11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.11.And the beast that was, and is not.That is, the one power that was formerly mighty; that died away so that it might be said to be extinct; and yet (ver.8) that “still is,” or has a prolonged existence. It is evident that, by the “beast” here, there is some one power, dominion, empire, or rule, whose essential identity is preserved through all these changes, and to which it is proper to give the same name. It finds its termination, orits last form, in what is here called the “eighth;” a power which, it is observed, sustains such a peculiar relation to the seven, that it may be said to be “of the seven,” or to be a mere prolongation of the same sovereignty. ¶Even he is the eighth.The eighth in the succession. This form of sovereignty, though a mere prolongation of the former government, so much so as to be, in fact, but keeping up the same empire in the world, appears in such a novelty of form, that, in one sense, it deserves to be called theeighthin order, and yet is so essentially a mere concentration and continuance of the one power, that, in the general reckoning (ver.10), it might be regarded as pertaining to the former. There was a sense in which it was proper to speak of it as the eighth power; and yet, viewed in its relation to the whole, it so essentially combined and concentrated all that there wasinthe seven, that, in a general view, it scarcely merited a separate mention. We should look for the fulfilment of this in some such concentration and embodiment of all that it was, in the previous forms of sovereignty referred to, that it perhaps would deserve mention as aneighthpower, but that it was, nevertheless, such a more prolongation of the previous forms of the one power, that it might be said to be “ofthe seven;” so that,in this view, it would not claim a separate consideration. This seems to be the fair meaning, though there is much that is enigmatical in the form of the expression. ¶And goeth into perdition.See Notes onver.8.In inquiring now into the application of this very difficult passage, it may be proper to suggest some of the principal opinions which have been held, and then to endeavour to ascertain the true meaning.I.The principal opinions which have been held may be reduced to the following:—(1) That the seven kings here refer to the succession of Roman emperors, yet with some variation as to the manner of reckoning.Prof.Stuart begins with Julius Cæsar, and reckons them in this manner:—the “five that are fallen” are Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. Nero, who, as he supposes, was the reigning prince at the time when the book was written, he regards as the sixth; Galba, who succeeded him, as the seventh. Others, who adopt this literal method of explaining it, suppose that the time begins with Augustus, and then Galba would be the sixth, and Otho, who reigned but three months, would be the seventh. The expression, “the beast that was, and is not, who is the eighth,”Prof.Stuart regards as referring to a general impression among the heathen and among Christians, in the time of the persecution under Nero, that he would again appear after it was reported that he was dead, or that he would rise from the dead and carry on his persecution again. SeeProf.Stuart,Com.vol. ii.,Excur. iii. Thebeast, according to this view, denotes the Roman emperors, specifically Nero, and the reference inver.8 is to “the well-known hariolation respecting Nero, that he would be assassinated, and would disappear for a while, and then make his appearance again to the confusion of all his enemies.” “What the angel,” says he, “says, seems to be equivalent to this—‘Thebeastmeans the Roman emperors, specifically Nero, of whom the report spread throughout the empire that he will revive, after being apparently slain, and will come, as it were, from the abyss or Hades, but he will perish, and that speedily,’”vol. ii.p.323.(2) That the word “kings” is not to be taken literally, but that it refers to forms of government, dynasties, or modes of administration. The general opinion among those who hold this view is, that the first six refer to the forms of the Roman government—(1) kings; (2) consuls; (3) dictators; (4) decemvirs; (5) military tribunes; (6) the imperial form, beginning with Augustus. This has been the common Protestant interpretation, and in reference to thesesixforms of government there has been a general agreement. But, while the mass of Protestant interpreters have supposed that the “six” heads refer to these forms of administration, there has been much diversity of opinion as to the seventh; and here, on this plan of interpretation, the main, if not the sole difficulty lies. Among the opinions held are the following:—(a) That ofMr.Mede. He makes the seventh head what he calls the “Demi-Cæsar,” or the “Western emperor who reigned after the division of the empire into East and West, and which continued, after the last division, under Honorius and Arcadius, about sixty years—a short space” (Works, bookiii.ch.8; bookv.ch.12).(b) That of Bishop Newton, who regards the sixth or imperial “head” as continuing uninterruptedly through the line of Christian as well as Pagan emperors, until Augustulus and the Heruli; and the seventh to be theDukedomof Rome, established soon after under the exarchate of Ravenna (Prophecies,pp.575, 576).(c) That ofDr.More andMr.Cunninghame, who suppose the Christian emperors, from Constantine to Augustulus, to constitute the seventh head, and that this had its termination by the sword of the Heruli.(d) That ofMr.Elliott, who supposes the seventh head or power to refer to a new form of administration introduced by Diocletian, changing the administration from theoriginal imperial characterto that ofan absolute Asiatic sovereignty. For the important changes introduced by Diocletian that justify this remark, see theDecline and Fall,vol. i.pp.212–217.Numerous other solutions may be found in Poole’sSynopsis, but these embrace the principal, and the most plausible that have been proposed.II.I proceed, then, to state what seems to me to be the true explanation. This must be found in somefactsthat will accord with the explanation given of the meaning of the passage.(1) There can be no doubt that this refers to Rome, either Pagan, Christian, or Papal. All the circumstances combine in this; all respectable interpreters agree in this. This would be naturally understood by the symbols used by John, and by the explanations furnished by the angel. Seever.18: “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Every circumstance combines here in leading to the conclusionthat Rome is intended. There was no other power or empire on the earth to which this could be properly applied; there was everything in the circumstances of the writer to lead us to suppose that this was referred to; there is an utter impossibility now in applying the description to anything else.(2) It was to be arevivedpower; not a power in its original form and strength. This is manifest, because it is said (ver.8) that the power represented by the beast “was, and is not, and yet is”—that is, it was once a mighty power; it then declined so that it could be said that “it isnot;” and yet there was so much remaining vitality in it, or so much revived power, that it could be said that it “still is”—καίπερ ἐστίν. Now, this is strictly applicable to Rome when the Papal power arose. The old Roman might had departed; the glory and strength evinced in the days of the consuls, the dictators, and the emperors, had disappeared, and yet there was a lingering vitality, and a reviving of power under the Papacy, which made it proper to say that it still continued, or that that mighty power was prolonged. The civil power connected with the Papacy was a revived Roman power—the Roman power prolonged under another form—for it is susceptible of clear demonstration that, if it had not been for the rise of the Papal power, the sovereignty of Rome, as such, would have been wholly extinct. For the proof of this, see the passages quoted in the Notes onver.3.Comp.Notes onch. xiii.3, 12, 15.(3) It was to be a power emanating from the “abyss,” or that would seem to ascend from the dark world beneath. Seever.8. This was true in regard to the Papacy, either (a) as apparently ascending from the lowest state and the most depressed condition,as ifit came up from below (see Notes onver.3,comp.ch. xiii.11); or (b) as, in fact, having its origin in the world of darkness, and being under the control of the prince of that world, which, according to all the representations of that formidable Antichristian power in the Scriptures, is true, and which the whole history of the Papacy, and of its influence on religion, confirms.