slavish imitation. In Dan. 7: 2 seq., the lion, the bear, the panther, and a fourth animal, to which a name is not given, are the symbols of four successive monarchies or dynasties. In Dan. 8: 3 seq., the ram and the he-goat are also symbols employed in the same way. In like manner in 4 Ezra 11: 1, an eagle with twelve wings and three, heads is represented as coming out of the sea; which is a symbol of the Roman empire. But in the Apocalypse we have only one monster, the symbol of the Romish heathen and persecuting power, who unites in himself several of the distinctive traits of the beasts named in Daniel; see v. 2. Of course, this falls in exactly with the design of John, whose object here was, to symbolize the power and the cruelty of that empire, or of that emperor who was then persecuting the church.

But why from the sea? Here the model is followed; for so is the representation in Dan. 7: 2 seq. But there, fierce winds agitate the ocean, and in high commotion it throws upon the land the monsters successively named. Why Daniel should choose this mode of representing their origin, can be accounted for in no other way so rationally as by the supposition, that the sea was regarded by the ancients as the appropriate place for the origin of huge and terrible monsters, such as leviathan, the, etc. In the case before us, there seems to be a further reason for selecting the sea as the genetic element of the monster. Italy appears to rise out of the sea, like an island, and is in fact a kind of peninsula. Another purpose still the writer appears to have had in his mind. Satan comes from the abyss, or perhaps from the upper region of the air; the second beast (v. 11) comes from the land; and of course relative concinnity here demanded the sea as the place of origin. In this way the whole earth (sea and land) is pointed out as in combination against Christians; while the prince of the power of the air does all he can to augment their violence.

Having ten horns. A well known emblem of power is a horn, in all parts of the Scriptures. We might naturally suppose, at first, that ten horns must mean merely great or excessive power. And such a meaning this symbol has in Rev. 12: 3, where the dragon, i. e. Satan, is said also to have seven heads and ten horns. So in Rev. 5: 6, to the Lamb is ascribed seven horns and seven eyes, i. e. supreme power and omniscience. But in the book of Daniel, (7: 7, 20, 24), the ten horns assigned to the fourth beast are the symbols of so many kings (v. 24). In like manner here they are the symbols of kings, (see Rev. 17: 12); but of secondary and subordinate ones, such as were the kings tributary or allied to the Roman empire: οἵτινες βασιλείαν οὔπω ἔλαβον, ἀλλ ̓ ἐξουσίαν ὡς βασιλεῖς μίαν ώραν λαμβάνουσι, 17: 12.

The seven heads are, it seems, employed in a twofold sense; i. e. they symbolize either the seven hills on which Rome was built, q. d. the seat

of the beast, or else the seven emperors which had been reigning and would reign over the Roman empire; see Rev. 17: 9, 10. In Rev. 12: 3, the seven heads of Satan mean only his controlling power as the god of this world. But in the present case, the explicit interpretation in 17: 9, 10, prevents our giving to the symbol merely such an interpretation. The diadems or crowns upon the ten horns seem designed to mark the regal-state of the subordinate kings; comp. Rev. 17: 12, 18, where both their regal-state and also their subordination are explicitly declared.

And on his heads the names of blasphemy. Some Codices read ὄνομα (sing.) here, which Ewald prefers; but the idea of the author seems to be that each head bore a frontlet, on which was inscribed a title, i. e. an honorary name for the emperors, that was blasphemous, q. d. a name which derogated from the honour and glory of the true God.

