6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and407his tabernacle, and408them that dwell in heaven.6.And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name.By his own arrogant claims; by his assumed authority in matters of conscience; by setting aside the divine authority; and by impious declarations in derogation of the divine claims. See Notes onver.1. ¶And his tabernacle.Literally, his “tent”—σκηνὴν. This is the word which is commonly applied to the sacred tent or tabernacle among the Hebrews, in which the ark was kept, and which was the seat of the Jewish worship before the building of the temple. It is thus used to denote a place of worship, considered as the dwelling-place of God, and is in this sense applied to heaven,He.viii.2;ix.11;Re.xv.5. It seems to be used here in a general sense to denote the place where God was worshipped; and the meaning is, that there would be a course of conduct in regard to the true church—the dwelling-place of God on the earth—which could properly be regarded as blasphemy. Let anyone remember the anathemas and excommunications uttered against the Waldenses and Albigenses, and those of kindred spirit that appeared in the long period of the Papal rule, and he will find no difficulty in perceiving a complete fulfilment of all that is here said. ¶And them that dwell in heaven.The true worshippers; the members of the true church, represented as dwelling in this holy tabernacle. No one acquainted with the reproaches cast on the devoted and sincere followers of the Saviour during the dark periods of the Papal rule can fail to see that there was in that a complete fulfilment of all that is here predicted.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and407his tabernacle, and408them that dwell in heaven.
6.And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name.By his own arrogant claims; by his assumed authority in matters of conscience; by setting aside the divine authority; and by impious declarations in derogation of the divine claims. See Notes onver.1. ¶And his tabernacle.Literally, his “tent”—σκηνὴν. This is the word which is commonly applied to the sacred tent or tabernacle among the Hebrews, in which the ark was kept, and which was the seat of the Jewish worship before the building of the temple. It is thus used to denote a place of worship, considered as the dwelling-place of God, and is in this sense applied to heaven,He.viii.2;ix.11;Re.xv.5. It seems to be used here in a general sense to denote the place where God was worshipped; and the meaning is, that there would be a course of conduct in regard to the true church—the dwelling-place of God on the earth—which could properly be regarded as blasphemy. Let anyone remember the anathemas and excommunications uttered against the Waldenses and Albigenses, and those of kindred spirit that appeared in the long period of the Papal rule, and he will find no difficulty in perceiving a complete fulfilment of all that is here said. ¶And them that dwell in heaven.The true worshippers; the members of the true church, represented as dwelling in this holy tabernacle. No one acquainted with the reproaches cast on the devoted and sincere followers of the Saviour during the dark periods of the Papal rule can fail to see that there was in that a complete fulfilment of all that is here predicted.
7 And it was given unto him409to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and410power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.7.And it was given unto him.By the same power that taught him to blaspheme God and his church. Notes onver.2, 5. ¶To make war with the saints.See this fully illustrated in the Notes on the parallel passage inDa.vii.21, and at the end of that chapter, (f). ¶And to overcome them.In those wars. This was abundantly fulfilled in the wars with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the other sincere followers of the Saviour in the time of the Papal persecutions. The language here used is the same as that which is found inDa.vii.21: “The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” See Notes on that passage. ¶And power was given him.See Notes onver.2. ¶Over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.For the meaning of these words see Notes onch. vii.9. The meaning here is, that this dominion was set up over the world.Comp.Da.vii.25. The fact that so large a portion of the kingdoms of the earth was under the influence of the Papacy, and sustained it, and the claim which it set up to universal dominion, and to the right of deposing kings and giving away kingdoms, corresponds entirely with the language here used.
7 And it was given unto him409to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and410power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
7.And it was given unto him.By the same power that taught him to blaspheme God and his church. Notes onver.2, 5. ¶To make war with the saints.See this fully illustrated in the Notes on the parallel passage inDa.vii.21, and at the end of that chapter, (f). ¶And to overcome them.In those wars. This was abundantly fulfilled in the wars with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the other sincere followers of the Saviour in the time of the Papal persecutions. The language here used is the same as that which is found inDa.vii.21: “The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” See Notes on that passage. ¶And power was given him.See Notes onver.2. ¶Over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.For the meaning of these words see Notes onch. vii.9. The meaning here is, that this dominion was set up over the world.Comp.Da.vii.25. The fact that so large a portion of the kingdoms of the earth was under the influence of the Papacy, and sustained it, and the claim which it set up to universal dominion, and to the right of deposing kings and giving away kingdoms, corresponds entirely with the language here used.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in411the book of life of the Lamb slain412from the foundation of the world.8.And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him.That is, as immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On the wordworship, see Notes onver.4.¶Whosenames are not written in the book of life of the Lamb.That is, of the Lord Jesus—the Lamb of God. See Notes onPhi.iv.3.Comp.Notes onJn.i.29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain everlasting life. ¶Slain from the foundation of the world.See Notes onch. v.6.Comp.Notes onch. iii.5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was socertainthat it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. SeeRo.iv.17. The purpose was so certain, it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was “slain from the foundation of the world.” Professor Stuart, however (Com.in loco), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence, “whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain.” Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in411the book of life of the Lamb slain412from the foundation of the world.
8.And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him.That is, as immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On the wordworship, see Notes onver.4.¶Whosenames are not written in the book of life of the Lamb.That is, of the Lord Jesus—the Lamb of God. See Notes onPhi.iv.3.Comp.Notes onJn.i.29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain everlasting life. ¶Slain from the foundation of the world.See Notes onch. v.6.Comp.Notes onch. iii.5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was socertainthat it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. SeeRo.iv.17. The purpose was so certain, it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was “slain from the foundation of the world.” Professor Stuart, however (Com.in loco), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence, “whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain.” Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.9.If any man have an ear, let him hear.See Notes onch. ii.7. The idea here is, that what was here said respecting the “beast” was worthy of special attention, as it pertained to most important events in the history of the church.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
9.If any man have an ear, let him hear.See Notes onch. ii.7. The idea here is, that what was here said respecting the “beast” was worthy of special attention, as it pertained to most important events in the history of the church.