(4) One of the powers referred tosustainedthe other. “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the womansitteth,”ver.9. That is, the power represented by the harlot wassustainedorsupportedby the power represented by the seven heads or the seven mountains. Literally applied, this would mean that the Papacy, as an ecclesiastical institution, was sustained by the civil power, with which it was so closely connected. For the illustration and support of this, see Notes onch. xiii.2, 3, 12, 15. In the Notes on those passages it is shown that the support wasmutual; that while the Papacy, in fact,revivedthe almost extinct Roman civil power, and gave it new vitality, the price of that was, thatitshould be, in its turn, sustained by that revived Roman civil power. All history shows that that has been the fact; that in all its aggressions, assumptions, and persecutions, it has,in fact, andprofessedly, leaned on the arm of the civil power.(5) A more important inquiry, and a more serious difficulty, remains in respect to the statements respecting the “seven kings,”ver.10, 11. The statements on this point are, that the whole number properly was seven; that of this number five had fallen or passed away; that one was in existence at the time when the author wrote; that another one was yet to appear who would continue for a little time; and that the general power represented by all these would be embodied in the “beast that was, and is not,” and that might, in some respects, be regarded as an “eighth.” These points may be taken up in their order.(a) The first inquiry relates to the five that were fallen and the one that was then in existence—the first six. These may be taken together, for they are manifestly of the same class, and have the same characteristics, at least so far as to be distinguished from the “seventh” and the “eighth.” The meaning of the word “kings” here has been already explained,ver.10. It denotes ruling power, or forms of power; and, so far as the signification of thewordis concerned, it might be applicable to royalty, or to any other form of administration. It is not necessary, then, to find an exact succession ofprincesorkingsthat would correspond with this—five of whom were dead, and one of whom was then on the throne, and all soon to be succeeded by one more, who would soon die.The true explanation of this seems to be that which refers this to the forms of the Roman government or administration. These six “heads,” or forms ofadministration, were, in their order,Kings,Consuls,Dictators,Decemvirs,Military Tribunes, andEmperors. Of these, five had passed away in the time when John wrote the Apocalypse; the sixth, the imperial, was then in power, and had been from the time of Augustus Cæsar. The only questions that can be raised are, whether these forms of administration were sodistinctandprominent, and whether in the times previous to John they so embraced the whole Roman power, as to justify this interpretation—that is, whether these forms of administration were so marked in this respect that it may be supposed that John would use the language here employed in describing them. As showing the probability that he would use this language, I refer to the following arguments,viz.: (1) The authority of Livy,lib. vi.cap.1. Speaking of the previous parts of his history, and of what he had done in writing it, he says: “Quæ ab condita urbe Roma ad captam eandem urbem, Romani subregibusprimum,consulibusdeinde acdictatoribus,decemvirisactribunis consularibusgessere, foris bella, domi seditiones, quinque libris exposui.” That is, “In five books I have related what was done at Rome, pertaining both to foreign wars and domestic strifes, from the foundation of the city to the time when it was taken, as it was governed bykings, byconsuls, bydictators, by thedecemvirs, and byconsular tribunes.” Here he mentionsfiveforms of administration under which Rome had been governed in the earlier periods of its history. The imperial power had a later origin, and did not exist until near the time of Livy himself. (2) The same distribution of power, or forms of government, among the Romans, is made by Tacitus,Annal.lib. i.cap.1: “Urbem Romam à principioregeshabuere. Libertatem etconsulatumL. Brutus instituit.Dictaturæad tempus sumebantur. Nequedecemviralis potestasultrà biennium, nequetribunorum militum consulare jusdiu valuit. Non Cinnæ, non Syllæ longa dominatio: et Pompeii Crassique potentia cito in Cæsarem, Lepidi atque Antonii arma in Augustum cessere; qui cuncta, discordiis civilibus fessa, nomineprincipissubimperiumaccepit.” That is, “In the beginning, Rome was governed bykings. Then L. Brutus gave to her liberty and theconsulship. A temporary power was conferred on thedictators. The authority of thedecemvirsdid not continue beyond the space of two years: neither was the consular power of themilitary tribunesof long duration. The rule of Cinna and Sylla was brief; and the power of Pompey and Crassus passed into the hands of Cæsar; and the arms of Lepidus and Antony were surrendered to Augustus, who united all things, broken by civil discord, under the name ofprincein theimperialgovernment.” Here Tacitus distinctly mentions thesix forms of administrationthat had prevailed in Rome, the last of which was the imperial. It is true, also, that he mentions the brief rule of certainmen—as Cinna, Sylla, Antony, and Lepidus; but these are not forms ofadministration, and their temporary authority did not indicate any change in thegovernment—for some of these men weredictators, and none of them, except Brutus and Augustus, established any permanent form of administration. (3) The same thing is apparent in the usual statements of history, and the books that describe the forms of government at Rome. In so common a book as Adam’sRoman Antiquities, a description may be found of the forms of Roman administration that corresponds almost precisely with this. The forms ofsupremepower in Rome, as enumerated there, are what are calledordinaryandextraordinarymagistrates. Under the former are enumerated kings, consuls, prætors, censors, quæstors, and tribunes of the people. But of these, in fact, thesupremepower was vested in two; for there were, under this, buttwoforms of administration—that of kings and consuls; the offices of prætor, censor, quæstor, and tribune of the people being merely subordinate to that of the consuls, and no more a new form of administration than the offices of secretary of the state, of war, of the navy, of the interior, are now. Under the latter—that ofextraordinarymagistrates—are enumerateddictators,decemvirs,military tribunes, and theinterrex. But theinterrexdid not constitute aformof administration, or a change of government, any more than, when the President or Vice-president of the United States should die, the performance of the duties of the office of president by the speaker of the senate would indicate a change, or than the regency of the Prince of Wales in the time of GeorgeIII.constituteda new form of government. So that, in fact, we have enumerated, as constitutingthe supreme powerat Rome, kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and military tribunes—five in number. The imperial power was the sixth. (4) In confirmation of the same thing, I may refer to the authority of Bellarmine, a distinguished Roman Catholic writer. In his workDe Pontiff.,cap.2, he thus enumerates the changes which the Roman government had experienced, or the forms of administration that had existed there: 1. Kings; 2. Consuls; 3. Decemvirs; 4. Dictators; 5. Military Tribunes with consular power; 6. Emperors. See Poole’sSynop.,in loco. And (5) it may be added, that this would beunderstoodby the contemporaries of John in this sense. These forms of government were so marked that, in connection with the mention of the “seven mountains,” designating the city, there could be no doubt as to what was intended. Reference would at once be made to theimperialpower as then existing, and the mind would readily and easily turn back to the five main forms of the supreme administration which had existed before.(b) The next inquiry is, what is denoted bythe seventh. If the word “kings” here refers, as is supposed (Notes onver.10), to a form of government or administration; if the “five” refer to the forms previous to the imperial, and the “sixth” to the imperial; and if John wroteduringthe imperial government, then it follows that this must refer to some form of administration that was to succeed the imperial. If the Papacy was “the eighth,” and of the “seventh,” then it is clear that this must refer to some form of civil administration lyingbetweenthe decline of theimperialand the rise of thePapalpower: that “short space”—for itwasa short space that intervened. Now, there can be no difficulty, I think, in referring this to that form of administration over Rome—that “dukedom” under the exarchate of Ravenna, which succeeded the decline of the imperial power, and which preceded the rise of the Papal power;—between the year 566 or 568, when Rome was reduced to a dukedom, under the exarchate of Ravenna, and the time when the city revolted from this authority and became subject to that of the pope, about the year 727. This period continued, according toMr.Gibbon, about two hundred years. He says, “During a period of two hundred years, Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. The offices and professions, which the jealousy of Constantine had separated, were united by