,” says Elliott, “that the barbarian Gothic or German kings, after their first conquests, were almost all anxious to receive appointment from the Roman emperor as Masters-General or Patricians of the empire” of the Dragon; “the appointment being equivalent to that of Viceroy; and most useful above all in order to legitimize their government in the eyes of their Roman subjects, who in respect of number immensely exceeded the barbarian population that had conquered them. In the negotiations and treaties on which matter, it was usually stipulated by the Roman emperors, and agreed to by the barbaric kings, that the Diademed Bust and names of the emperors should be stamped upon the barbarian coinage (at least on their gold coins) not the Gothic princes’ own. Hence there was a semi-Roman state of the Gothic coinage. as Lelewel calls it, for a century more or less, from about A.D. 450 to 550; the Vandals of Africa forming however an exception apparently, and acting more or less independently in this respect. At length Clovis the Frank, at the opening of the sixth century, p. 177 had the plenary sovereignty of Gaul awarded to him by the Byzantine emperor, with the title of Consul and Augustus, and the Diadem of Pearls as its badge and token: a grant renewed in A. D. 532 to Clovis’ children, by Justinian, with full power over the coinage; and engagement that his purely Frank money should have the privilege of currency assured to it throughout the whole Roman empire. In the course of the sixth century, the example of Clovis was followed by others of the princes; the Lombards coming last about A.D. 600.
“On the whole, it appears that at the opening of the sixth century, not only did the several Gothic princes exercise in their respective dominions the prerogatives of supreme sovereignty, but also had begun to appropriate to themselves the Roman Diademic Badge of such sovereignty; and that at the close of the century their assumption of the diadem, in sign of it, had become universal.”
In connection with these remarks he gives an engraving illustrating the reservation of the diadem to the Dragon, which was not assumed by the horns in their beginning. I conceive that the apocalyptic reason of this is found in the Dragon symbol of ch. xii. In this all the Seven Heads are diademed or sovereign; but the horns not. The idea then is this, that the horns were not to be diademed in their own absolute right, until the Seventh head had passed away; when the Romano-Gothic Sea Monster would stand before the world with Seven undiademed Heads and Ten Diademed Horns.
The first coin of the engraving is Burgundian. On one face is the diademed bust of the Dragon-emperor, Anastasius, and on the other, Sigismund, king and consul. The second, is a coin of the Suevi, with the bust, diademed, of the emperor Honorius on one side; and on the other, Richiarius, king, This was issued by the Suevi twenty-seven years after the death of Honorius, and his name stamped upon it out of regard to Roman imperial authority. A third coin is Ostrogothic. It was issued during the reign of the Seventh Head, while Theodoric was king of Italy, and Justinian was emperor. On one face is the diademed bust of the Dragon-emperor; and on the other, a wreath with the monogram of the king in the centre. There is another Ostrogothic coin about the size of a quarter dollar, with the diademed bust of Justinian on the one side; and the name and office of the ruler, king Witiges, on the other.
I would remark here, that these two last-mentioned coins are evidence that the Ostrogothic kings of the Seventh Head, who reigned in Rome, did not consider the emperors of the Sixth Head as abolished from all influence in the affairs of Italy; but only “wounded as it were to death;” for here is evidence of the Sixth and Seventh Heads p. 178 of the Dragon uniting in the coinage of the realm, which only mutually recognized governments and dynasties are free to do. Gibbon, writing of the first two kings of the Seventh Head, Odoacer and Theodoric, says of the former, that “he abstained, during his whole reign from the use of the purple and diadem;” and of the latter, he says, that “from a tender regard to the expiring prejudices of Rome, he declined the name, purple, and diadem of the emperors;” though “he assumed the whole substance and plenitude of imperial prerogative.” This was the simple difference between the Imperial Sixth, and the Regal Seventh, heads of the Dragon and the Beast. Had Odoacer and Theodoric assumed “the name, purple and diadem of the emperors” when they reigned in Rome sovereigns of Italy, their government would have been a mere continuation of the Sixth Head. The substance and plenitude of sovereign prerogative remained, only the form of its constitutional administration was changed. This change in the form of the supreme power, with its exclusion from Africa, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Majorca, and Minorca, then possessed by the Vandalic Horn, established a marked dissimilarity between the Sixth and Seventh Heads.
The fifth coin of the engraving I regard as a very remarkable one. It is a coin of the Vandals, about the size of an English shilling. Upon one side is the front figure of a man, standing upon an altar. From each shoulder projects a wing with four little circles in each, as if he were an angel, or were identified with an angelic mission. From his waist to his ankles is a four square in which are inserted four rows of precious stones, three in a row, or twelve in all, and strikingly resembling the Jewish High Priest’s breastplate of righteousness on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes. In his extended right hand he holds a globe surmounted with a cross; and in his extended left, a rude representation of a trumpet. On the other side, is the legend Genser. Augustus, and underneath, a star of considerable magnitude. The age of this coin is over fourteen hundred years.
Genseric was an Arian catholic, and the ally of the Circumcellions against the Dragon persecutor of the Donatists. Hence, when he conquered Africa and the islands of the Mediterranean from the Dragon, he proclaimed himself the Augustus of the Catholic world, as the word “Augustus” after his name, and the globe and cross in his right hand, upon the coin, evince. Having delivered the Donatists from the bloody persecutions of the Catholics, they, doubtless, gave him to understand, that they hailed him as one of the Angels of the Four Trumpets and the deliverer of the true church. Hence, the wings on his shoulders with four little circles upon them; and the p. 179 four square plate of Twelve Stones. All that Mr. Elliott has to say upon this interesting coin, is to correct Lelewel’s reading of the name from Jensæ to Genser; but, to my mind it is a striking indication that the Donatists of Africa, contemporary with the sounding of the Four Trumpets, were sufficiently advanced in apocalyptical exposition, to discern the true character of the times in which they lived, and their own ecclesiastical relations to them. The “terrible Genseric” and his Donatist clients, were neither Preterists, Futurists, nor Literalists; but rational interpreters of the apocalypse as a symbolic prophecy of events concurrent with the conflict of the Saints with the powers that be, to be explained in the light of history. In this, Vandal barbarians of the fifth century far transcended the intelligence of the “ripest” and brightest scholars of our age!
Besides these he gives two other coins, one of the Franks, and the other of the Visigoths, to show that the diadem came at length to be adopted by the Gothic kingdoms, without regard to the Diadem Bust of the emperors. This was after the fall of the Seventh Head.
10. The Name of Blasphemy
“And upon his Heads a Name of Blasphemy.”
The name of a person or thing, according to the Hebrew style, frequently imports the quality or state thereof. Thus in Ruth i. 20, “and she said unto them, call me not Naomi,” that is, pleasant, “but call me Mara,” that is bitter; “for Jehovah hath dealt very bitterly with me.” And thus, when it is said in Isai. vii. 14, “she shall call his name Immanuel,” the meaning is, that the Son of the Virgin there spoken of should be “AIL,” or Eternal Power, “with us,” Israel, dwelling in their midst. And so in Luke i. 32, “He shall be called the Son of the Highest,” is, He shall be the Son of the Highest.