10 He413that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:414he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the415patience and the faith of the saints.10.He that leadeth into captivity.This is clearly intended to refer to the power or government which is denoted by the beast. The form of expression here in the Greek is peculiar—“If any one leadeth into captivity,”&c.—Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει. The statement isgeneral, and is intended to make use of a general or prevalent truth with reference to this particular case. The general truth is, that men will, in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest—or that they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others. This general statement accords with what the Saviour says inMat.xxvi.52: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” This has been abundantly illustrated in the world; and it is a very important admonition to nations not to indulge in the purposes of conquest and to individuals not to engage in strife and litigation. The particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power here referred to that it would “lead others into captivity.” This would be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty. It is unnecessary to say that this is strikingly descriptive of Rome, considered in any and every point of view, whether under the republic or the empire, whether secular or ecclesiastical, whether Pagan or Papal. In the following forms there has been a complete fulfilment under that mighty power of what is here said: (a) In the desire of conquest or of extending its dominion, and, of course, leading others captive as prisoners of war or subjecting them to slavery. (b) In its persecutions of true Christians, alike pursued under the Pagan and the Papal form of the administration. (c) Especially in the imprisonments practised under the Inquisition, where tens of thousands have been reduced to the worst kind of captivity. In every way this description is applicable to Rome, as seeking to lead the worldcaptiveor to subject it to its own absolute sway. ¶Shall go into captivity.As a just recompense for subjecting others to bondage, and as an illustration of a general principle of the divine administration. This is yet, in a great measure, to be fulfilled; and, as I understand it, it discloses the manner in which the Papal secular power will come to an end. It will be by being subdued, so that it mightseemto be made captive and led off by some victorious host. Rome now is practically held in subjection by foreign arms,and has no true independence; perhaps this will be more and more so as its ultimate fall approaches. ¶He that killeth with the sword.See Notes, as above, onMat.xxvi.52. There can be no doubt that this is applicable to Rome in all the forms of its administration considered as a Pagan power; or considered as a nominally Christian power, either with reference to its secular or its spiritual dominion. Compute the numbers of human beings that have been put to death by that Roman power, and no better language could have been chosen to characterize it than that which is here used—“killed with the sword.”Comp.Notes onDa.vii.24–28,II.(3), (g). ¶Must be killed with the sword.This domination must be brought to an end by war and slaughter. Nothing is more probable than this in itself; nothing could be more in accordance with the principles of the divine dealings in the world. Such a power as that of Rome will not be likely to be overcome but by the force of arms; and the probability is that it will ultimately be overthrown in a bloody revolution, or by foreign conquest. Indeed, there are not a few intimations now that this result is hastening on. Italy is becoming impatient of the secular power swayed in connection with the Papacy, and sighs for freedom; and it is every way probable that that land would have been free, and that the secular power of the Papacy, if not every form of the Papacy itself, would have come to an end in the late convulsion (1848), if it had not been for the intervention of France and Austria. The period designated by prophecy for the final overthrow of that power had not arrived; but nothing can secure its continuance for any very considerable period longer. ¶Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.That is, the trial of their patience and of their faith. Nowhere on earth have the patience and the faith of the saints been put to a severer test than under the Roman persecutions. The same idea occurs inch. xiv.12.
10 He413that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:414he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the415patience and the faith of the saints.
10.He that leadeth into captivity.This is clearly intended to refer to the power or government which is denoted by the beast. The form of expression here in the Greek is peculiar—“If any one leadeth into captivity,”&c.—Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει. The statement isgeneral, and is intended to make use of a general or prevalent truth with reference to this particular case. The general truth is, that men will, in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest—or that they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others. This general statement accords with what the Saviour says inMat.xxvi.52: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” This has been abundantly illustrated in the world; and it is a very important admonition to nations not to indulge in the purposes of conquest and to individuals not to engage in strife and litigation. The particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power here referred to that it would “lead others into captivity.” This would be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty. It is unnecessary to say that this is strikingly descriptive of Rome, considered in any and every point of view, whether under the republic or the empire, whether secular or ecclesiastical, whether Pagan or Papal. In the following forms there has been a complete fulfilment under that mighty power of what is here said: (a) In the desire of conquest or of extending its dominion, and, of course, leading others captive as prisoners of war or subjecting them to slavery. (b) In its persecutions of true Christians, alike pursued under the Pagan and the Papal form of the administration. (c) Especially in the imprisonments practised under the Inquisition, where tens of thousands have been reduced to the worst kind of captivity. In every way this description is applicable to Rome, as seeking to lead the worldcaptiveor to subject it to its own absolute sway. ¶Shall go into captivity.As a just recompense for subjecting others to bondage, and as an illustration of a general principle of the divine administration. This is yet, in a great measure, to be fulfilled; and, as I understand it, it discloses the manner in which the Papal secular power will come to an end. It will be by being subdued, so that it mightseemto be made captive and led off by some victorious host. Rome now is practically held in subjection by foreign arms,and has no true independence; perhaps this will be more and more so as its ultimate fall approaches. ¶He that killeth with the sword.See Notes, as above, onMat.xxvi.52. There can be no doubt that this is applicable to Rome in all the forms of its administration considered as a Pagan power; or considered as a nominally Christian power, either with reference to its secular or its spiritual dominion. Compute the numbers of human beings that have been put to death by that Roman power, and no better language could have been chosen to characterize it than that which is here used—“killed with the sword.”Comp.Notes onDa.vii.24–28,II.(3), (g). ¶Must be killed with the sword.This domination must be brought to an end by war and slaughter. Nothing is more probable than this in itself; nothing could be more in accordance with the principles of the divine dealings in the world. Such a power as that of Rome will not be likely to be overcome but by the force of arms; and the probability is that it will ultimately be overthrown in a bloody revolution, or by foreign conquest. Indeed, there are not a few intimations now that this result is hastening on. Italy is becoming impatient of the secular power swayed in connection with the Papacy, and sighs for freedom; and it is every way probable that that land would have been free, and that the secular power of the Papacy, if not every form of the Papacy itself, would have come to an end in the late convulsion (1848), if it had not been for the intervention of France and Austria. The period designated by prophecy for the final overthrow of that power had not arrived; but nothing can secure its continuance for any very considerable period longer. ¶Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.That is, the trial of their patience and of their faith. Nowhere on earth have the patience and the faith of the saints been put to a severer test than under the Roman persecutions. The same idea occurs inch. xiv.12.
11 And I beheld416another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.11.And I beheld another beast.Comp.Notes onver.1. This was so distinct from the first that its characteristics could be described, though, as shown in the Analysis of the Chapter, there was in many points a strong resemblance between them. The relations between the two will be more fully indicated in the Notes. ¶Coming up out of the earth.Professor Stuart renders this, “ascending from the land.” The former was represented as rising up out of the sea (ver.1); indicating that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of affairs—like the ocean. This, from that which was more settled and stable—as the land is more firm than the waters. It may not be necessary to carry out this image; but thenaturalidea, as applied to the two forms of the Roman power supposed to be here referred to, would be that the former—the secular power that sustained the Papacy—rose out of the agitated state of the nations in the invasions of the northern hordes, and the convulsions and revolutions of the falling empire of Rome; and that the latter, the spiritual power itself—represented by the beast coming up from the land—grew up under the more settled and stable order of things. It was comparatively calm in its origin, and had less the appearance of a frightful monster rising up from the agitated ocean.Comp.Notes onver.1. ¶And he had two horns like a lamb.In some respects he resembled a lamb; that is, he seemed to be a mild, gentle, inoffensive animal. It is hardly necessary to say that this is a most striking representation of the actual manner in which the power of the Papacy has always been put forth—putting on the apparent gentleness of the lamb; or laying claim to great meekness and humility, even when deposing kings, and giving away crowns, and driving thousands to the stake, or throwing them into the dungeons of the Inquisition. ¶And he spake as a dragon.See Notes onch. xii.3. The meaning here is, that he spoke in a harsh, haughty, proud, arrogant tone—as we should suppose a dragon would if he had the power of utterance. The general sense is, that while this “beast” had, in one respect—in its resemblance to a lamb—the appearance of great gentleness, meekness, and kindness, it had, in another respect, a haughty, imperious, and arrogant spirit. How appropriate this is, as a symbol, to represent the Papacy, considered as a spiritual power, it is unnecessary to say. It will be admitted, whatever may be thoughtof the design of this symbol, that if it was in factintendedto refer to the Papacy, a more appropriate one could not have been chosen.