the indulgence of Justinian; and eighteen successive exarchs were invested,in the decline of the empire, with the full remains of civil, of military, and even of ecclesiastical power. Their immediate jurisdiction,which was afterwards consecrated as the patrimony ofSt.Peter, extended over the modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the hills of the Apennine. The duchy of Rome appears to have included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latian conquests,of the first four hundred years of the city; and the limits may be distinctly traced along the coast, from Civita Vecchia to Terracina, and with the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of Ostia” (Dec. and Fall,iii.202). How accurate is this if it be regarded as a statement of anewpower or form of administration that succeeded the imperial—a power that was, in fact, a prolongation of the old Roman authority, and that was designed to constitute and embody it all! CouldMr.Gibbon have furnished abettercommentary on the passage if he had adopted the interpretation of this portion of the Apocalypse above proposed, and if he haddesignedto describe this as the seventh power in the successive forms of the Roman administration? It is worthy of remark, also, that this account inMr.Gibbon’s history immediatelyprecedesthe account of the rise of the Papacy; the record respecting the exarchate, and that concerning Gregory the Great, described byMr.Gibbon as “the Saviour of Rome,” occurring in the same chapter,vol. iii.202–211.(c) This was to “continue for a short space”—for a little time. If this refers to the power to which in the remarks above it is supposed to refer, it is easy to see the propriety of this statement. Compared with the previous form of administration—the imperial—it was of short duration; absolutely considered, it was brief.Mr.Gibbon (iii.202) has marked it as extending through “a period of two hundred years;” and if this is compared with the form of administration which preceded it, extending to more than five hundred years, and more especially with that which followed—the Papal form—which has extended now some twelve hundred years, it will be seen with what propriety this is spoken of as continuing for a “short space.”(d) “The beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven,”ver.11. If the explanations above given are correct, there can be no difficulty in the application of this to the Papal power; for (1) all this power was concentrated in the Papacy, all that revived or prolonged Roman power had now passed into the Papacy, constituting that mighty dominion which was to be set up for so many centuries over what had been the Roman world. See the statements ofMr.Gibbon (iii.207–211), as quoted in the Notes onver.3. Compare also, particularly; the remarks of Augustine Steuchus, a Roman Catholic writer, as quoted in the Notes on that verse: “The empire having been overthrown, unless God had raised up thepontificate, Rome, resuscitated and restored by none, would have become uninhabitable, and been thenceforward a most foul habitation of cattle. But in the pontificate it revived as with asecond birth; its empire in magnitude not indeed equal to the old empire, but its form not very dissimilar: because all nations, from East and from West, venerate the pope, not otherwise than they before obeyed the emperor.” (2) This was aneighthpower or form of administration—for it was different, in many respects, from that of the kings, the consuls, the dictators, the decemvirs, the military tribunes, the emperors, and the dukedom—though it comprised substantially the power of all. Indeed, it could not have been spoken of as identical with either of the previous forms of administration, though it concentrated the power which had been wielded by them all. (3) It was “ofthe seven;” that is, it pertained to them; it was a prolongation of the same power. It had the same central seat—Rome; it extended over the same territory, and it embraced sooner or latter the same nations. There is not one of those forms of administration which did not find a prolongation in the Papacy; for it aspired after, and succeeded in obtaining, all the authority of kings, dictators, consuls, emperors. It was in fact still theRomansceptre swayed over the world; and with the strictest propriety it could be said that it was “ofthe seven,” as having sprung out of the seven, and as perpetuating the sway of this mighty domination. For full illustration of this, see the Notes onDa.vii.andRe.xiii.(4) It would “go into perdition;” that is, it would be under this form that this mighty domination that had for so many ages ruled over the earth would die away, or this would be thelastin the series. TheRomandominion, as such, would not be extended to a ninth, or tenth, or eleventh form, but would finally expire under the eighth. Every indication shows that this is to be so, and that with the decline of the Papal power thewhole Roman domination, that has swayed a sceptre for two thousand five hundred years, will have come for ever to an end. If this is so, then we have found an ample and exact application of this passage even in its most minute specifications.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
11.And the beast that was, and is not.That is, the one power that was formerly mighty; that died away so that it might be said to be extinct; and yet (ver.8) that “still is,” or has a prolonged existence. It is evident that, by the “beast” here, there is some one power, dominion, empire, or rule, whose essential identity is preserved through all these changes, and to which it is proper to give the same name. It finds its termination, orits last form, in what is here called the “eighth;” a power which, it is observed, sustains such a peculiar relation to the seven, that it may be said to be “of the seven,” or to be a mere prolongation of the same sovereignty. ¶Even he is the eighth.The eighth in the succession. This form of sovereignty, though a mere prolongation of the former government, so much so as to be, in fact, but keeping up the same empire in the world, appears in such a novelty of form, that, in one sense, it deserves to be called theeighthin order, and yet is so essentially a mere concentration and continuance of the one power, that, in the general reckoning (ver.10), it might be regarded as pertaining to the former. There was a sense in which it was proper to speak of it as the eighth power; and yet, viewed in its relation to the whole, it so essentially combined and concentrated all that there wasinthe seven, that, in a general view, it scarcely merited a separate mention. We should look for the fulfilment of this in some such concentration and embodiment of all that it was, in the previous forms of sovereignty referred to, that it perhaps would deserve mention as aneighthpower, but that it was, nevertheless, such a more prolongation of the previous forms of the one power, that it might be said to be “ofthe seven;” so that,in this view, it would not claim a separate consideration. This seems to be the fair meaning, though there is much that is enigmatical in the form of the expression. ¶And goeth into perdition.See Notes onver.8.
In inquiring now into the application of this very difficult passage, it may be proper to suggest some of the principal opinions which have been held, and then to endeavour to ascertain the true meaning.
I.The principal opinions which have been held may be reduced to the following:—
(1) That the seven kings here refer to the succession of Roman emperors, yet with some variation as to the manner of reckoning.Prof.Stuart begins with Julius Cæsar, and reckons them in this manner:—the “five that are fallen” are Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. Nero, who, as he supposes, was the reigning prince at the time when the book was written, he regards as the sixth; Galba, who succeeded him, as the seventh. Others, who adopt this literal method of explaining it, suppose that the time begins with Augustus, and then Galba would be the sixth, and Otho, who reigned but three months, would be the seventh. The expression, “the beast that was, and is not, who is the eighth,”Prof.Stuart regards as referring to a general impression among the heathen and among Christians, in the time of the persecution under Nero, that he would again appear after it was reported that he was dead, or that he would rise from the dead and carry on his persecution again. SeeProf.Stuart,Com.vol. ii.,Excur. iii. Thebeast, according to this view, denotes the Roman emperors, specifically Nero, and the reference inver.8 is to “the well-known hariolation respecting Nero, that he would be assassinated, and would disappear for a while, and then make his appearance again to the confusion of all his enemies.” “What the angel,” says he, “says, seems to be equivalent to this—‘Thebeastmeans the Roman emperors, specifically Nero, of whom the report spread throughout the empire that he will revive, after being apparently slain, and will come, as it were, from the abyss or Hades, but he will perish, and that speedily,’”vol. ii.p.323.