Names of men are sometimes taken for the men themselves. Thus in Acts i. 15, “the number of the names,” that is, the number of the men. And thus in Virgil, Sylvius, “Albanum Nomen,” an Alban Name, is Sylvius, a man of Albania.
Isai. xxx. 27, it is said “The NAME of Yahweh cometh from far, HIS anger burning, and the burden thereof heavy; HIS lips are full of indignation, and HIS tongue as a devouring fire.” Here name obviously denotes a person, an individual of great power, developing great anger and fiery indignation. It is the name styled by Moses in Deut. xxviii. 58; “the glorious and fearful Name, YAHWEH Elohim:” for the repudiation and blasphemy of which Judah and Benjamin, p. 180 with a multitude of Levi, have been banished from their country, and tormented among the Nations for nearly eighteen hundred years.
Name also is equivalent to power. This appears from Acts iv. 7, where the rulers demanded of the apostles, saying to them, “by what power, or name, have ye done this?”—and in ver. 30, they pray that “wonders may be done by the name of Jesus,” that is, by his power. Hence, the Jesus Name is a name of glory and power, as well as a name of holiness and truth, and is styled by Paul “a Name above every name; that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow”—Phil. ii. 9, 10.
But name not only denotes the existence, quality, or state of a person, power, or other thing, singly considered; it also denotes these things in multitudinous manifestation. Thus, in Jer. xiii. 11, Yahweh caused “the whole house of Israel, and the whole house of Judah” to cleave unto him, “that they might be to me, saith he, for a people, and for a name, for a praise, and for a glory.” Here is a name inclusive of the whole nation. There are numerous instances in the prophetic writings where name is representative of many, too numerous to be quoted here.
The gods of the nations were so many names, whether idols or founders of sects. In this sense, name denotes an object of worship, invocation, or reverence. Thus, in Mic. iv. 5, “all people walk, every one in the name of his God; we will walk in the name of our God.” To walk in the name of any one is, first, to have said name constitutionally placed upon the walker; and, secondly, to shape the course of life according to the precepts and institutions of such name. Every one that does this is in said name; and, therefore, denominationally a part, or element, of that name. Thus, the NOMEN LATINUM, or Latin Name, the Nomen Anglicanum, or Anglican Name, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and a host of others, are all names of Gods in which the peoples walk. They are specially related to the Romano-Gothic Beast of the Abyss, which John testified would be ’γεμον ονοματων βλασφημιας, full of Names of Blasphemy—Ch. xvii. 3. All the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues, constituting the body politic of the fourth-beast system of nations, “walk every one in the name of his god,” glorying in the Latin Name of Blasphemy upon the Seven Heads; the Anglican Name of Blasphemy in Canterbury, York, and Dublin; and in all the other blasphemies, to which the names of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others too numerous to mention, are attached.
But, while all the people walk every one in the precepts of these “worshipful names” of the unmeasured Court of the Gentiles, “the remnant of the woman’s seed, who keep the commandments of the p. 181 Deity, and have the testimony of the anointed Jesus,” will walk in the name of their God alone. First, believing “the truth as it is in Jesus,” the Name of the Deity has been constitutionally placed upon them, according to the command that all such believers be “immersed into THE NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15, 16; Luke xxiv. 47; Acts ii. 38; viii. 12, 16: and secondly, being taught to observe the all things the apostles were commanded to teach (Matt. xxviii. 20), they walk in the name of the Deity as constituents of that name; having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; but, as the grace of Deity which brings salvation teacheth, they “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the appearing of the glory of the great Deity, and of their Saviour, the anointed Jesus”—Tit. ii. 12. This is the Name which, in Ch. xiii. 6, is styled His Name—the name of the Deity, blasphemed by the Name of Blasphemy upon the Seven Heads, and by all the other names which fill up the body politic of the Beast.
The Name of Blasphemy is a power; and like the beast over which it presides is, or rather has been, in centuries of its career, a “dreadful and terrible” power. It is an EPISCOPAL NAME, because it is the embodiment of those audacious “EYES” Daniel was so observant of in his vision. He saw a Little Horn come up among, and after, the ten. It was not like the other horns. These had no eyes in them; nor had they any mouth. If they had possessed these, there would have been twenty eyes and ten mouths. But a different constitution of the evil was predetermined. One pair of Eyes and one Mouth were to suffice for the Little Horn and all its ten associate horns. Had there been eleven pairs of eyes instead of one pair, there would have been eleven names of blasphemy upon the sea-monster’s heads, which would have been incongruous, and a cause of inextricable confusion.
The eyes Daniel saw were “like the eyes of a man.” And not only so, but they were representative of a man; for, speaking of the glare, or fierce piercing look, of the eyes, he says, in Ch. vii. 20, “whose look was more stout than HIS fellows.” They represented a human power, whose function was pre-eminently that of supervision over certain styled “his fellows.” His official state, therefore, was that of an επισκοκος, or a BISHOP. His look being “more stout” than his fellows of the episcopal order, he would, therefore, claim superiority over all spirituals; and to be entitled above all to the veneration and homage of mankind. Such an OVERSEEING NAME as this would be, within the sphere of his jurisdiction, a Bishop of bishops, p. 182 such as Constantine claimed to be when he assumed headship over all the catholic churches of the dragon empire.
But this Nomen Latinum, or Latin Name upon the Seven Heads, was not only a Supreme Bishop, but it was also a Name of Blasphemy. It was itself a blasphemy, and an utterer of blasphemy. A power claiming to be what it is not, is a blasphemy. Thus, certain of the synagogue of Satan in the ecclesia at Smyrna claimed to be Jews, when they really were not. This false claim is styled “their blasphemy”—Apoc. ii. 9: because, being false, it injured the fair fame and reputation of those in Christ who were Israelites indeed.