11 And I beheld416another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
11.And I beheld another beast.Comp.Notes onver.1. This was so distinct from the first that its characteristics could be described, though, as shown in the Analysis of the Chapter, there was in many points a strong resemblance between them. The relations between the two will be more fully indicated in the Notes. ¶Coming up out of the earth.Professor Stuart renders this, “ascending from the land.” The former was represented as rising up out of the sea (ver.1); indicating that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of affairs—like the ocean. This, from that which was more settled and stable—as the land is more firm than the waters. It may not be necessary to carry out this image; but thenaturalidea, as applied to the two forms of the Roman power supposed to be here referred to, would be that the former—the secular power that sustained the Papacy—rose out of the agitated state of the nations in the invasions of the northern hordes, and the convulsions and revolutions of the falling empire of Rome; and that the latter, the spiritual power itself—represented by the beast coming up from the land—grew up under the more settled and stable order of things. It was comparatively calm in its origin, and had less the appearance of a frightful monster rising up from the agitated ocean.Comp.Notes onver.1. ¶And he had two horns like a lamb.In some respects he resembled a lamb; that is, he seemed to be a mild, gentle, inoffensive animal. It is hardly necessary to say that this is a most striking representation of the actual manner in which the power of the Papacy has always been put forth—putting on the apparent gentleness of the lamb; or laying claim to great meekness and humility, even when deposing kings, and giving away crowns, and driving thousands to the stake, or throwing them into the dungeons of the Inquisition. ¶And he spake as a dragon.See Notes onch. xii.3. The meaning here is, that he spoke in a harsh, haughty, proud, arrogant tone—as we should suppose a dragon would if he had the power of utterance. The general sense is, that while this “beast” had, in one respect—in its resemblance to a lamb—the appearance of great gentleness, meekness, and kindness, it had, in another respect, a haughty, imperious, and arrogant spirit. How appropriate this is, as a symbol, to represent the Papacy, considered as a spiritual power, it is unnecessary to say. It will be admitted, whatever may be thoughtof the design of this symbol, that if it was in factintendedto refer to the Papacy, a more appropriate one could not have been chosen.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,417whose deadly wound was healed.12.And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him.The same amount of power; the same kind of power. This shows a remarkablerelationshipbetween these two beasts; and proves that it was intended to refer to the same power substantially, though manifested in a different form. In the fulfilment of this, we should naturally look for some government whose authority extended far, and which was absolute and arrogant in its character, for this is the power attributed to the first beast. See Notes onver.2, 3, 4, 7, 8. This description had a remarkable fulfilment in the Papacy, considered as a spiritual dominion. The relation to the secular power is the same as would be indicated by these two beasts; the dominion was as wide-spread; the authority was as absolute and arrogant. In fact, on these points they have been identical. The one has sustained the other; either one would long since have fallen if it had not been upheld by the other. The Papacy, considered as a spiritual domination, was in fact a new power starting up in the same place as the old Roman dominion, to give life to that as it was tending to decay, and to continue its ascendency over the world. These two things, the secular and the spiritual power, constitutingthe Papacyin the proper sense of the term, are in fact but the continuance or the prolongation of the old Roman dominion—the fourth kingdom of Daniel—united so as to constitute in reality but one kingdom, and yet so distinct in their origin, and in their manifestations, as to be capable of separate contemplation and description, and thus properly represented by the two “beasts” that were shown in vision to John. ¶And causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast.That is, to respect, to reverence, to honour. The wordworshiphere refers tocivilrespect, and not toreligiousadoration. See Notes onver.4. The meaning here, according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter, is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a spiritual power—represented by the second beast—secured for the civil or secular power—represented by the first beast—the homage of the world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it its ascendency among the nations of the earth. Thetruthof this, as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since the irruption of the northern barbarians, and the changes which their invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the form of the Papacy—represented in Daniel (ch. vii.8) by the “little horn.” That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its authority. ¶Whose deadly wound was healed.See Notes onver.3. That is, was healed by the influence of this new power represented by the second beast. A state of things occurred, on the rise of that new power,as ifa wound in the head, otherwise fatal, was healed. The striking applicability of this to the decaying Roman power—smitten as with a deadly wound by the blows inflicted by the northern hordes, and by internal dissensions—will occur to every one. It was as if a healing process had been imparted by some life-giving power, and, as a consequence, the Roman dominion—the prolongation of Daniel’s fourth kingdom—has continued to the present time. Other kingdoms passed away—the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian; Rome alone, of all the ancient empires, has prolonged its power over men. In all changes elsewhere, an influence has gone forth from the seven-hilled city as wide and as fearful as it was in the brightest days of the republic, the triumvirate, or the empire, and a large part of the world still listens reverently to the mandates which issue from the seat which so long gave law to mankind. The fact that itisso is to be traced solely to the influence of that power represented here by the second beast that appeared in vision to John—the Papacy.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,417whose deadly wound was healed.