(2) That the word “kings” is not to be taken literally, but that it refers to forms of government, dynasties, or modes of administration. The general opinion among those who hold this view is, that the first six refer to the forms of the Roman government—(1) kings; (2) consuls; (3) dictators; (4) decemvirs; (5) military tribunes; (6) the imperial form, beginning with Augustus. This has been the common Protestant interpretation, and in reference to thesesixforms of government there has been a general agreement. But, while the mass of Protestant interpreters have supposed that the “six” heads refer to these forms of administration, there has been much diversity of opinion as to the seventh; and here, on this plan of interpretation, the main, if not the sole difficulty lies. Among the opinions held are the following:—
(a) That ofMr.Mede. He makes the seventh head what he calls the “Demi-Cæsar,” or the “Western emperor who reigned after the division of the empire into East and West, and which continued, after the last division, under Honorius and Arcadius, about sixty years—a short space” (Works, bookiii.ch.8; bookv.ch.12).
(b) That of Bishop Newton, who regards the sixth or imperial “head” as continuing uninterruptedly through the line of Christian as well as Pagan emperors, until Augustulus and the Heruli; and the seventh to be theDukedomof Rome, established soon after under the exarchate of Ravenna (Prophecies,pp.575, 576).
(c) That ofDr.More andMr.Cunninghame, who suppose the Christian emperors, from Constantine to Augustulus, to constitute the seventh head, and that this had its termination by the sword of the Heruli.
(d) That ofMr.Elliott, who supposes the seventh head or power to refer to a new form of administration introduced by Diocletian, changing the administration from theoriginal imperial characterto that ofan absolute Asiatic sovereignty. For the important changes introduced by Diocletian that justify this remark, see theDecline and Fall,vol. i.pp.212–217.
Numerous other solutions may be found in Poole’sSynopsis, but these embrace the principal, and the most plausible that have been proposed.
II.I proceed, then, to state what seems to me to be the true explanation. This must be found in somefactsthat will accord with the explanation given of the meaning of the passage.
(1) There can be no doubt that this refers to Rome, either Pagan, Christian, or Papal. All the circumstances combine in this; all respectable interpreters agree in this. This would be naturally understood by the symbols used by John, and by the explanations furnished by the angel. Seever.18: “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Every circumstance combines here in leading to the conclusionthat Rome is intended. There was no other power or empire on the earth to which this could be properly applied; there was everything in the circumstances of the writer to lead us to suppose that this was referred to; there is an utter impossibility now in applying the description to anything else.
(2) It was to be arevivedpower; not a power in its original form and strength. This is manifest, because it is said (ver.8) that the power represented by the beast “was, and is not, and yet is”—that is, it was once a mighty power; it then declined so that it could be said that “it isnot;” and yet there was so much remaining vitality in it, or so much revived power, that it could be said that it “still is”—καίπερ ἐστίν. Now, this is strictly applicable to Rome when the Papal power arose. The old Roman might had departed; the glory and strength evinced in the days of the consuls, the dictators, and the emperors, had disappeared, and yet there was a lingering vitality, and a reviving of power under the Papacy, which made it proper to say that it still continued, or that that mighty power was prolonged. The civil power connected with the Papacy was a revived Roman power—the Roman power prolonged under another form—for it is susceptible of clear demonstration that, if it had not been for the rise of the Papal power, the sovereignty of Rome, as such, would have been wholly extinct. For the proof of this, see the passages quoted in the Notes onver.3.Comp.Notes onch. xiii.3, 12, 15.
(3) It was to be a power emanating from the “abyss,” or that would seem to ascend from the dark world beneath. Seever.8. This was true in regard to the Papacy, either (a) as apparently ascending from the lowest state and the most depressed condition,as ifit came up from below (see Notes onver.3,comp.ch. xiii.11); or (b) as, in fact, having its origin in the world of darkness, and being under the control of the prince of that world, which, according to all the representations of that formidable Antichristian power in the Scriptures, is true, and which the whole history of the Papacy, and of its influence on religion, confirms.
(4) One of the powers referred tosustainedthe other. “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the womansitteth,”ver.9. That is, the power represented by the harlot wassustainedorsupportedby the power represented by the seven heads or the seven mountains. Literally applied, this would mean that the Papacy, as an ecclesiastical institution, was sustained by the civil power, with which it was so closely connected. For the illustration and support of this, see Notes onch. xiii.2, 3, 12, 15. In the Notes on those passages it is shown that the support wasmutual; that while the Papacy, in fact,revivedthe almost extinct Roman civil power, and gave it new vitality, the price of that was, thatitshould be, in its turn, sustained by that revived Roman civil power. All history shows that that has been the fact; that in all its aggressions, assumptions, and persecutions, it has,in fact, andprofessedly, leaned on the arm of the civil power.
(5) A more important inquiry, and a more serious difficulty, remains in respect to the statements respecting the “seven kings,”ver.10, 11. The statements on this point are, that the whole number properly was seven; that of this number five had fallen or passed away; that one was in existence at the time when the author wrote; that another one was yet to appear who would continue for a little time; and that the general power represented by all these would be embodied in the “beast that was, and is not,” and that might, in some respects, be regarded as an “eighth.” These points may be taken up in their order.
(a) The first inquiry relates to the five that were fallen and the one that was then in existence—the first six. These may be taken together, for they are manifestly of the same class, and have the same characteristics, at least so far as to be distinguished from the “seventh” and the “eighth.” The meaning of the word “kings” here has been already explained,ver.10. It denotes ruling power, or forms of power; and, so far as the signification of thewordis concerned, it might be applicable to royalty, or to any other form of administration. It is not necessary, then, to find an exact succession ofprincesorkingsthat would correspond with this—five of whom were dead, and one of whom was then on the throne, and all soon to be succeeded by one more, who would soon die.