BLASPHEMY is a thing but little understood by those who most glibly use the word in their denunciation of what they term heresy. In the Court of the Gentiles, in which the truth is trodden under foot by “the Spirituals of wickedness in high places”—THE CLERGY—everything is blasphemy, which, however scriptural it may be, exposes their word-nullifying traditions to the well-merited contempt of mankind. Against this exposition they rend their garments instead of their hearts, put dust upon their heads, and with eyes and hands upturned to heaven, cry out blasphemy! But this is all theatrical. Mere sound has no terrors for the friends of truth. The clerical orders, whose apocalyptic chief is this Name of Blasphemy, are, like him, essentially a blasphemy; because they arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of Christ and his Brethren, to which they have not the remotest or slightest scriptural pretension. Being of the world, and speaking under the impression of the world, as proved by the world hearing and hiring them, their alleged identity with the members of the Divine Family, injures the reputation thereof, which is the import of the word blaspheme. For an order of men to claim to be “Vicars of Jesus Christ upon earth,” that is, his official substitutes, by divine appointment; or to be his ambassadors and plenipotentaries to the nations, by the same authority; and for them to be notoriously deficient of the least proof substantiatory of their high pretentions, is to convict themselves of falsehood; and when self-convicted liars and hypocrites claim to be the brethren and intimates of honest and righteous men, on the principle of a man being known by the company he keeps, the reputation of those excellent people is injured, or, in other words, blasphemed, in the estimation of the Deity, and of those “who hold the testimony of the anointed Jesus.” Thus, the Albigenses, among whom the faithful may be found, in the twelfth century testified to their generation, saying, “We must not obey the Pope and Bishops, because they be wolves to the ecclesia of Christ”—quia sint lupi ecclesiæ Christi. They repudiated the Name of Blasphemy, and the clerical ministers of his name, as the transformed ministers of p. 183 the Satan, who pretended to be ministers of righteousness, but were really nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing of the most ravenous and ferocious description. They protested against them as the orders of that DREADFUL AND TERRIBLE NAME OF BLASPHEMY, enthroned upon the Seven Heads of the Fourth Beast. This name they denounced as the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition—the Antichrist, because he set himself up as the VICAR OF CHRIST; that is, the divinely deputed substitute of Christ, as indicated by the word Αντιχριστος, from αντι, in the place of, χριστος, the Anointed One, or Christ: they denounced this Name as the Man of Sin in maturity, or full manifestation. They did not regard the Man of Sin substitute for Christ as an individual man, but as an order of ecclesiastical rulers, a Name, or Body, with its Eyes, Mouth, and subordinate members. Being an imperial spiritual human power, its chief ruler would be a man, the supreme representative for the period of his reign, of the power that created him for adoration, as “the god of the earth”—quem creant adorant, whom they create they worship. And thirdly, they denounced this Man of Sin name of Blasphemy, as the Son of Perdition; because the power, in the Scarlet-Beast phase of it, is foredoomed, “and goeth into perdition”—Apoc. xvii. 11: and because Paul, in writing of the same power, whom he styles ὁ ανομος, the Lawless One, as well as the Man of Sin, terms him likewise the Son of Perdition, “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his presence ”—2 Thess. ii. 8.
It may not be uninteresting to the reader to peruse, in their own words, the views entertained by the witnesses of Jesus concerning this Name of Blasphemy upon the Seven Heads, over seven hundred years ago. The following is from a remarkable tract written by one of them, in A.D. 1120, for the express purpose of vindicating himself and friends for separating from communion with this name. It professes to be an answer to the question, “WHAT IS ANTICHRIST?” which it thus proceeds to answer:
“Antichrist is a falsehood or deceit varnished over with the semblance of truth, and of the righteousness of Christ and his Spouse, yet in opposition to the way of truth, righteousness, faith, hope, love, as well as moral life. It does not respect any one particular person ordained to any degree, or office, or ministry; but it is a SYSTEM OF FALSEHOOD (Name of Blasphemy) opposing itself to the truth, covering and adorning itself with a shew of beauty and piety, yet very unsuitable to the ecclesia of Christ, as, by the names and offices, the scriptures and the sacraments and various other things may appear. The system of iniquity thus perfected, with its officiating ministers, great and small, supported by those who are induced to follow it p. 184 with an evil heart and blindfold—this is the congregation or composition of things (the Name, or Body) which, taken together, comprises what is called Antichrist, or Babylon, the Fourth Beast, the Harlot, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, all of which are titles given to it in the Holy Scriptures. His ministers are called false prophets, lying teachers, the ministers of darkness, the spirit of error, the Apocalyptic Harlot, the Mother of Fornication, clouds without water, trees without leaves, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, wandering stars, Balaamites, and Egyptians.
“He is termed Antichrist, because, being disguised under the semblance of Christ and his ecclesia, he oppugns or opposes the salvation purchased by Christ, and truly administered in his (Christ’s) own ecclesia, which salvation the faithful are made partakers of by faith, hope, and love. Thus he counteracts the truth by the wisdom of this world, by false religion, by feigned holiness, by ecclesiastical power, secular tyranny, riches, honors, dignities, and the pleasures and allurements of this world.
“It is notorious, therefore, that Antichrist never has been brought forth without a concurrence of all the things now mentioned, so as to form a system o hypocrisy and falsehood (or Blasphemy); that is to say, there must be a concurrence of the wise of this world, ecclesiastical orders, pharisees, ministers, and doctors; the secular power and the people of the world, all mixed up together: all these combined make up the Man of Sin, and that Wicked One complete. For, though Antichrist was conceived so long since as the times of the apostles (see 1 Jno. ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 Ep. 7) he was then only in his infancy (in embryo) wanting members both inward and outward. Consequently, he was the more easily detected, destroyed, and cast out of the ecclesias, being then unshapen and wanting utterance. As yet, he was destitute of that plausible, imposing, judicial or determinative wisdom which he afterwards attained; he wanted those hypocritical ministers (the clergy), and human appointments, and the outward show of those religious orders which were necessary to give him perfection. As he was destitute of those riches and endowments necessary to allure persons to his service, and enable him to multiply, protect, and defend his adherents, so he also needed the Secular Power to compel men to forsake the truth, and embrace a system of falsehood. Wanting these requisites, his deceitful practices had not their full effect—he was young and tender, and with difficulty got a footing in the ecclesias. But growing up in his members, that is, in his blind and dissembling ministers (the clergy) and in worldly subjects, he gradually arrived at maturity when men whose hearts were set upon this world, but blind in the faith, multiplied in the ecclesias, and p. 185 BY THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE (in the time of Constantine), got the power of both into their own hands.”
After describing the wickedness of this Name of Blasphemy which arrogated divine honor, the writer adds, “Christ never had an enemy to be compared with this; one so able to pervert the way of truth into falsehood; insomuch that the true ecclesia, with her children, is trodden under foot by it (Apoc. xi. 2). The worship that pertains to God alone is transferred to Antichrist; to the creature, male and female, deceased—to images, to carcasses, and relics. Tho sacrament of the eucharist (the Lord’s Supper,) is converted into an object of adoration, and the worshiping of God alone is prohibited. The Saviour is robbed of his merits, and the sufficiency of his grace in justification, regeneration, the pardon of sins, sanctification, establishment in the faith, and spiritual nourishment—ascribing all these things to his own. authority—to a mere form of words—to the intercession of saints and to the fire of purgatory. Thus people are seduced from Christ, their minds are drawn off from seeking those blessings in him, by a lively faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching his followers to expect them by the will and pleasure and works of Antichrist.