12.And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him.The same amount of power; the same kind of power. This shows a remarkablerelationshipbetween these two beasts; and proves that it was intended to refer to the same power substantially, though manifested in a different form. In the fulfilment of this, we should naturally look for some government whose authority extended far, and which was absolute and arrogant in its character, for this is the power attributed to the first beast. See Notes onver.2, 3, 4, 7, 8. This description had a remarkable fulfilment in the Papacy, considered as a spiritual dominion. The relation to the secular power is the same as would be indicated by these two beasts; the dominion was as wide-spread; the authority was as absolute and arrogant. In fact, on these points they have been identical. The one has sustained the other; either one would long since have fallen if it had not been upheld by the other. The Papacy, considered as a spiritual domination, was in fact a new power starting up in the same place as the old Roman dominion, to give life to that as it was tending to decay, and to continue its ascendency over the world. These two things, the secular and the spiritual power, constitutingthe Papacyin the proper sense of the term, are in fact but the continuance or the prolongation of the old Roman dominion—the fourth kingdom of Daniel—united so as to constitute in reality but one kingdom, and yet so distinct in their origin, and in their manifestations, as to be capable of separate contemplation and description, and thus properly represented by the two “beasts” that were shown in vision to John. ¶And causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast.That is, to respect, to reverence, to honour. The wordworshiphere refers tocivilrespect, and not toreligiousadoration. See Notes onver.4. The meaning here, according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter, is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a spiritual power—represented by the second beast—secured for the civil or secular power—represented by the first beast—the homage of the world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it its ascendency among the nations of the earth. Thetruthof this, as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since the irruption of the northern barbarians, and the changes which their invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the form of the Papacy—represented in Daniel (ch. vii.8) by the “little horn.” That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its authority. ¶Whose deadly wound was healed.See Notes onver.3. That is, was healed by the influence of this new power represented by the second beast. A state of things occurred, on the rise of that new power,as ifa wound in the head, otherwise fatal, was healed. The striking applicability of this to the decaying Roman power—smitten as with a deadly wound by the blows inflicted by the northern hordes, and by internal dissensions—will occur to every one. It was as if a healing process had been imparted by some life-giving power, and, as a consequence, the Roman dominion—the prolongation of Daniel’s fourth kingdom—has continued to the present time. Other kingdoms passed away—the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian; Rome alone, of all the ancient empires, has prolonged its power over men. In all changes elsewhere, an influence has gone forth from the seven-hilled city as wide and as fearful as it was in the brightest days of the republic, the triumvirate, or the empire, and a large part of the world still listens reverently to the mandates which issue from the seat which so long gave law to mankind. The fact that itisso is to be traced solely to the influence of that power represented here by the second beast that appeared in vision to John—the Papacy.
13 And he doeth418great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,13.And he doeth great wonders.Signs—σημεῖα—the word commonly employed to denotemiracles(comp.Notes onAc.ii.19); and the representation here is, that the power referred to by the second beast would found its claim on pretended miracles, and would accomplish an effect on the worldas ifit actually did work miracles. The applicability of this to Papal Rome no one can doubt. See Notes on2 Th.ii.9.Comp.ver.14. ¶That he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.That is, he pretends this; he accomplishes an effectas ifhe did it. It is not necessary to suppose that he actually did this, any more than it is to suppose that he actually performed the other pretended miracles referred to in other places. John describes him as he saw him in the vision; and he saw him laying claim to this power, and actually producing an effectas ifby a miracle he actually made fire to descend from heaven upon the earth. This is to be understood as included in what the apostle Paul (2 Th.ii.9) calls “signs and lying wonders,” as among the things by which the “man of sin and the son of perdition” would be characterized, and by which he would be sustained. See Notes on that passage. Why this particular pretended miracle is specified here is not certain. It may be because this would be among the most striking and impressive of the pretended miracles wrought—as if lying beyond all human power—as Elijah made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice (1 Ki.xviii.37, 38), and as the apostles proposed to do on the Samaritans (Lu.ix.54),as iffire were called down on them from heaven. The phrase “in the sight of men” implies that this would be done publicly, and is such language as would be used of pretended miracles designed for purposes of ostentation. Amidst the multitudes of pretended miracles of the Papacy, it would probably not be difficult to find instances in which the very thing here described was attempted, in which various devices of pyrotechnics were shown off as miracles. For an illustration of the wonders produced in the dark ages in reference to fire, having all the appearance of miracles, and regardedasmiracles by the masses of men, the reader is referred toDr.Brewster’sLetters on Natural Magic, particularly Letterxii.
13 And he doeth418great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13.And he doeth great wonders.Signs—σημεῖα—the word commonly employed to denotemiracles(comp.Notes onAc.ii.19); and the representation here is, that the power referred to by the second beast would found its claim on pretended miracles, and would accomplish an effect on the worldas ifit actually did work miracles. The applicability of this to Papal Rome no one can doubt. See Notes on2 Th.ii.9.Comp.ver.14. ¶That he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.That is, he pretends this; he accomplishes an effectas ifhe did it. It is not necessary to suppose that he actually did this, any more than it is to suppose that he actually performed the other pretended miracles referred to in other places. John describes him as he saw him in the vision; and he saw him laying claim to this power, and actually producing an effectas ifby a miracle he actually made fire to descend from heaven upon the earth. This is to be understood as included in what the apostle Paul (2 Th.ii.9) calls “signs and lying wonders,” as among the things by which the “man of sin and the son of perdition” would be characterized, and by which he would be sustained. See Notes on that passage. Why this particular pretended miracle is specified here is not certain. It may be because this would be among the most striking and impressive of the pretended miracles wrought—as if lying beyond all human power—as Elijah made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice (1 Ki.xviii.37, 38), and as the apostles proposed to do on the Samaritans (Lu.ix.54),as iffire were called down on them from heaven. The phrase “in the sight of men” implies that this would be done publicly, and is such language as would be used of pretended miracles designed for purposes of ostentation. Amidst the multitudes of pretended miracles of the Papacy, it would probably not be difficult to find instances in which the very thing here described was attempted, in which various devices of pyrotechnics were shown off as miracles. For an illustration of the wonders produced in the dark ages in reference to fire, having all the appearance of miracles, and regardedasmiracles by the masses of men, the reader is referred toDr.Brewster’sLetters on Natural Magic, particularly Letterxii.