The true explanation of this seems to be that which refers this to the forms of the Roman government or administration. These six “heads,” or forms ofadministration, were, in their order,Kings,Consuls,Dictators,Decemvirs,Military Tribunes, andEmperors. Of these, five had passed away in the time when John wrote the Apocalypse; the sixth, the imperial, was then in power, and had been from the time of Augustus Cæsar. The only questions that can be raised are, whether these forms of administration were sodistinctandprominent, and whether in the times previous to John they so embraced the whole Roman power, as to justify this interpretation—that is, whether these forms of administration were so marked in this respect that it may be supposed that John would use the language here employed in describing them. As showing the probability that he would use this language, I refer to the following arguments,viz.: (1) The authority of Livy,lib. vi.cap.1. Speaking of the previous parts of his history, and of what he had done in writing it, he says: “Quæ ab condita urbe Roma ad captam eandem urbem, Romani subregibusprimum,consulibusdeinde acdictatoribus,decemvirisactribunis consularibusgessere, foris bella, domi seditiones, quinque libris exposui.” That is, “In five books I have related what was done at Rome, pertaining both to foreign wars and domestic strifes, from the foundation of the city to the time when it was taken, as it was governed bykings, byconsuls, bydictators, by thedecemvirs, and byconsular tribunes.” Here he mentionsfiveforms of administration under which Rome had been governed in the earlier periods of its history. The imperial power had a later origin, and did not exist until near the time of Livy himself. (2) The same distribution of power, or forms of government, among the Romans, is made by Tacitus,Annal.lib. i.cap.1: “Urbem Romam à principioregeshabuere. Libertatem etconsulatumL. Brutus instituit.Dictaturæad tempus sumebantur. Nequedecemviralis potestasultrà biennium, nequetribunorum militum consulare jusdiu valuit. Non Cinnæ, non Syllæ longa dominatio: et Pompeii Crassique potentia cito in Cæsarem, Lepidi atque Antonii arma in Augustum cessere; qui cuncta, discordiis civilibus fessa, nomineprincipissubimperiumaccepit.” That is, “In the beginning, Rome was governed bykings. Then L. Brutus gave to her liberty and theconsulship. A temporary power was conferred on thedictators. The authority of thedecemvirsdid not continue beyond the space of two years: neither was the consular power of themilitary tribunesof long duration. The rule of Cinna and Sylla was brief; and the power of Pompey and Crassus passed into the hands of Cæsar; and the arms of Lepidus and Antony were surrendered to Augustus, who united all things, broken by civil discord, under the name ofprincein theimperialgovernment.” Here Tacitus distinctly mentions thesix forms of administrationthat had prevailed in Rome, the last of which was the imperial. It is true, also, that he mentions the brief rule of certainmen—as Cinna, Sylla, Antony, and Lepidus; but these are not forms ofadministration, and their temporary authority did not indicate any change in thegovernment—for some of these men weredictators, and none of them, except Brutus and Augustus, established any permanent form of administration. (3) The same thing is apparent in the usual statements of history, and the books that describe the forms of government at Rome. In so common a book as Adam’sRoman Antiquities, a description may be found of the forms of Roman administration that corresponds almost precisely with this. The forms ofsupremepower in Rome, as enumerated there, are what are calledordinaryandextraordinarymagistrates. Under the former are enumerated kings, consuls, prætors, censors, quæstors, and tribunes of the people. But of these, in fact, thesupremepower was vested in two; for there were, under this, buttwoforms of administration—that of kings and consuls; the offices of prætor, censor, quæstor, and tribune of the people being merely subordinate to that of the consuls, and no more a new form of administration than the offices of secretary of the state, of war, of the navy, of the interior, are now. Under the latter—that ofextraordinarymagistrates—are enumerateddictators,decemvirs,military tribunes, and theinterrex. But theinterrexdid not constitute aformof administration, or a change of government, any more than, when the President or Vice-president of the United States should die, the performance of the duties of the office of president by the speaker of the senate would indicate a change, or than the regency of the Prince of Wales in the time of GeorgeIII.constituteda new form of government. So that, in fact, we have enumerated, as constitutingthe supreme powerat Rome, kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and military tribunes—five in number. The imperial power was the sixth. (4) In confirmation of the same thing, I may refer to the authority of Bellarmine, a distinguished Roman Catholic writer. In his workDe Pontiff.,cap.2, he thus enumerates the changes which the Roman government had experienced, or the forms of administration that had existed there: 1. Kings; 2. Consuls; 3. Decemvirs; 4. Dictators; 5. Military Tribunes with consular power; 6. Emperors. See Poole’sSynop.,in loco. And (5) it may be added, that this would beunderstoodby the contemporaries of John in this sense. These forms of government were so marked that, in connection with the mention of the “seven mountains,” designating the city, there could be no doubt as to what was intended. Reference would at once be made to theimperialpower as then existing, and the mind would readily and easily turn back to the five main forms of the supreme administration which had existed before.
(b) The next inquiry is, what is denoted bythe seventh. If the word “kings” here refers, as is supposed (Notes onver.10), to a form of government or administration; if the “five” refer to the forms previous to the imperial, and the “sixth” to the imperial; and if John wroteduringthe imperial government, then it follows that this must refer to some form of administration that was to succeed the imperial. If the Papacy was “the eighth,” and of the “seventh,” then it is clear that this must refer to some form of civil administration lyingbetweenthe decline of theimperialand the rise of thePapalpower: that “short space”—for itwasa short space that intervened. Now, there can be no difficulty, I think, in referring this to that form of administration over Rome—that “dukedom” under the exarchate of Ravenna, which succeeded the decline of the imperial power, and which preceded the rise of the Papal power;—between the year 566 or 568, when Rome was reduced to a dukedom, under the exarchate of Ravenna, and the time when the city revolted from this authority and became subject to that of the pope, about the year 727. This period continued, according toMr.Gibbon, about two hundred years. He says, “During a period of two hundred years, Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. The offices and professions, which the jealousy of Constantine had separated, were united by the indulgence of Justinian; and eighteen successive exarchs were invested,in the decline of the empire, with the full remains of civil, of military, and even of ecclesiastical power. Their immediate jurisdiction,which was afterwards consecrated as the patrimony ofSt.Peter, extended over the modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the hills of the Apennine. The duchy of Rome appears to have included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latian conquests,of the first four hundred years of the city; and the limits may be distinctly traced along the coast, from Civita Vecchia to Terracina, and with the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of Ostia” (Dec. and Fall,iii.202). How accurate is this if it be regarded as a statement of anewpower or form of administration that succeeded the imperial—a power that was, in fact, a prolongation of the old Roman authority, and that was designed to constitute and embody it all! CouldMr.Gibbon have furnished abettercommentary on the passage if he had adopted the interpretation of this portion of the Apocalypse above proposed, and if he haddesignedto describe this as the seventh power in the successive forms of the Roman administration? It is worthy of remark, also, that this account inMr.Gibbon’s history immediatelyprecedesthe account of the rise of the Papacy; the record respecting the exarchate, and that concerning Gregory the Great, described byMr.Gibbon as “the Saviour of Rome,” occurring in the same chapter,vol. iii.202–211.
(c) This was to “continue for a short space”—for a little time. If this refers to the power to which in the remarks above it is supposed to refer, it is easy to see the propriety of this statement. Compared with the previous form of administration—the imperial—it was of short duration; absolutely considered, it was brief.Mr.Gibbon (iii.202) has marked it as extending through “a period of two hundred years;” and if this is compared with the form of administration which preceded it, extending to more than five hundred years, and more especially with that which followed—the Papal form—which has extended now some twelve hundred years, it will be seen with what propriety this is spoken of as continuing for a “short space.”