“A third work of Antichrist consists of this, that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the mere external rite, baptizing infants in that faith, teaching that thereby baptism and regeneration must be had, on which principle he confers and bestows orders (Apoc. xiii. 16, 17) and, indeed, grounds all his christianity, which is contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit. He places all his religion and holiness in going to mass (as his Protestant relations now do in ‘going to church’) in which he has mingled together all kinds of ceremonies, Jewish, Heathen, and Christian; and by means thereof, the people are deprived of spiritual food, seduced from the true religion, and the precepts of God, and bolstered up with vain and presumptuous hopes. All his works are done to be seen of men, that he may glut himself with insatiable avarice; and to accomplish this, every thing is set to sale. He allows of open sins without ecclesiastical censure, and even the impenitent are not excommunicated. He does not rule or maintain his unity by the Sword of the Spirit, but by means of the SECULAR POWER (the Horn in which the Eyes are set) using that to effect spiritual ends (ch. xiii. 12, 15). He hates and persecutes, and searches after, and plunders, and destroys the members of Christ (ch. xiii. 7, 15). These are some of the principal of the works of Antichrist against the truth, but the whole are past numbering or recording. These are the most prominent features of that monstrous power. p. 186 “On the other hand, he makes use of an outward confession of the faith, and therein are verified the words of the apostle—‘they profess in words that they know God, but in works they deny him.’ He covers his iniquity by pleading the length of his duration, and the multitude of his followers; concerning which it is said in the Apocalypse, that ‘power is given him over every tribe, language, and nation; and all that dwell upon the earth should worship him’—(ch. xiii. 7, 8). He covers his iniquity by pleading the spiritual authority of the apostles, though the apostle expressly says, ‘we can do nothing against the truth;’ and, ‘there is no power given us for destruction.’ He boasts of numerous miracles, even as the apostle foretold—‘whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all miracles and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness (ch. xiii. 13, 14), also. He has an outward show of holiness, consisting in prayers, fastings, watchings, and alms deeds; of which the apostle testified, when he said, ‘Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.’
“Thus it is that Antichrist covers his lying wickedness as with a cloak or garment, that he may not be rejected as a pagan or infidel, and under which disguise he can go on practicing his villanies boldly like a harlot. But it is plain both from the Old and New Testaments, that christians are bound by express command to separate themselves from Antichrist.
“In the New Testament we read that the Lord is come and hath suffered death, that he might gather together IN ONE the children of God (Jno. xii); and in the book of Revelation, he warns by his voice, and charges his people to go out of Babylon, saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, and be not partakers of her sins, that ye receive not of her plagues; for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquity’—Rev. xviii. 4, 5. The apostle Paul says the same—‘Have no fellowship with unbelievers—come out from among them, and be ye separate’—2 Cor. vi. 16.
“From what has been said, we may learn wherein consists the wickedness and perverseness of Antichrist, and that God commands his people to separate from him, and join themselves to THE HOLY CITY, Jerusalem (Apoc. xi. 2). And since it hath pleased God to make known these things to us by his servants, believing it to be his holy will according to the scriptures, and admonished thereto by the command of the Lord, we do inwardly and outwardly depart from Antichrist. We hold communion and maintain unity one with another, freely and uprightly, having no other motive thereto but to please the Lord, and seek the salvation of our souls. Thus, as the Lord is pleased to enable us, and so far as our understandings are p. 187 enlightened into the path of duty, we attach ourselves unto the truth of Christ, and his ecclesia, how mean soever she may appear in the eyes of men.
“We, therefore, have thought it good to make this declaration of our reasons for departing from Antichrist, as well as to make known what kind of fellowship we have, to the end that, if the Lord be pleased to impart the knowledge of the same truth to others, those that receive it may love it together with us. It is our wish also, that if others are not sufficiently enlightened they may receive assistance from this service, the Lord succeeding it by his blessing. While, on the other hand, if any have received more abundantly from him, and in a higher measure, we desire with all humility to be taught and better instructed, that so we may rectify whatever is amiss.”
Such is a specimen of the testimony of the two prophet-witnesses, who, as lights, “stood before the god of the Earth,” the Name of Blasphemy, the pretended Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Eyes of the Antichrist; and which “tormented them who dwelt upon the earth”—Apoc. xi. 4, 10. This testimony was delivered in the darkest period of the day of blasphemy, when men avowed their convictions in the face of ruin, captivity, torments, and death. But they were valiant for the truth; and though power was on the side of the oppressor, a power that roared from the “Mouth of a Lion,” and made nations tremble, and kings upon their thrones; yet were they undaunted in its presence in their earnest contention for the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. The secret of their energy was “the power of the Deity,” “the testimony of the anointed Jesus” which they held, “the word of the Deity which is living and powerful,” understood and lovingly and heartily believed. Their enlightened testimony filled the clerical orders of Antichrist with madness; and caused them to roar forth blasphemies against them, with terrible threatenings and slaughters. But in all the onslaught of the enemy, the Name of Yahweh in which they were entrenched, was their strong tower. THE NAME OF YAHWEH, and the NAME OF BLASPHEMY, were the two great rival names of the situation. Between them there can be no peace nor compromise. The Name of Blasphemy on the Seven Heads has learned this by grievous experience; and discovering that the strength of the Eternal Name in the great conflict resided in “THE WORD,” he strove mightily to suppress it. But the greater his efforts in this direction, the more strenuous and determined were the witnesses to keep the scriptures before the people. They learned the Bible by heart—Biblia ediscunt memoriter; and as we have seen by quotations in their declaration, they did not neglect to study the Apocalypse, by which they were enabled to discern the p. 188 times in which they lived. This the contemporaries of Constantine were enabled to do; and a hundred years afterwards, the Donatists also, as evinced by the device of the Vandal coin; the Albigenses likewise of this twelfth century; and Peter Jurieu, who discerned in his own day, A. D. 1687, the death of the witnesses, and interpreted the fall of “the Tenth of the Great City” of France, a hundred years before it came to pass; and Bicheno, a century later, who discerned their resurrection in his own times; to say nothing of the author, about seventy years later still, lest he should seem to boast of things beyond his measure. But all these, and how many more who can tell, by the help of the Apocalypse were enabled to answer the question, “Watchman, what of the Night?” and to discern things in the Body Politic of Romano-Gothic society in their true relations to the Divine Name, which would otherwise have been inscrutable.
But this Name of Blasphemy was not only essentially and constitutionally a blasphemy, but it was an utterer of blasphemies also. To blaspheme required something more than “EYES, like the eyes of a man.” These were necessary to constitute it an EPISCOPAL NAME; but that this Overseeing Name, or Power, might give utterance to its purely fleshly thinkings, it was indispensable that it be furnished with a MOUTH. Therefore it was, that Daniel in his vision, in considering the Little Horn that came up after and among the ten, saw that it had a Mouth as well as Eyes. He does not inform us what the mouth looked like; whether it were like the mouth of a man, a bear, a lamb, or other animal. John the apostle was appointed to supply this information in the chapter in hand. It is very certain, however, that the mouth of a lamb would have been a very unfit symbol to represent it by, even upon Daniel’s showing; for he testifies, that it was “a Mouth speaking very great things against the Most High”—ch. vii. 8, 20, 25; or, as John expresses it, “great things and blasphemies”—ver. 5. Between, the gentle, timid, voice of a lamb, and roaring blasphemies, there is no resemblance; but, on the contrary, from the nature of the thing spoken, we would expect that the organ of utterance would be symbolized by something ferocious and terrible; and because, likewise, all pertaining to the Fourth Beast “is dreadful and terrible.”