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth bythe means ofthose 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 the419wound by a sword, and did live.14.And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth bythe means ofthose miracles.Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the Papacy than this. It has been kept up by deception and delusion, and its pretended miracles have been, and are to this day, the means by which this is done. Anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the pretended miracles practised at Rome, will see the propriety of this description as applied to the Papacy. The main fact here stated, that the Papacy would endeavour to sustain itself by pretended miracles, is confirmed by an incidental remark ofMr.Gibbon, when speaking of the pontificate of Gregory the Great; he says: “The credulity or the prudence of Gregory was always disposed to confirm the truths of religion by the evidence of ghosts,miracles, and resurrections” (Decline and Fall,iii.210). Even within a month of the time that I am writing (October 5, 1850), intelligence has been received in this country of extraordinary privileges conferred on some city in Italy, because the eyes of a picture of the Virgin in that city have miraculously moved—greatly to the “confirmation of the faithful.” Such things are constantly occurring; and it is by these that the supremacy of the Papacy has been and is sustained. TheBreviaryteems with examples of miracles wrought by the saints. For instance:St.Francis Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh to save the lives of five hundred travellers who were dying of thirst, enough being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world, where it wrought astonishing cures.St.Raymond de Pennafort laid his cloak on the sea, and sailed from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of a hundred andsixty miles, in six hours.St.Juliana lay on her death-bed; her stomach rejected all solid food, and in consequence she was prevented from receiving the Eucharist. In compliance with her earnest solicitations, the consecrated wafer was laid on her breast; the priest prayed; the wafer vanished, and Juliana expired. Many pages might be filled with accounts of modern miracles of the most ridiculous description, yet believed by Roman Catholics—the undoubted means by which Papal Rome “deceives the world,” and keeps up its ascendency in this age. See Forsyth’sItaly,ii.pp.154–157;Rome in the Nineteenth Century,i.p.40, 86,ii.p.356,iii.pp.193–201; Lady Morgan’sItaly,ii.p.306,iii.p.189; Graham’sThree Months’ Residence,&c.p.241. ¶Saying to them that dwell on the earth.That is, as far as its influence would extend. This implies that there would beauthority, and that this authority would be exercised to secure this object. ¶That they should make an image to the beast.That is, something that wouldrepresentthe beast, and that might be an object of worship. The word renderedimage—εἰκών—means properly, (a) an image, effigy, figure, as anidol, image, or figure; (b) a likeness, resemblance, similitude. Here the meaning would seem to be, that, in order to secure the acknowledgment of the beast, and the homage to be rendered to him, there was something like a statue made, or that John saw in vision such a representation—that is, that a state of things existedas ifsuch a statue were made, and men were constrained to acknowledge this. All that is stated here would be fulfilled if the old Roman civil power should become to a large extent dead, or cease to exert its influence over men, and if then the Papal spiritual power should cause a form of domination to exist,strongly resemblingthe former in its general character and extent, and if it should secure this result—that the world would acknowledge its sway or render it homage as it did to the old Roman government. This would receive its fulfilment if it be supposed that the first “beast” represented the ancient Roman civil power as such; that this died away—as if the head had received a fatal wound; that it was again revived under the influence of the Papacy; and that, under that influence, a civil government,strongly resemblingthe old Roman dominion, was caused to exist, depending for its vital energy on the Papacy, and, in its turn, lending its aid to support the Papacy. All thisin factoccurred in the decline of the Roman power after the time of Constantine, and its final apparent extinction, as if “wounded to death,” in the exile of the last of the emperors, the son of Orestes, who assumed the names of Romulus and Augustus, names which were corrupted, the former by the Greeks intoMomyllus, and the latter by the Latins “into the contemptible diminutiveAugustulus.” See Gibbonii.381. Under him the empire ceased, until it was revived in the days of Charlemagne. In the empire which then sprung up, and which owed much of its influence to the sustaining aid of the Papacy, we discern the “image” of the former Roman power; the prolongation of the Roman ascendency over the world. On the exile of the feeble son of Orestes (A.D.476), the government passed into the hands of Odoacer, “the first barbarian who reigned in Italy” (Gibbon); and then the authority was divided among the sovereignties which sprang up after the conquests of the barbarians, until the “empire” was again restored in the time and the person of Charlemagne. See Gibbon,iii.344,seq.¶Which had the wound by a sword, and did live.Which had a wound that was naturally fatal, but whose fatal consequences were prevented by the intervention of another power. See Notes onver.3. That is, according to the explanation given above, the Roman imperial power was “wounded with a fatal wound” by the invasions of the northern hordes—the sword of the conquerors. Its power, however, was restored by the Papacy, giving life to that whichresembledessentially the Roman civil jurisdiction—the “image” of the former beast; and that power, thus restored, asserted its dominion again, as the prolonged Roman dominion—the fourth kingdom of Daniel (see Notes onDan.vii.19,seq.)—over the world.
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth bythe means ofthose 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 the419wound by a sword, and did live.
14.And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth bythe means ofthose miracles.Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the Papacy than this. It has been kept up by deception and delusion, and its pretended miracles have been, and are to this day, the means by which this is done. Anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the pretended miracles practised at Rome, will see the propriety of this description as applied to the Papacy. The main fact here stated, that the Papacy would endeavour to sustain itself by pretended miracles, is confirmed by an incidental remark ofMr.Gibbon, when speaking of the pontificate of Gregory the Great; he says: “The credulity or the prudence of Gregory was always disposed to confirm the truths of religion by the evidence of ghosts,miracles, and resurrections” (Decline and Fall,iii.210). Even within a month of the time that I am writing (October 5, 1850), intelligence has been received in this country of extraordinary privileges conferred on some city in Italy, because the eyes of a picture of the Virgin in that city have miraculously moved—greatly to the “confirmation of the faithful.” Such things are constantly occurring; and it is by these that the supremacy of the Papacy has been and is sustained. TheBreviaryteems with examples of miracles wrought by the saints. For instance:St.Francis Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh to save the lives of five hundred travellers who were dying of thirst, enough being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world, where it wrought astonishing cures.St.Raymond de Pennafort laid his cloak on the sea, and sailed from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of a hundred andsixty miles, in six hours.St.Juliana lay on her death-bed; her stomach rejected all solid food, and in consequence she was prevented from receiving the Eucharist. In compliance with her earnest solicitations, the consecrated wafer was laid on her breast; the priest prayed; the wafer vanished, and Juliana expired. Many pages might be filled with accounts of modern miracles of the most ridiculous description, yet believed by Roman Catholics—the undoubted means by which Papal Rome “deceives the world,” and keeps up its ascendency in this age. See Forsyth’sItaly,ii.pp.154–157;Rome in the Nineteenth Century,i.p.40, 86,ii.p.356,iii.pp.193–201; Lady Morgan’sItaly,ii.p.306,iii.p.189; Graham’sThree Months’ Residence,&c.p.241. ¶Saying to them that dwell on the earth.That is, as far as its influence would extend. This implies that there would beauthority, and that this authority would be exercised to secure this object. ¶That they should make an image to the beast.That is, something that wouldrepresentthe beast, and that might be an object of worship. The word renderedimage—εἰκών—means properly, (a) an image, effigy, figure, as anidol, image, or figure; (b) a likeness, resemblance, similitude. Here the meaning would seem to be, that, in order to secure the acknowledgment of the beast, and the homage to be rendered to him, there was something like a statue made, or that John saw in vision such a representation—that is, that a state of things existedas ifsuch a statue were made, and men were constrained to acknowledge this. All that is stated here would be fulfilled if the old Roman civil power should become to a large extent dead, or cease to exert its influence over men, and if then the Papal spiritual power should cause a form of domination to exist,strongly resemblingthe former in its general character and extent, and if it should secure this result—that the world would acknowledge its sway or render it homage as it did to the old Roman government. This would receive its fulfilment if it be supposed that the first “beast” represented the ancient Roman civil power as such; that this died away—as if the head had received a fatal wound; that it was again revived under the influence of the Papacy; and that, under that influence, a civil government,strongly resemblingthe old Roman dominion, was caused to exist, depending for its vital energy on the Papacy, and, in its turn, lending its aid to support the Papacy. All thisin factoccurred in the decline of the Roman power after the time of Constantine, and its final apparent extinction, as if “wounded to death,” in the exile of the last of the emperors, the son of Orestes, who assumed the names of Romulus and Augustus, names which were corrupted, the former by the Greeks intoMomyllus, and the latter by the Latins “into the contemptible diminutiveAugustulus.” See Gibbonii.381. Under him the empire ceased, until it was revived in the days of Charlemagne. In the empire which then sprung up, and which owed much of its influence to the sustaining aid of the Papacy, we discern the “image” of the former Roman power; the prolongation of the Roman ascendency over the world. On the exile of the feeble son of Orestes (A.D.476), the government passed into the hands of Odoacer, “the first barbarian who reigned in Italy” (Gibbon); and then the authority was divided among the sovereignties which sprang up after the conquests of the barbarians, until the “empire” was again restored in the time and the person of Charlemagne. See Gibbon,iii.344,seq.¶Which had the wound by a sword, and did live.Which had a wound that was naturally fatal, but whose fatal consequences were prevented by the intervention of another power. See Notes onver.3. That is, according to the explanation given above, the Roman imperial power was “wounded with a fatal wound” by the invasions of the northern hordes—the sword of the conquerors. Its power, however, was restored by the Papacy, giving life to that whichresembledessentially the Roman civil jurisdiction—the “image” of the former beast; and that power, thus restored, asserted its dominion again, as the prolonged Roman dominion—the fourth kingdom of Daniel (see Notes onDan.vii.19,seq.)—over the world.