(d) “The beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven,”ver.11. If the explanations above given are correct, there can be no difficulty in the application of this to the Papal power; for (1) all this power was concentrated in the Papacy, all that revived or prolonged Roman power had now passed into the Papacy, constituting that mighty dominion which was to be set up for so many centuries over what had been the Roman world. See the statements ofMr.Gibbon (iii.207–211), as quoted in the Notes onver.3. Compare also, particularly; the remarks of Augustine Steuchus, a Roman Catholic writer, as quoted in the Notes on that verse: “The empire having been overthrown, unless God had raised up thepontificate, Rome, resuscitated and restored by none, would have become uninhabitable, and been thenceforward a most foul habitation of cattle. But in the pontificate it revived as with asecond birth; its empire in magnitude not indeed equal to the old empire, but its form not very dissimilar: because all nations, from East and from West, venerate the pope, not otherwise than they before obeyed the emperor.” (2) This was aneighthpower or form of administration—for it was different, in many respects, from that of the kings, the consuls, the dictators, the decemvirs, the military tribunes, the emperors, and the dukedom—though it comprised substantially the power of all. Indeed, it could not have been spoken of as identical with either of the previous forms of administration, though it concentrated the power which had been wielded by them all. (3) It was “ofthe seven;” that is, it pertained to them; it was a prolongation of the same power. It had the same central seat—Rome; it extended over the same territory, and it embraced sooner or latter the same nations. There is not one of those forms of administration which did not find a prolongation in the Papacy; for it aspired after, and succeeded in obtaining, all the authority of kings, dictators, consuls, emperors. It was in fact still theRomansceptre swayed over the world; and with the strictest propriety it could be said that it was “ofthe seven,” as having sprung out of the seven, and as perpetuating the sway of this mighty domination. For full illustration of this, see the Notes onDa.vii.andRe.xiii.(4) It would “go into perdition;” that is, it would be under this form that this mighty domination that had for so many ages ruled over the earth would die away, or this would be thelastin the series. TheRomandominion, as such, would not be extended to a ninth, or tenth, or eleventh form, but would finally expire under the eighth. Every indication shows that this is to be so, and that with the decline of the Papal power thewhole Roman domination, that has swayed a sceptre for two thousand five hundred years, will have come for ever to an end. If this is so, then we have found an ample and exact application of this passage even in its most minute specifications.
12 And the527ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.12.And the ten horns which thou sawest.On the scarlet-coloured beast,ver.3. ¶Are ten kings.Represent or denote ten kings; that is, kingdoms or powers. See Notes onDa.vii.24. ¶Which have received no kingdom as yet.That is, they were not in existence when John wrote. It is implied, that during the period under review theywouldarise, and would become connected, in an important sense, with the power here represented by the “beast.” For a full illustration respecting the ten “kings,” or kingdoms here referred to, see Notes onDa.vii., at the close of the chapter,II.(2). ¶But receive power.It is not said from whatsourcethis power is received, but it is simply implied that it would in fact be conferred on them. ¶As kings.That is, the power would be that which is usually exercised by kings. ¶One hour.It cannot be supposed that this is to be takenliterally. The meaning clearly is, that this would be brief and temporary;that is, it was a form of administration which would be succeeded by one more fixed and permanent. Anyone can see that, in fact, this is strictly applicable to the governments, as referred to in the Notes on Daniel, which sprang up after the incursion of the northern barbarians, and which were finally succeeded by the permanent forms of government in Europe. Most of them were very brief in their duration, and they were soon remodelled in the forms of permanent administration. Thus, to take the arrangement proposed by Sir Isaac Newton, (1) the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; (2) the kingdom of the Suevians in Spain; (3) the kingdom of the Visigoths; (4) the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia; (5) the kingdom of the Burgundians; (6) the kingdom of the Franks; (7) the kingdom of the Britons; (8) the kingdom of the Huns; (9) the kingdom of the Lombards; (10) the kingdom of Ravenna—howtemporarywere most of these; how soon they passed into the more permanent forms of administration which succeeded them in Europe! ¶With the beast.With that rising Papal power. They would exercise their authority in connection with that, and under its influence.
12 And the527ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
12.And the ten horns which thou sawest.On the scarlet-coloured beast,ver.3. ¶Are ten kings.Represent or denote ten kings; that is, kingdoms or powers. See Notes onDa.vii.24. ¶Which have received no kingdom as yet.That is, they were not in existence when John wrote. It is implied, that during the period under review theywouldarise, and would become connected, in an important sense, with the power here represented by the “beast.” For a full illustration respecting the ten “kings,” or kingdoms here referred to, see Notes onDa.vii., at the close of the chapter,II.(2). ¶But receive power.It is not said from whatsourcethis power is received, but it is simply implied that it would in fact be conferred on them. ¶As kings.That is, the power would be that which is usually exercised by kings. ¶One hour.It cannot be supposed that this is to be takenliterally. The meaning clearly is, that this would be brief and temporary;that is, it was a form of administration which would be succeeded by one more fixed and permanent. Anyone can see that, in fact, this is strictly applicable to the governments, as referred to in the Notes on Daniel, which sprang up after the incursion of the northern barbarians, and which were finally succeeded by the permanent forms of government in Europe. Most of them were very brief in their duration, and they were soon remodelled in the forms of permanent administration. Thus, to take the arrangement proposed by Sir Isaac Newton, (1) the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; (2) the kingdom of the Suevians in Spain; (3) the kingdom of the Visigoths; (4) the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia; (5) the kingdom of the Burgundians; (6) the kingdom of the Franks; (7) the kingdom of the Britons; (8) the kingdom of the Huns; (9) the kingdom of the Lombards; (10) the kingdom of Ravenna—howtemporarywere most of these; how soon they passed into the more permanent forms of administration which succeeded them in Europe! ¶With the beast.With that rising Papal power. They would exercise their authority in connection with that, and under its influence.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.13.These have one mind.That is, they are united in the promotion of the same object. Though in some respects wholly independent of each other, yet they may be regarded as, in fact, so far united that they tend to promote the same ultimate end. As a fact in history, all these kingdoms, though of different origin, and though not unfrequently engaged in war with each other, became Roman Catholics, and were united in the support of the Papacy. It was with propriety, therefore, that they should be regarded as so closely connected with that power that they could be represented as “ten horns” on the seven-headed monster. ¶And shall give their power and strength unto the beast.Shall lend their influence to the support of the Papacy, and become the upholders of that power. The meaning, according to the interpretation above proposed, is, that they would all become Papal kingdoms, and supporters of the Papal power. It is unnecessary to pause to show how true this has been in history. At first, most of the people out of whom these kingdoms sprang were Pagans; then many of them embraced Christianity under the prevailing form of Arianism, and this fact was for a time a bar to their perfect adhesion to the Roman see; but they were all ultimately brought wholly under its influence, and became its supporters. InA.D.496, Clovis, the king of the Franks, on occasion of his victory over the Allemanni, embraced the Catholic faith, and so received the title, transmitted downward through nearly thirteen hundred years to the French kings as his successors, of “the eldest son of the church;” in the course of the sixth century, the kings of Burgundy, Bavaria, Spain, Portugal, England, embraced the same religion, and became the defenders of the Papacy. It is well known that each one of the powers above enumerated as constituting these ten kingdoms, became subject to the Papacy, and continued so during their separate existence, or when merged into some other power, until the Reformation in the sixteenth century.All“their power and strength was given unto the beast;” all was made subservient to the purposes of Papal Rome.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
13.These have one mind.That is, they are united in the promotion of the same object. Though in some respects wholly independent of each other, yet they may be regarded as, in fact, so far united that they tend to promote the same ultimate end. As a fact in history, all these kingdoms, though of different origin, and though not unfrequently engaged in war with each other, became Roman Catholics, and were united in the support of the Papacy. It was with propriety, therefore, that they should be regarded as so closely connected with that power that they could be represented as “ten horns” on the seven-headed monster. ¶And shall give their power and strength unto the beast.Shall lend their influence to the support of the Papacy, and become the upholders of that power. The meaning, according to the interpretation above proposed, is, that they would all become Papal kingdoms, and supporters of the Papal power. It is unnecessary to pause to show how true this has been in history. At first, most of the people out of whom these kingdoms sprang were Pagans; then many of them embraced Christianity under the prevailing form of Arianism, and this fact was for a time a bar to their perfect adhesion to the Roman see; but they were all ultimately brought wholly under its influence, and became its supporters. InA.D.496, Clovis, the king of the Franks, on occasion of his victory over the Allemanni, embraced the Catholic faith, and so received the title, transmitted downward through nearly thirteen hundred years to the French kings as his successors, of “the eldest son of the church;” in the course of the sixth century, the kings of Burgundy, Bavaria, Spain, Portugal, England, embraced the same religion, and became the defenders of the Papacy. It is well known that each one of the powers above enumerated as constituting these ten kingdoms, became subject to the Papacy, and continued so during their separate existence, or when merged into some other power, until the Reformation in the sixteenth century.All“their power and strength was given unto the beast;” all was made subservient to the purposes of Papal Rome.