The NAME OF BLASPHEMY, then, is the embodiment of the Eyes and Mouth of Daniel’s Little Horn, in their episcopal relation to the ten horns. It is the LATIN SEE, without which there was no point of union between them. When it came to be enthroned, and they came to acknowledge its authority in all their kingdoms, it became their “HOLY FATHER” and they sons in his “holy keeping,” of whom, the first of the ten that recognized “HIS HOLINESS,” is surnamed “the Eldest Son of the Church.”
p. 189 But commentators and “recent editors,” who have undertaken to mend the Greek text, are greatly puzzled to determine whether the reading should be ὀνομα βλασφημιας, a Name of Blasphemy, or ὀνοματα βλασφημιας, Names of Blasphemy. Griesbach has adopted the latter reading; which, a note to the “Revised Version” says, “is received by all the recent editors except Bengel. Heinrichs also mentions it as the superior reading. But Ewald, Züllig, and De Wette, disapprove it, the last considering it as an accommodation to ch. xvii. 3; and Hengstenburg regards the question as one of difficult decision. “I recommend,” says the Annotator, “that the marginal note of the English Version be retained: “or, names.” In other words, he was at a loss to say which it should be, therefore, they might split the difference between, the margin and the text. Mr. Elliott bows reverently to the authority of the “recent editors,” and speculates upon it accordingly. Lord also falls into the same line; and speaks of “the names of blasphemy on the heads of the Dragon!” This is certainly a newly found apocalyptic item not revealed to John; who affirms nothing about names of blasphemy on the heads of the Dragon. But, Mr. Lord falls into this error from the assumption, that the correct reading is names; and from the fact that the heads of the dragon, and the heads of the beast, are the same heads; and hence, the latter having names upon them, these names must have been on the dragon likewise!
But, it is refreshing to find four discerning men in such a crowd of the kind—Bengel, Ewald, Züllig and De Wette. These affirm the truth. It ought to read name, not names; and doubtless, De Wette has given a true reason of the difficulty among their recencies, namely, “an accommodation to ch. xvii. 3.” But this is not the principal reason. It is this. They could not see how One Name could rest upon Seven Heads. If it had said, and one and the same name upon each of the seven heads, they might have interpreted it of one and the same inscription upon each; and there would have been no trouble with the text: but simply as it now reads, with the understanding that “the heads are Seven Kings,” how One Name of Blasphemy was to be on these, sent them all adrift in doubt and speculation.
But, the solution of the difficulty is easy and apparent when understood. The key to the matter is in the signification of the Seven Heads, which requires another sort of wisdom than that by which the “recent editors” are inspired, to discern. Said the angel to John, “Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The Seven Heads are Seven Mountains on which the Woman (or Name of Blasphemy) sitteth. And there are Seven Kings: five are fallen, and one is and the other is p. 190 not yet come; and when he (the Seventh Head) cometh, he must continue a short space.”—ch. xvii. 9, 10. In other words, the seven heads of the beast and the dragon, which are the same, have a twofold signification; they represented the Seven Ruling Headships of the Fourth Beast, which down to the fall of the seventh, has existed in the Seven-Hilled City, ROME, as the capital of the dominion. The Name of Blasphemy came to be enthroned there; not contemporarily with the Seven Ruling Headships, or Forms of Government; but after they had passed away; and when it had Rome to itself without the rival presence of the ancient Senate, or Roman emperors, as at the date of this writing Feb. 3, A. D. 1867. Hence, the Name of Blasphemy was not, as Mr. Lord intimates, an arrogation of the prerogatives of the Deity, assented to by these several pagan and catholic forms of Government, obtaining in Rome from the foundation of the city; but a distinct and independent head, or Form of Government, the Germano-Roman with its own audacious Eyes, and “exceeding dreadful” Mouth, with “iron teeth”—Dan. vii. 19. It sat upon the seven mountains as the spiritual overseer of the Secular Powers of Europe, who “gave their power and strength to it,” that it might rule “until the words of the Deity shall be fulfilled”—Apoc. xvii. 13, 17; it became to them a bond of union—the Eyes, Mouth and Brain of the Romano-Gothic Body Politic, symbolized by this Seven-Headed and Ten-Horned Monster of the Sea.
11. The Body of the Beast
“And the Beast which I saw was like unto a Leopard, and his Feet were as of a Bear”—Ver. 2.
The Leopard and the Bear elements of the Ten-Horned Monster of the Sea, indicate its identity with two others than the fourth, of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision. The second beast-dominion he saw ascend out of the Mediterranean Earth, symbolized by the Great Sea (ch. viii. 3, 17), was “like to a Bear,” which was appointed to “devour much flesh”; and the third beast was “like to a Leopard”; and “dominion was given to it.” The Bear in this vision answers to the “Breast and the Arms of Silver”; and the Leopard to the “Belly and Thighs of Brass—of the image-representation exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar, of WHAT SHALL BE IN THE LAST OF THE DAYS—באחרית יומיא—bĕáchărith yomaiyah. In the interpretation he was told that the silver section of the image was a kingdom that would be inferior to the Babylonian, which was his; and that the brass kingdom, the third section thereof, should “bear rule over all the earth.” This was equivalent to saying, that the Leopard is symbolical of a kingdom bearing rule over the whole earth.
p. 191 Now history, that is Daniel himself, informs us, that the kingdom which arose after Nebuchadnezzar’s was the Two-Armed, or Two-Horned, Silver bear, or ram, kingdom of the Medes and the Persians: and that the third kingdom, reckoning that of Babylon as the first, was the goat-kingdom of Grecia. The Medo-Persian empire comprehended one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, stretching from India to Ethiopia—Esth. i. 1. These were distributed into “three ribs,” or presidencies, of which Daniel’s jurisdiction was the first. The three ribs in the Mouth of the Bear are symbolical of these political divisions. Among the provinces of the Bear were Egypt, Armenia, Syria, and Asia Minor to the Bosphorus. These all came in due time to be annexed to the Dragon empire, or Daniel’s Fourth Beast; so that the Bear became a constituent of the Dragon, and its four paws, armed with claws of brass, became the Sea-Monster’s apocalyptic “feet,” with which it is yet in our future, “the last of the days,” to “break in pieces, and to stamp the residue”—Dan. vii. 19.
But the Leopard had a more extensive dominion than the Bear. This Greek kingdom was to “bear rule over all the earth.” It commenced its predicted career about B. C. 330, under its “first king,” Alexander surnamed “the Great.” It extended from Macedonia into what is now a part of British India and styled the Punjaub: but nothwithstanding it exceeded the dominion of the Bear it fell far short of “bearing rule over all the earth”—the earth, as defined by the symbol of the Great Sea.