15 And he had power to give life420unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not421worship the image of the beast should be killed.15.And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast.That is, that image of the beast would be naturally powerless, or would have no life in itself. The second beast, however, had power to impart life to it, so that it would be invested with authority, and would exercise that authority in the manner specified. If this refers, as is supposed, to the Roman civil power—the power of the empire restored—it would find a fulfilment in some act of the Papacy by which the empire that resembled in the extent of its jurisdiction, and in its general character, the former Roman empire, received some vivifying impulse, or was invested with new power. That is, it would have power conferred on it through the Papacy which it would not have in itself, and which would confirm its jurisdiction. How far events actually occurred corresponding with this, will be considered in the Notes at the close of this verse. ¶That the image of the beast should both speak.Should give signs of life; should issue authoritative commands. Thespeakinghere referred to pertains to that which is immediately specified, in issuing a command that they who “would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” ¶And cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast.Would not honour it, or acknowledge its authority. The “worship” here referred to iscivil, notreligioushomage. See Notes onver.4. The meaning is, that what is here called the “image of the beast” had power given it, by its connection with the second “beast,” to set up its jurisdiction over men, and to secure their allegiance on pain of death. The power by which this was done was derived from the second beast; the obedience and homage demanded was of the most entire and submissive character; the nature of the government was in a high degree arbitrary; and the penalty enforced for refusing this homage was death. Thefactsthat we are to look for in the fulfilment of this are, (1) that the Roman imperial power was about to expire—as if wounded to death by the sword; (2) that this was revived in the form of what is here called the “image of the beast”—that is, in a form closely resembling the former power; (3) that this was done by the agency of the Papal power, represented by the second beast; (4) that the effect of this was to set up over men a wide-extended secular jurisdiction, of a most arbitrary and absolute kind, where the penalty of disobedience to its laws was death, and where the infliction of this was, in fact, to be traced to the influence of the second beast—that is, the Papal spiritual power. The question now is, whetherfactsoccurred that corresponded with this emblematic representation. Now, as to the leading fact, the decline of the Roman imperial power—the fatal wound inflicted on that by the “sword”—there can be no doubt. In the time of “Augustulus,” as above stated, it had become practically extinct—“wounded as it were to death,” andsowounded that it would never have been revived again had it not been for some foreign influence. It is true also, that, when the Papacy arose, the necessity was felt of allying itself with some wide-extended civil or secular dominion, that might be under its own control, and that would maintain its spiritual authority. It is true, also, that the empire was revived—the very “image” or copy, so far as it could be, of the former Roman power, in the time of Charlemagne, and that the power which was wielded in what was called the “empire,” was that which was, in a great measure, derived from the Papacy, and was designed to sustain the Papacy, and was actually employed for that purpose. These are the main facts, I suppose, which are here referred to, and a few extracts fromMr.Gibbon will show with what propriety and accuracy the symbols were employed were used, on the supposition that this was the designed reference. (a) The rise, or restoration of this imperial power in the time and the person of Charlemagne.Mr.Gibbon says (iii.342), “It was after the Nicene synod, and under the reign of the pious Irene, that the popes consummated the separation of Rome and Italy [from the Eastern empire]by the translation of the empireto the less orthodox Charlemagne. They were compelled to choose between the rival nations; religion was not the sole motive of their choice; and while they dissembled the failings of their friends, they beheld with reluctance and suspicion the Catholic virtues of their foes. The difference of language and manners had perpetuated the enmity of the two capitals [Rome and Constantinople]; and they were alienated from each other by the hostile opposition of seventyyears. In that schism the Romans had tasted of freedom, and the popes of sovereignty; their submission would have exposed them to the revenge of a jealous tyrant, and the revolution of Italy had betrayed the impotence as well as the tyranny of the Byzantine court.”Mr.Gibbon then proceeds to state reasons whyCharlemagnewas selected as the one who was to be placed at the head of the revived imperial power, and then adds (p.343), “The title of patrician was below the merit and greatness of Charlemagne; andit was only by reviving the Western empirethat they could pay their obligations, or secure their establishment. By this decisive measure they would finally eradicate the claims of the Greeks; from the debasement of a provincial town the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis;and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors ofSt.Peter. The Roman church would acquire a zealous and respectable advocate; and under the shadow of the Carlovingian power, the bishop might exercise, with honour and safety, the government of the city.” All this seems as if it were adesignedcommentary on such expressions as these: “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed,” “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; and he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,”&c.(b) Its extent. It is said (ver.12), “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”Comp.ver.14, 15. That is, theextentof the jurisdiction of the revived power, or the restored empire, would be as great as it was before the wound was inflicted. Of theextentof the restored empire under Charlemagne,Mr.Gibbon has given a full account,iii.pp.546–549. The passage is too long to be copied here in full, and a summary of it only can be given. He says, “The empire was not unworthy of its title; and some of the fairest kingdoms of Europe were the patrimony or conquest of a prince who reigned at the same time in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary.I.The Roman province of Gaul had been transformed into the name and monarchy ofFrance,&c.II.The Saracens had been expelled from France by the grandfather and father of Charlemagne, but they still possessed the greatest part of Spain, from the rock of Gibraltar to the Pyrenees. Amidst their civil divisions, an Arabian emir of Saragossa implored his protection in the diet of Paderborn. Charlemagne undertook the expedition, restored the emir, and, without distinction of faith, impartially crushed the resistance of the Christians, and rewarded the obedience and service of the Mohammedans. In his absence he instituted theSpanish March, which extended from the Pyrenees to the river Ebro: Barcelona was the residence of the French governor; he possessed the counties ofRousillonandCatalonia; and the infant kingdoms ofNavarreandAragonwere subject to his jurisdiction.III.As king of the Lombards, and patrician of Rome, he reigned over the greatest part ofItaly, a tract of a thousand miles from the Alps to the borders of Calabria,&c.IV.Charlemagne was the first who unitedGermanyunder the same sceptre,&c.V.He retaliated on the Avars, or Huns of Pannonia, the same calamities which they had inflicted on the nations: the royal residence of the Chagan was left desolate and unknown; and the treasures, the rapine of two hundred and fifty years, enriched the victorious troops, or decorated the churches of Italy and Gaul.” “If we retrace the outlines of the geographical picture,” continuesMr.Gibbon, “it will be seen that the empire of the Franks extended, between east and