14 These shall528make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb529shall overcome them: for he is530Lord of lords, and King of kings: and531they that are with himare532called, and533chosen, and534faithful.14.These shall make war with the Lamb.The Lamb of God—the Lord Jesus (Notes,ch. v.6); that is, they would combine with the Papacy in opposing evangelical religion. It is not meant that they wouldopenlyandavowedlyproclaimwaragainst the Son of God, but that they wouldpracticallydo this in sustaining a persecuting power. It is unnecessary to show how true this has been in history; how entirely they sustained the Papacy in all its measures of persecution. ¶And the Lamb shall overcome them.Shall ultimately gain the victory over them. The meaning is, that they would not be able to extinguish the true religion. In spite of all opposition and persecution, that would still live in the world, until it would be said that a complete triumphwas gained. ¶For he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.He has supreme power over all the earth, and all kings and princes are subject to his control.Comp.ch. xix.16. ¶And they that are with him.The reference is to the persecuted saints who have adhered to him as his faithful followers in all these protracted conflicts. ¶Arecalled.That is, called by him to be his followers; as if he had selected them out of the world to maintain his cause. See Notes onRo.i.7. ¶And chosen.See Notes onJn.xv.16, and1 Pe.i.2. In their steadfast adherence to the truth, they had shown that they were trulychosenby the Saviour, and could be relied on in the warfare against the powers of evil. ¶And faithful.They had shown themselves faithful to him in times of persecution, and in the hour of darkness.
14 These shall528make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb529shall overcome them: for he is530Lord of lords, and King of kings: and531they that are with himare532called, and533chosen, and534faithful.
14.These shall make war with the Lamb.The Lamb of God—the Lord Jesus (Notes,ch. v.6); that is, they would combine with the Papacy in opposing evangelical religion. It is not meant that they wouldopenlyandavowedlyproclaimwaragainst the Son of God, but that they wouldpracticallydo this in sustaining a persecuting power. It is unnecessary to show how true this has been in history; how entirely they sustained the Papacy in all its measures of persecution. ¶And the Lamb shall overcome them.Shall ultimately gain the victory over them. The meaning is, that they would not be able to extinguish the true religion. In spite of all opposition and persecution, that would still live in the world, until it would be said that a complete triumphwas gained. ¶For he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.He has supreme power over all the earth, and all kings and princes are subject to his control.Comp.ch. xix.16. ¶And they that are with him.The reference is to the persecuted saints who have adhered to him as his faithful followers in all these protracted conflicts. ¶Arecalled.That is, called by him to be his followers; as if he had selected them out of the world to maintain his cause. See Notes onRo.i.7. ¶And chosen.See Notes onJn.xv.16, and1 Pe.i.2. In their steadfast adherence to the truth, they had shown that they were trulychosenby the Saviour, and could be relied on in the warfare against the powers of evil. ¶And faithful.They had shown themselves faithful to him in times of persecution, and in the hour of darkness.
15 And he saith unto me,535The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are536peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.15.And he saith unto me.The angel,ver.7. This commences the moreliteralstatement of what is meant by these symbols. See the Analysis of the chapter. ¶The waters which thou sawest.See Notes onver.1. ¶Are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.For an explanation of these terms, see Notes onch. vii.9. The meaning here is, (a) that these watersrepresenta multitude of people. This is a common and an obvious symbol—for outspread seas or raging floods would naturally represent such a multitude. SeeIs.viii.7, 8;xvii.12, 13;Je.xlvii.2.Comp.Iliad,v.394. The sense here is, that vast numbers of people would be subject to the power here represented by the woman. (b) They would be composed of different nations, and would be of different languages. It is unnecessary to show that this, in both respects, is applicable to the Papacy. Nations have been, and are subject to its control, and nations speaking a large part of the languages of the world. Perhaps under no one government—not even the Babylonian, the Macedonian, or the ancient Roman—was there so great a diversity of people, speaking so many different languages, and having so different an origin.
15 And he saith unto me,535The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are536peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
15.And he saith unto me.The angel,ver.7. This commences the moreliteralstatement of what is meant by these symbols. See the Analysis of the chapter. ¶The waters which thou sawest.See Notes onver.1. ¶Are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.For an explanation of these terms, see Notes onch. vii.9. The meaning here is, (a) that these watersrepresenta multitude of people. This is a common and an obvious symbol—for outspread seas or raging floods would naturally represent such a multitude. SeeIs.viii.7, 8;xvii.12, 13;Je.xlvii.2.Comp.Iliad,v.394. The sense here is, that vast numbers of people would be subject to the power here represented by the woman. (b) They would be composed of different nations, and would be of different languages. It is unnecessary to show that this, in both respects, is applicable to the Papacy. Nations have been, and are subject to its control, and nations speaking a large part of the languages of the world. Perhaps under no one government—not even the Babylonian, the Macedonian, or the ancient Roman—was there so great a diversity of people, speaking so many different languages, and having so different an origin.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,537these shall hate the whore, and shall538make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and539burn her with fire.16.And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast.Ver.3. The ten powers or kingdoms represented by those horns. See Notes onver.12. ¶These shall hate the whore.Thereseemsto be some incongruity between this statement and that which was previously made. In the former (ver.12–14), these ten governments are represented as in alliance with the beast; as “giving all their power and strength” unto it; and as uniting with it in making war with the Lamb. What is here said must, therefore, refer to some subsequent period, indicating some great change in their feelings and policy. We have seen the evidence of the fulfilment of the former statements. This statement will be accomplished if these same powers, represented by the ten horns, that were formerly in alliance with the Papacy, shall become its enemy, and contribute to its final overthrow. That is, it will be accomplished if the nations of Europe, embraced within the limits of those ten kingdoms, shall become hostile to the Papacy, and shall combine for its overthrow. Is anything more probable than this? France (see Notes onch. xvi.) has already struck more than one heavy blow on that power; England has been detached from it; many of the states of Italy are weary of it, and are ready to rise up against it; and nothing is more probable than that Spain, Portugal, France, Lombardy, and the Papal States themselves, will yet throw off the yoke for ever, and put an end to a power that has so long ruled over men. It was with the utmost difficulty, in 1848, that the Papal power was sustained, and this was done only by foreign swords; the Papacy could not probably be protected in another such outbreak. And this passage leads us to anticipate that the period will come—and that probably not far in the future—when those powers that have for so many ages sustained the Papacy will become its determined foes, and will rise in their might and bring it for ever to an end. ¶And shall make her desolate and naked.Strip her of all her power and all her attractiveness.That is, applied to Papal Rome, all that is so gorgeous and alluring—her wealth, and pomp, and splendour—shall be taken away, and she will be seen as she is, without anything to dazzle the eye or to blind the mind. ¶And shall eat her flesh.Shall completely destroy her—as ifher flesh were consumed. Perhaps the image is taken from the practice of cannibals eating the flesh of their enemies slain in battle. If so, nothing could give a more impressive idea of the utter destruction of this formidable power, or of the feelings of those by whom its end would be brought about. ¶And burn her with fire.Another image of total destruction. Perhaps the meaning may be, that after herfleshwas eaten, such parts of her as remained would be thrown into the fire and consumed. If this be the meaning, the image is a very impressive one to denote absolute and total destruction.Comp.Notes onch. xviii.8.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,537these shall hate the whore, and shall538make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and539burn her with fire.