Now, Daniel was given to understand that the four beasts he saw rising out of the Mediterranean Earth, would all co-exist at the coming of the Ancient of Days—ch. vii. 12; and that, at that extraordinary time of trouble, the fourth beast body politic shall be abolished; but that the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard shall remain, only without dominion, and that for “a season and a time; or, as John expresses it, “for a thousand years.” This was equivalent to saying that the Bear and Leopard, and, consequently, the Lion, national organizations, or bodies politic, should be extant at the coming of Christ “as a thief,” in the Sixth Vial period. In order, therefore, to represent this truth, the Leopard, and the Bear, and the Lion, symbols are constituted elements of the Ten-Horned Sea Monster, which is to continue in political life till the advent, as appears from the testimony that “the ten horns shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them”—ch. xvii. 14.
In Daniel’s four beasts, each succeeding beast absorbed the dominion of its predecessor; so that the Bear may be said to have devoured the Lion; and the Leopard to have swallowed the Bear; and the Ten-Horned Fourth Beast to have eaten up the Leopard; so p. 192 that in the Fourth Beast would be contained the Lion, the Bear, and the Leopard, in addition to appendages peculiar to itself. This is shown by John in his sea monster, who shows the Leopard he had gorged in “his body,” and the Bear he had devoured in “his feet.”
But it is customary to style Daniel’s Fourth Beast “the Roman Empire,” by which is meant the dominion exercised by Rome and Constantinople, until the latter city came to be possessed by the Turks, A. D. 1453, when it fell, or passed away. It is true, it does symbolize said Roman Empire, but it also symbolizes a vast deal more. The Roman Empire, of which Gibbon wrote the decline and fall, has never yet embraced within its jurisdiction the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the Medo-Persian Bear, which it is necessary it should have done that its Leopard Body might “bear rule over all the earth,” and that it might stand upon its Bear-Feet, and with these feet “break in pieces and stamp THE RESIDUE.” John’s Sea Monster with the Bear-Feet and Leopard-Body, represents Daniel’s Fourth Beast in its amplest development of the last of the days. It answers to Nebuchadnezzar’s Image at the crisis of its demolition by THE STONE. When John’s Beast of the Sea comes, in fact, to stand upon its four brazen-clawed Bear-Feet, its dominion will consist of the Russian Empire, Continental and Mediterranean Europe, Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, Togarmah, Egypt and Syria. When the throne of the Russian Autocrat is transferred to Constantinople, the apocalyptic Bear-Feet, armed with Brazen or Greek Claws, will also be enthroned there, and be prepared for the work that remains of “stamping the residue.” The residue that yet remains to be stamped, are the “many countries” to be “overthrown,” inclusive of Turkey, Egypt and part of the Glorious Land. Edom, Moab and part of Ammon, will evade the stamping process. These three countries will be “the front” of the forces of “Sheba, and Dedan, and the Merchants of Tarshish and the Young Lions thereof”—the Anglo-Indian Leopard empire of the latter day—Ezek. xxxviii. 1-6, 13; xi. 40-44. The part which Britain has to enact in “the time of the end,” when “the Eastern Question” is to be scripturally resolved, clearly indicates that she is not one of the ten horns. She is not of their world, but the Oriental section of the Sea Monster’s Leopard Body—a world peculiar to herself, and as distinct from them as Canada, and the United States. In the approaching scramble for the effects of the expiring Sick Man of Ottomania, she will most likely secure for herself, or at least take possession of, Egypt and Syria. But Daniel shows that whatever power may primarily become seized of these countries, will not be able to prevent their being stamped by the Feet of the Bear. “The land of Egypt shall not escape” the p. 193 power of the King of the North; “but he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt.” From this conquest he will proceed into the Holy Land. The war between the belligerents will then be transferred to this country, upon which the Oriental Power must necessarily retire. The conflict waged will be furious; for the Northern Power, symbolized by John’s Scarlet-colored Beast, will “go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall pitch the tents of his entrenched camp between the seas unto the mountain of the glory of the holy.” This brings him to Jerusalem, which he besieges and captures—Zech. xiv. 2. Upon this the Oriental Leopard falls back upon Edom, Moab and Ammon, beyond the Jordan and the Dead Sea. At this crisis the face of Yahweh is flushed with fury, and he goes forth against the invader—Ezek. xxxviii. 18; Zech. xiv. 3. As the Stone-Power, he smites the Image upon the feet, and shatters it into fragments. The Bear, the Lion and Leopard, inclusive of the British section of the last, lose their dominion; but as Assyria and Egypt are annexed to Israel—Isai. xix. 23-25—and the tide of war is rolled back from Syria, north and west, upon the countries of the Ten Horns, and of the Two-Horned beasts, over which the Name of Blasphemy presides as their prophet, priest and king. This solution of the Eastern Question ushers in the solution of the Roman Question, neither of which can be finally disposed of until the Ancient of days, that is, Jesus Christ, come; and he give authority and power to his brethren, the Saints, to execute the judgment written in ch. xiii. 10; which is, as David expressed it, to slay the beast (the Fourth Beast in apocalyptic manifestation), destroy his body in the burning flame, and take away the dominion of the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard—ch. vii. 11, 12. The slaying of the beast is the utter extermination of the Greek and Latin Catholic governments by the power of the sword; and the taking away of the dominion of the Lion, the Bear, the Leopard, or that of the Asiatic Powers, is the binding of the Dragon, casting him into the abyss, shutting him up, and setting a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more for “a season and a time,” or “a thousand years.”
From these premises, then, it will be seen that this apocalyptic sea-monster is not exclusively the Romano-Gothic Ten-Horn constitution of Papal Mediterranean Europe, but symbolical likewise of the Byzantine, or Greek Empire, as indicated by the Leopard-Body and Bear-Feet; for, that the Bear is Greek as well as the Leopard, Daniel shows by testifying that the Fourth Beast “had Nails of Brass”—ch. vii. 19; and in his prophecy brass is the symbol of the dominion of “the brazen-coated Greeks.” Because, therefore, this Beast p. 194 of the Sea symbolized the dominions of the whole eastern and western Mediterranean world, all the “kindreds, and tongues, and nations,” styled apocalyptically “the whole earth,” in subjection to them, are said to have “wandered after the beast,” and to have “worshiped” both the Dragon and the Beast—Vers. 3, 4. The populations inhabiting Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Greece, “worshiped” the imperial power enthroned in Constantinople, and that only; while the populations of Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, “worshiped” the Constantinopolitan and the new Gothic powers as well. This two-fold worship of the subjects of the Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, Visigoths, Suevi, and so forth, may be familiarly illustrated by numerous modern instances. Thus, Egypt is a part of the Turkish empire, and at the same time a quasi independent kingdom under its own hereditary king, who acknowledges the suzerainte of the Sultan; so that the Egyptians may be said to worship the king, and also to worship the Sultan, and to say in their ignorance, “Who is like unto the Sultan? Who is able to make war with him?” The question is very appropriate with regard to the Beast, if not to the Sultan; for, as the Beast is the symbol of power bearing rule over all the Mediterranean Earth, where is the power able to make war with it? Men know of none, because they know not the purpose of Yahweh. But, in the tenth verse of this thirteenth chapter, He has in effect declared that there is a power able to make war with the Beast, and to bind and slay him; for as he has made war with the Saints and Witnesses, bound them in captive chains, and conquered and killed them, so he is to be bound and killed with the sword, when judgment shall be executed upon him, by the very victims of his “exceeding dreadful and terrible” tyranny, after they shall have been raised from among the dead, and strengthened for the war.