west, from the Ebro to the Elbe or Vistula; between the north and south, from the duchy of Beneventum to the river Eyder, the perpetual boundary of Germany and Denmark. Two-thirds of the Western empire of Rome were subject to Charlemagne, and the deficiency was amply supplied by his command of the inaccessible or invincible nations of Germany.” (c) The dependence of this civil or revived secular power on the Papacy. “His deadly wound was healed.” “And caused the earth to worship the first beast.” “Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast.” “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast.” ThusMr.Gibbon(iii.343) says, “From the debasement of a provincial town, the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis;and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors ofSt.Peter.” And again (iii.344) he says, “On the festival of Christmas, the last year of the eighth century, Charlemagne appeared in the church ofSt.Peter; and, to gratify the vanity of Rome, he had exchanged the simple dress of his country for the habit of a patrician. After the celebration of the holy mysteries, Leosuddenly placed a precious crown on his head, and the dome resounded with the acclamations of the people, ‘Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus,crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans!’ The head and body of Charlemagne were consecrated by the royal unction; his coronation oath represents a promise to maintain the faith and privileges of the church; and the first-fruits are paid in rich offerings to the shrine of the apostle. In his familiar conversation the emperor protested his ignorance of the intentions of Leo, which he would have disappointed by his absence on that memorable day. But the preparations of the ceremony must have disclosed the secret; and the journey of Charlemagne reveals his knowledge and expectation; he had acknowledged that the imperial title was the object of his ambition, and a Roman senate had pronounced that it was the only adequate reward of his merit and services.” So again (iii.350),Mr.Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Otho (A.D.962), and of his victorious march over the Alps, and his subjugation of Italy, says, “From that memorable era, two maxims of public jurisprudence were introduced by force and ratified by time.I.That the prince who was elected in the German diet, acquired from that instant the subject kingdoms of Italy and Rome.II.But that he might not legally assume the titles of emperor and Augustus,till he had received the crown from the hands of the Roman Pontiff.” In connection with these quotations fromMr.Gibbon, we may add, from Sigonius, the oath which the emperor took on the occasion of his coronation: “I, the Emperor, do engage and promise, in the name of Christ, before God and the blessed apostle Peter, that I will be a protector and defender of this holy church of Rome, in all things wherein I can be useful to it, so far as divine assistance shall enable me, and so far as my knowledge and power can reach” (quoted by Professor Bush,Hieroph.Nov.1842,p.141). We learn, also, from the biographers of Charlemagne that a commemorative coin was struck at Rome under his reign, bearing this inscription: “Renovatio Imperii Romani”—“Revival of the Roman Empire” (Ibid.). These quotations, whose authority will not be questioned, and whose authors will not be suspected of having had any design to illustrate these passages in the Apocalypse, will serve to confirm what is said in the Notes of the decline and restoration of the Roman secular power; of its dependence on the Papacy to give it life and vigour; and of the fact that it was designed to sustain the Papacy, and to perpetuate the power of Rome. It needs only to be added, that down to the time of Charles the Fifth—the period of the Reformation—nothing was more remarkable in history than the readiness of this restored secular power to sustain the Papacy and to carry out its designs; or than the readiness of the Papacy to sustain an absolute civil despotism, and to make the world subject to it by suppressing all attempts in favour of civil liberty.
15 And he had power to give life420unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not421worship the image of the beast should be killed.
15.And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast.That is, that image of the beast would be naturally powerless, or would have no life in itself. The second beast, however, had power to impart life to it, so that it would be invested with authority, and would exercise that authority in the manner specified. If this refers, as is supposed, to the Roman civil power—the power of the empire restored—it would find a fulfilment in some act of the Papacy by which the empire that resembled in the extent of its jurisdiction, and in its general character, the former Roman empire, received some vivifying impulse, or was invested with new power. That is, it would have power conferred on it through the Papacy which it would not have in itself, and which would confirm its jurisdiction. How far events actually occurred corresponding with this, will be considered in the Notes at the close of this verse. ¶That the image of the beast should both speak.Should give signs of life; should issue authoritative commands. Thespeakinghere referred to pertains to that which is immediately specified, in issuing a command that they who “would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” ¶And cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast.Would not honour it, or acknowledge its authority. The “worship” here referred to iscivil, notreligioushomage. See Notes onver.4. The meaning is, that what is here called the “image of the beast” had power given it, by its connection with the second “beast,” to set up its jurisdiction over men, and to secure their allegiance on pain of death. The power by which this was done was derived from the second beast; the obedience and homage demanded was of the most entire and submissive character; the nature of the government was in a high degree arbitrary; and the penalty enforced for refusing this homage was death. Thefactsthat we are to look for in the fulfilment of this are, (1) that the Roman imperial power was about to expire—as if wounded to death by the sword; (2) that this was revived in the form of what is here called the “image of the beast”—that is, in a form closely resembling the former power; (3) that this was done by the agency of the Papal power, represented by the second beast; (4) that the effect of this was to set up over men a wide-extended secular jurisdiction, of a most arbitrary and absolute kind, where the penalty of disobedience to its laws was death, and where the infliction of this was, in fact, to be traced to the influence of the second beast—that is, the Papal spiritual power. The question now is, whetherfactsoccurred that corresponded with this emblematic representation. Now, as to the leading fact, the decline of the Roman imperial power—the fatal wound inflicted on that by the “sword”—there can be no doubt. In the time of “Augustulus,” as above stated, it had become practically extinct—“wounded as it were to death,” andsowounded that it would never have been revived again had it not been for some foreign influence. It is true also, that, when the Papacy arose, the necessity was felt of allying itself with some wide-extended civil or secular dominion, that might be under its own control, and that would maintain its spiritual authority. It is true, also, that the empire was revived—the very “image” or copy, so far as it could be, of the former Roman power, in the time of Charlemagne, and that the power which was wielded in what was called the “empire,” was that which was, in a great measure, derived from the Papacy, and was designed to sustain the Papacy, and was actually employed for that purpose. These are the main facts, I suppose, which are here referred to, and a few extracts fromMr.Gibbon will show with what propriety and accuracy the symbols were employed were used, on the supposition that this was the designed reference. (a) The rise, or restoration of this imperial power in the time and the person of Charlemagne.Mr.Gibbon says (iii.342), “It was after the Nicene synod, and under the reign