16.And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast.Ver.3. The ten powers or kingdoms represented by those horns. See Notes onver.12. ¶These shall hate the whore.Thereseemsto be some incongruity between this statement and that which was previously made. In the former (ver.12–14), these ten governments are represented as in alliance with the beast; as “giving all their power and strength” unto it; and as uniting with it in making war with the Lamb. What is here said must, therefore, refer to some subsequent period, indicating some great change in their feelings and policy. We have seen the evidence of the fulfilment of the former statements. This statement will be accomplished if these same powers, represented by the ten horns, that were formerly in alliance with the Papacy, shall become its enemy, and contribute to its final overthrow. That is, it will be accomplished if the nations of Europe, embraced within the limits of those ten kingdoms, shall become hostile to the Papacy, and shall combine for its overthrow. Is anything more probable than this? France (see Notes onch. xvi.) has already struck more than one heavy blow on that power; England has been detached from it; many of the states of Italy are weary of it, and are ready to rise up against it; and nothing is more probable than that Spain, Portugal, France, Lombardy, and the Papal States themselves, will yet throw off the yoke for ever, and put an end to a power that has so long ruled over men. It was with the utmost difficulty, in 1848, that the Papal power was sustained, and this was done only by foreign swords; the Papacy could not probably be protected in another such outbreak. And this passage leads us to anticipate that the period will come—and that probably not far in the future—when those powers that have for so many ages sustained the Papacy will become its determined foes, and will rise in their might and bring it for ever to an end. ¶And shall make her desolate and naked.Strip her of all her power and all her attractiveness.That is, applied to Papal Rome, all that is so gorgeous and alluring—her wealth, and pomp, and splendour—shall be taken away, and she will be seen as she is, without anything to dazzle the eye or to blind the mind. ¶And shall eat her flesh.Shall completely destroy her—as ifher flesh were consumed. Perhaps the image is taken from the practice of cannibals eating the flesh of their enemies slain in battle. If so, nothing could give a more impressive idea of the utter destruction of this formidable power, or of the feelings of those by whom its end would be brought about. ¶And burn her with fire.Another image of total destruction. Perhaps the meaning may be, that after herfleshwas eaten, such parts of her as remained would be thrown into the fire and consumed. If this be the meaning, the image is a very impressive one to denote absolute and total destruction.Comp.Notes onch. xviii.8.
17 For540God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,541until the words of God shall be fulfilled.17.For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will.That is, in regard to the destruction of this mighty power. They would be employed as his agents in bringing about his designs. Kings and princes are under the control of God, and, whatever may be their own designs, they are in fact employed to accomplishhispurposes, and are instruments inhishands. See Notes onIs.x.7.Comp.Ps. lxxvi.10. ¶And to agree.Seever.13. That is, they act harmoniously in their support of this power, and so they will in its final destruction. ¶And give their kingdom unto the beast.Notes,ver.13. ¶Until the words of God shall be fulfilled.Not for ever; not as a permanent arrangement. God has fixed a limit to the existence of this power. When his purposes are accomplished, these kingdoms will withdraw their support, and this mighty power will fall to rise no more.
17 For540God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,541until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
17.For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will.That is, in regard to the destruction of this mighty power. They would be employed as his agents in bringing about his designs. Kings and princes are under the control of God, and, whatever may be their own designs, they are in fact employed to accomplishhispurposes, and are instruments inhishands. See Notes onIs.x.7.Comp.Ps. lxxvi.10. ¶And to agree.Seever.13. That is, they act harmoniously in their support of this power, and so they will in its final destruction. ¶And give their kingdom unto the beast.Notes,ver.13. ¶Until the words of God shall be fulfilled.Not for ever; not as a permanent arrangement. God has fixed a limit to the existence of this power. When his purposes are accomplished, these kingdoms will withdraw their support, and this mighty power will fall to rise no more.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is542that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.18.And the woman which thou sawest.Ver.3. ¶Is that great city.Represents that great city. ¶Which reigneth over the kings of the earth.Rome would of course be understood by this language in the time of John, and all the circumstances, as we have seen, combined to show that Rome, in some form of its dominion, is intended. Even thenamecould hardly have designated it more clearly, and all expositors agree in supposing that Rome, either as Pagan or as Christian, is referred to. The chapter shows that its power is limited; and that, although for purposes which he saw to be wise, God allows it to have a wide influence over the nations of the earth, yet, in his own appointed time, the very powers that have sustained it will become its foes, and combine for its overthrow. Europe needs but little farther provocation, and the fires of liberty, which have been so long pent up, will break forth, and that storm of indignation which has expelled the Jesuits from all the courts of Europe; which has abolished the Inquisition; which has more than once led hostile armies to the very gates of Papal Rome, will again be aroused in a manner which cannot be allayed, and that mighty power, which has controlled so large a part of the nations of Europe for more than a thousand years of the world’s history, will come to an end.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is542that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
18.And the woman which thou sawest.Ver.3. ¶Is that great city.Represents that great city. ¶Which reigneth over the kings of the earth.Rome would of course be understood by this language in the time of John, and all the circumstances, as we have seen, combined to show that Rome, in some form of its dominion, is intended. Even thenamecould hardly have designated it more clearly, and all expositors agree in supposing that Rome, either as Pagan or as Christian, is referred to. The chapter shows that its power is limited; and that, although for purposes which he saw to be wise, God allows it to have a wide influence over the nations of the earth, yet, in his own appointed time, the very powers that have sustained it will become its foes, and combine for its overthrow. Europe needs but little farther provocation, and the fires of liberty, which have been so long pent up, will break forth, and that storm of indignation which has expelled the Jesuits from all the courts of Europe; which has abolished the Inquisition; which has more than once led hostile armies to the very gates of Papal Rome, will again be aroused in a manner which cannot be allayed, and that mighty power, which has controlled so large a part of the nations of Europe for more than a thousand years of the world’s history, will come to an end.