12. The Mouth of the Beast
“2. And his Mouth as the Mouth of a Lion. 5. And there was given unto him (the Beast of the Sea) a Mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. 6. And he opened his Mouth in blasphemy concerning the Deity, to have blasphemed his Name, and his Tabernacle, and those who tabernacle in the heaven.”
Every living, and many inanimate, things, have their mouth in a literal or figurative sense. In man, it is the hollow between the jaws, shut or opened by the lips, which are, therefore, styled “the doors of the mouth.” In him, it is the outlet of that which defiles, or of wisdom, graciousness, and blessing. It is that which proceedeth out of the mouth by which the character of the inward man is in a great degree determined. A man whose mouth speaks the wisdom p. 195 of the Deity, gracious words, and blessing, and whose conduct is in conformity with what he speaks, is one whose heart is right with the Deity, and from which no blasphemy can find utterance: “the heart of the wise teacheth his mouth,” therefore, “the mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment”—Prov. xvi. 23; Ps. xxxvii. 30.
But the Mouth of the Beast evidently doth not belong to mouths of this class; for it “speaks blasphemies concerning the Deity.” Hence, the heart of the beast must be desperately wicked; for “out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh.” The character of the inward beast, therefore, or of that system of things spiritual and temporal, doctrinal, practical and political, hidden in the symbols before us, must be essentially “the Mystery of Iniquity in all the deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish”—2 Thess. ii. 7, 10. The Mouth of the Beast is the mouth of the wicked in their politico-religious organization. It is a mouth which “speaketh vanity,” and “poureth out evil things:” the words thereof “are smoother than butter, but war is in their heart; their words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.” With this Mouth “the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom Yahweh abhorreth. Through the pride of his countenance he will not seek, the Deity is not in all his thoughts. His ways are always grievous; thy judgments, O Yahweh! are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them. He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved; for I shall never be in adversity. His Mouth is full of cursing, and deceit, and fraud; under his tongue is mischief and vanity. He sitteth in the lurking-places of the villages; in the secret places doth he murder the innocent; his eyes are privily set against the poor. He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den; he lieth in wait to catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net. He croucheth and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones. He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: He hideth his face; he will never see it”—Ps. x. 3-11. If John had written this as descriptive of the Lion-Mouth of the Beast, nothing could have more accurately recorded what have been the facts developed in the many centuries of its wickedness and blasphemies. The words proceeding out of it have been “softer than oil” towards its worshipers; but they have been “drawn swords” against the poor saints and witnesses of the anointed Jesus. He has puffed at his enemies; for, though but feeble in arms, he has set the most powerful of his enemies at defiance; and by his spiritual thunders reduced them to the most abject submission. The Name of Blasphemy speaking by his Lion-Mouth, declares the eternity of his p. 196 rule; and that he shall “see no sorrow” from which he shall not ultimately be delivered: “He saith in his heart, I shall not be moved; for I shall never be in adversity”—Apoc. xviii. 7; and, as for cursing, deceit, fraud, mischief and vanity, his mouth is indeed full; for in the atmosphere of these he lives, and moves, and has his being. The judgments of the Deity are indeed “out of his sight” far above him. He discerns them not. This is highly characteristic of him at the present time. Even his worshipers are hating him, and making him desolate and naked, as it has long since been predicted they would (Apoc. xvii. 16); yet so blind are his eyes with which he surveys the world, and so infatuate and unteachable his obdurate and beastly heart from his long surfeit and intoxication of blood (verse 6), that he can see nothing; so that, persisting in his obstinacy, the fate of the blind when they undertake to lead the blind, will come upon him in an hour when he thinks only of future glory, and he will suddenly “go into perdition,” and there will be none to help.
When a man becomes a spokesman for another he is regarded as a mouth to him. This was the case with Aaron. He was appointed for a mouth to Moses, who was slow of speech, and of a slow tongue; and Moses was to be to him in the place of God—Exod. iv. 16. Hence, Aaron was Moses’ prophet, who spoke as he was moved by Moses. So of all in old time who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; they became mouths to him who moved them to speak; and therefore, it is written, “the Deity spake to the fathers by the prophets.” There were such mouths of the Deity in the ecclesia at Corinth. They were styled prophets, and their utterances, prophesyings; or, speaking unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort”—1 Cor. xiv. 3. And so also in relation to the worshipers of the Beast. They needed A PROPHET to teach and build them up in their superstition, and to be for them a bond of union in all things pertaining to it. As they designated their superstition “the Holy Catholic Apostolic,” they required a Prophet, who should be the Mouth of that system; and would expound and defend it against the Holy Scriptures, Deity himself, and all who claimed to be his witnesses. The utterances of this Mouth would be his prophesyings; and by no means to be despised by those who should enjoy the favor of the Beast; or, of that Name of Blasphemy upon his heads. The requirements of the worshipers were provided for by the Dragon, who gave them “a Mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;” and to the Mouth himself, he “gave authority over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations;” so that “all that dwell upon the (Mediterranean) earth should worship him, whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the book of the life of the Lamb p. 197 slain.” To these millions of worshipers, upon whom the Deity sent “a strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness”—the Mouth given became the spokesman of Anti-christendom—“the Mouth of the False Prophet,” or Name of Blasphemy—Apoc. xvi. 13; xix. 30. He is styled a false prophet, because his utterances, or prophesyings, are mere fraud, deceit, and vanity; because the signs, and lying wonders wrought in the presence of the Beast-authorities by him, are an imposture, and his preaching, allocutions, decrees, and so forth, the falsehoods of a lying oracle, by which they are deceived who have received the mark of the beast, and who worship his image—Apoc. xix. 20. His end is perdition by being “cast alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone.”