of the pious Irene, that the popes consummated the separation of Rome and Italy [from the Eastern empire]by the translation of the empireto the less orthodox Charlemagne. They were compelled to choose between the rival nations; religion was not the sole motive of their choice; and while they dissembled the failings of their friends, they beheld with reluctance and suspicion the Catholic virtues of their foes. The difference of language and manners had perpetuated the enmity of the two capitals [Rome and Constantinople]; and they were alienated from each other by the hostile opposition of seventyyears. In that schism the Romans had tasted of freedom, and the popes of sovereignty; their submission would have exposed them to the revenge of a jealous tyrant, and the revolution of Italy had betrayed the impotence as well as the tyranny of the Byzantine court.”Mr.Gibbon then proceeds to state reasons whyCharlemagnewas selected as the one who was to be placed at the head of the revived imperial power, and then adds (p.343), “The title of patrician was below the merit and greatness of Charlemagne; andit was only by reviving the Western empirethat they could pay their obligations, or secure their establishment. By this decisive measure they would finally eradicate the claims of the Greeks; from the debasement of a provincial town the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis;and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors ofSt.Peter. The Roman church would acquire a zealous and respectable advocate; and under the shadow of the Carlovingian power, the bishop might exercise, with honour and safety, the government of the city.” All this seems as if it were adesignedcommentary on such expressions as these: “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed,” “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; and he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,”&c.(b) Its extent. It is said (ver.12), “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”Comp.ver.14, 15. That is, theextentof the jurisdiction of the revived power, or the restored empire, would be as great as it was before the wound was inflicted. Of theextentof the restored empire under Charlemagne,Mr.Gibbon has given a full account,iii.pp.546–549. The passage is too long to be copied here in full, and a summary of it only can be given. He says, “The empire was not unworthy of its title; and some of the fairest kingdoms of Europe were the patrimony or conquest of a prince who reigned at the same time in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary.I.The Roman province of Gaul had been transformed into the name and monarchy ofFrance,&c.II.The Saracens had been expelled from France by the grandfather and father of Charlemagne, but they still possessed the greatest part of Spain, from the rock of Gibraltar to the Pyrenees. Amidst their civil divisions, an Arabian emir of Saragossa implored his protection in the diet of Paderborn. Charlemagne undertook the expedition, restored the emir, and, without distinction of faith, impartially crushed the resistance of the Christians, and rewarded the obedience and service of the Mohammedans. In his absence he instituted theSpanish March, which extended from the Pyrenees to the river Ebro: Barcelona was the residence of the French governor; he possessed the counties ofRousillonandCatalonia; and the infant kingdoms ofNavarreandAragonwere subject to his jurisdiction.III.As king of the Lombards, and patrician of Rome, he reigned over the greatest part ofItaly, a tract of a thousand miles from the Alps to the borders of Calabria,&c.IV.Charlemagne was the first who unitedGermanyunder the same sceptre,&c.V.He retaliated on the Avars, or Huns of Pannonia, the same calamities which they had inflicted on the nations: the royal residence of the Chagan was left desolate and unknown; and the treasures, the rapine of two hundred and fifty years, enriched the victorious troops, or decorated the churches of Italy and Gaul.” “If we retrace the outlines of the geographical picture,” continuesMr.Gibbon, “it will be seen that the empire of the Franks extended, between east and west, from the Ebro to the Elbe or Vistula; between the north and south, from the duchy of Beneventum to the river Eyder, the perpetual boundary of Germany and Denmark. Two-thirds of the Western empire of Rome were subject to Charlemagne, and the deficiency was amply supplied by his command of the inaccessible or invincible nations of Germany.” (c) The dependence of this civil or revived secular power on the Papacy. “His deadly wound was healed.” “And caused the earth to worship the first beast.” “Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast.” “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast.” ThusMr.Gibbon(iii.343) says, “From the debasement of a provincial town, the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis;and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors ofSt.Peter.” And again (iii.344) he says, “On the festival of Christmas, the last year of the eighth century, Charlemagne appeared in the church ofSt.Peter; and, to gratify the vanity of Rome, he had exchanged the simple dress of his country for the habit of a patrician. After the celebration of the holy mysteries, Leosuddenly placed a precious crown on his head, and the dome resounded with the acclamations of the people, ‘Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus,crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans!’ The head and body of Charlemagne were consecrated by the royal unction; his coronation oath represents a promise to maintain the faith and privileges of the church; and the first-fruits are paid in rich offerings to the shrine of the apostle. In his familiar conversation the emperor protested his ignorance of the intentions of Leo, which he would have disappointed by his absence on that memorable day. But the preparations of the ceremony must have disclosed the secret; and the journey of Charlemagne reveals his knowledge and expectation; he had acknowledged that the imperial title was the object of his ambition, and a Roman senate had pronounced that it was the only adequate reward of his merit and services.” So again (iii.350),Mr.Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Otho (A.D.962), and of his victorious march over the Alps, and his subjugation of Italy, says, “From that memorable era, two maxims of public jurisprudence were introduced by force and ratified by time.I.That the prince who was elected in the German diet, acquired from that instant the subject kingdoms of Italy and Rome.II.But that he might not legally assume the titles of emperor and Augustus,till he had received the crown from the hands of the Roman Pontiff.” In connection with these quotations fromMr.Gibbon, we may add, from Sigonius, the oath which the emperor took on the occasion of his coronation: “I, the Emperor, do engage and promise, in the name of Christ, before God and the blessed apostle Peter, that I will be a protector and defender of this holy church of Rome, in all things wherein I can be useful to it, so far as divine assistance shall enable me, and so far as my knowledge and power can reach” (quoted by Professor Bush,Hieroph.Nov.1842,p.141). We learn, also, from the biographers of Charlemagne that a commemorative coin was struck at Rome under his reign, bearing this inscription: “Renovatio Imperii Romani”—“Revival of the Roman Empire” (Ibid.). These quotations, whose authority will not be questioned, and whose authors will not be suspected of having had any design to illustrate these passages in the Apocalypse, will serve to confirm what is said in the Notes of the decline and restoration of the Roman secular power; of its dependence on the Papacy to give it life and vigour; and of the fact that it was designed to sustain the Papacy, and to perpetuate the power of Rome. It needs only to be added, that down to the time of Charles the Fifth—the period of the Reformation—nothing was more remarkable in history than the readiness of this restored secular power to sustain the Papacy and to carry out its designs; or than the readiness of the Papacy to sustain an absolute civil despotism, and to make the world subject to it by suppressing all attempts in favour of civil liberty.