A Name of Blasphemy with Eyes only, might look more stoutly and defiantly than its fellows; but, however full it might be of “great things and blasphemies,” it could give no expression to them without a mouth. We have seen how Aaron was Moses’ Mouth, or prophet; so, upon a like principle, the reigning Pope for the time being is the Mouth, or Prophet, of the Name of Blasphemy; and therefore, of “the broad church,” which is the National Superstition of all the Horn-Kingdoms. The Eyes and the Mouth, then, of Daniel’s Little Horn, though in his vision placed in that horn only, represent a sovereign order of ecclesiastical officials, the Papal Dynasty, which is Eyes and Mouth both to the Ten Horns and to the beast of the earth. Daniel says nothing of any other mouth pertaining to his Fourth Beast than this mouth of the Little Horn upon his head. He speaks of his “great iron teeth,” however; we must therefore, by the omission, no doubt designed, understand that these iron teeth belong to the Little Horn mouth. Iron is as much the symbol of the power of Rome, as brass is of that of Constantinople. If the teeth had been of brass, we must have looked to Constantinople for the Mouth; but the teeth being of iron, our attention is directed to Rome. The teeth being of iron, also connects the Mouth with the iron section of Nebuchadnezzar’s image; and the iron band of the Babylonian Stump—Dan iv. 15. This metal symbolizes the fourth dominion, as appears from ch. ii. 40: “the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” First, the Lion of Babylon, or the golden section of the image; then, the Bear of Medo-Persia, or the silver; third, the Leopard of Grecia, or the brazen; and fourth, the Dragon of Rome, or the iron. These are the four general phases of “the kingdom of men,” from the time of Nimrod to the future coming of the Ancient of Days to supersede p. 198 it by “THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” The iron symbolizes the last: whether therefore it be a log, a band, a tooth, or a toe, if they be of iron, they are all related to the Latin section of the kingdom of men.
But, was the mouth, with its “great iron teeth,” like the mouth of a man? No: the human element of the thing signified, had been sufficiently indicated by “the Eyes, like the eyes of a man.” These represented a mystical man, the Antichrist. But, was he Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Latin, Turk, Jew, or infidel? This may be determined by the Mouth of the Monster of the Sea; for whatever the mouth is, such also is the man, or beast, that owns it. No; the mouth was not like the mouth of a man; “his Mouth,” says the apostle, “was as the mouth of a Lion,” and with “great iron teeth,” according to Daniel. It was therefore not only a Roman MOUTH, but a BABYLONIAN MOUTH also: for the Lion is the symbol of the old Babylonian organization of the kingdom of men. Hence, his mouth was like the mouth of Daniel’s first beast; his feet like his second’s; and his body like that of his third. This symbolization connects Babylon with Rome. Had the teeth been silver and the mouth like that of a leopard, the Name of Blasphemy would have been Persian and Greek; but, as given by John and Daniel, it can only be Latin and Babylonian. The following remarks of Daubuz on the apocalyptic identity of Rome and Babylon are quite in point here:
“Babylon in the Revelation,” he says, “is Rome, not only on account of Rome’s being guilty of usurpation, tyranny, and idolatry, and of persecuting the church of God in the same manner as the old literal Babylon was, but also on the account of her being, by a successive devolution of power, the successor of the pretended rights of Babylon. The literal Babylon was the beginner and supporter of tyranny and idolatry, first by Nimrod or Ninus, and afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar; and therefore in Isaiah xlvii. 12, she is accused of magical enchantments from her youth or infancy; namely, from the very first origin of her being a city or nation.
“This city and the whole empire thereof was taken by the Persians under Cyrus. The Persians were subdued by the Macedonians, and the Macedonians by the Romans: so that Rome succeeded to the power of the old Babylon. And it was her way to adopt the worship of the false deities she had conquered: so that by her own acts she became the Heiress and Successor of all the Babylonian idolatry, and of all that was introduced into it, by the immediate successors of Babylon, and by consequence of all the idolatry of the earth.
“Rome Catholic, corrupted by dressing up the idolatry of Rome Pagan in another form, and forcing it upon the world, because the successor of the old literal Babylon in tyranny and idolatry, and may p. 199 therefore be properly represented and called by the name of Babylon; it being the usual style of the prophets to give the name of the head, or first institution, to the successors, however different they may be in some circumstances; even as in Ezek. xxxvii. the Messiah is called David, as being successor to David; and as the Christian church, though chiefly composed of Gentiles, is called, Gal. vi. 16, by the name of Israel, as successively inheriting, in a spiritual sense, the promises made to the literal Israel. So Rachel, in Jer. xxxi. 15, Matt. ii. 18, is put for the town, or women inhabiting the town of Bethlehem, wherein was the sepulchre of the literal Rachel, of which, consequently, those inhabitants were still in possession. And so the Persians and Moguls call the Ottoman Turks by the name of Roumi, i. e. Romans, because in possession of the country and capital enjoyed by the ancient Romans.
“Lastly, that Babylon is Rome is evident from the explanation given by the angel in Rev. xvii. 18, where it is expressly said to be that great city which ruleth over the kings of the earth: no other city but Rome being in the exercise of such power at the time when the vision was seen.”
The lion and the teeth, then, demonstrate beyond all doubt, that the beast’s organ of utterance is Romano-Babylonian, having its seat, or throne, upon the Seven Heads, or Mountains. In other words, it is the Roman Government headed up in the Pope. This is the Name of Blasphemy, or blasphemous body corporate, with its Eyes and Mouth, which has reigned over the Ten Horns for many ages. This sovereignty, like all others, had a beginning, as it will also have an end. It did not begin to reign as a Roman Power till all the Seven Heads of the Dragon-Beast had fulfilled their course; then that which hindered his manifestation would be totally and completely removed; for it is evident, that no Mouth like the Papal Government could coexist in the same city with another sovereign power. Thus, if Rome were to become the capital of the kingdom of Italy, the Pope could only continue there as the Eyes and Mouth of the Horn-kingdoms without temporal sovereignty. Before these kingdoms were established, he was neither the Eyes nor Mouth of the Little Horn; but simply “HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES” of the Græco-Latin, or Dragon, empire. He had no imperial nor royal authority; but only that sort of influence that attaches to the Chief Bishop of the capital of a dominion. In A. D. 554, and onward for many years, the Universal Latin Bishop was subject to the Exarchs of Ravenna, the Viceroys of the Emperors of Constantinople, in all things secular; while in spirituals he was acknowledged by his lord and master to be supreme. In after ages, however, he became greater than he who had created p. 200 him; and when he opened his mouth in the roarings of his blasphemy, he made all the beasts of the field to tremble. His heart was lifted up as the heart of Lucifer in his pride; and with a truly Babylonian Mouth, in the stoutness of his presumption, said, “I will ascend into the heavens, I will exalt my throne above the stars of AIL: I will sit also upon the Mount of the congregation in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High”—Isaiah xiv. 12-14. But there is a limit to human arrogance and blasphemy. The Romano-Babylonian Mouth of the Beast has long since passed the zenith of self-exaltation and presumption; and is now but the shadow of a name. The fate of the Babylonian Lucifer awaits him. He will be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit; and though once the Mouth that made the world to tremble, and did shake kingdoms, he will be cast out as an abomination, and reproach of all peoples; for his dominion is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.