The source of the imagery here is probably to be sought for in the custom of persons, who held distinguished offices, having some engraved name, significant of office, rank, or duty, upon the frontlets of their mitres or diadems. In the Apocalypse the promise is repeatedly made, that faithful Christians shall be made kings and priests to God; and in Rev. 2: 17 is a promise that they shall have a diadem on which shall be engraved the ovoua açorror of Jehovah and the Redeemer, i. e. they shall be furnished with a diadem such as kings and priests are wont to wear. If such a custom cannot be shown to have existed among the Roman emperors, it is at least certain that their statues had inscriptions on them, which gave appellations to the emperors that belong only to God.*

* An acquaintance with Roman history, will enable any one to understand why the writer speaks of the inscriptions on the heads of the beast as blasphemous. The fact that divine honours were paid to the Roman emperors, and specially after their death, is amply vouched for by history. Thus a temple and divine honours were decreed to Julius Caesar, by the Triumviri, Dio, 47. 18 (p. 337, edit. Leunclav.); which were confirmed by Augustus, Dio, 51. 20 (p. 459), Augustus himself permitted temples to be erected to Roma (as a goddess), and to his father, at Ephesus and Nice; to other Asiatic provinces he permitted the erection of temples to himself, in which divine honours were to be rendered him by the Romans who sojourned there. This was afterwards done, in honour of reigning emperors, not only in Grecian Asia, but in all the foreign provinces of the Roman empire. In Rome and Italy proper temples were not in early times permitted to be erected to emperors; but all divine honours were paid them, particularly after their death; Dio, ed. Leunclavii, p. 458. We find Virgil naming and worshipping Augustus as a god; Ec. I. 6-8. In the like way Horace, Ep. II. 1. 16; also Ovid, Fast. 1. 13. At Rome, after the death of Augustus, the senate decreed him a temple; and the like was done in many of the foreign provinces; Dio, p. 600. Caligula, in spite of usage to the contrary, ordered a temple to be built for himself at Rome, and sacred rites to be performed to him as to

(2) And the beast which I saw was like to a panther, and his feet as a bear's, and his mouth as a lion's mouth. And the dragon gave to him his power, and his throne, and great authority.

All the ferocious and powerful beasts which Daniel (7: 3 seq.) has successively brought upon the scene of action, as the representatives of

a god; Dio, p. 643. Of the adulation and worship offered by senators and people to Nero, and accepted, the following is a fair specimen. Nero is returning from abroad, and he enters the city in a triumphal chariot, because he had been conqueror in the public games of Greece. Dio relates the words of the universal shout with which he was received: "Victories Olympic! Victories Pythian! Thou august, august! To Nero, the Hercules! To Nero, the Apollo The only conqueror in the games of the Circus! Eis an' aivos, i. e. the eternal One! Thou august, august! Sacred voice! Happy those who hear thee!" Dio himself apologizes for relating such words, lest they may be deemed a disgrace to his history; p. 724. See also the like view of Nero's claims and honours, in Ascens. Is. ch. iv. Introd. p. 42.

It may not be improper to add, that on the leading standards of the Roman army, the likeness (ɛixoiv) of the reigning emperor was painted; and that the Roman soldiery were taught to regard this as the symbol of their tutelary god, who was present with them and would aid and protect them; see Modestius, De rei milit. Vocab. Thus Suetonius (Tib. 48) speaks of Tiberius as rewarding some Syrian legions, because they had not displayed the image of his rival, Sejanus, on their standards, and had not worshipped it, (non coluissent). Artabanus, king of the Parthians, who had been inimical to Tiberius, became reconciled to Caligula, and passing the Euphrates adored (adoravit) the Roman standards bearing the image of the Caesars; Suet. Calig. 14. When Pontius Pilate undertook to hoist the standard of Tiberius in the city of Jerusalem, knowing the obligation that would follow to pay homage to it, the Jews one and all remonstrated and offered their necks to the swords of his soldiers rather than submit to the erection of the standard; Joseph. Bell. Jud. II. 9. 2, 3. In Antiq. XVIII. 8. 8, 9, Josephus mentions the claims of Caligula to divine honours among the Jews. He also states the claims of the same emperor, at Rome, to divine honours there; Ib. XIX. 1.1. Even so late as the time of Constantine, his panegyrist Eumenius could venture to say of him: Ubique vim vestrae divinitatis esse, ubi vultus vestri, ubi signa coluntur; Panegyr. Const. 15. Under the comparatively mild and humane Trajan, we find Pliny, one of his Praefects, who felt himself obliged to condemn Christians under the then existing laws of Rome, writing to the emperor an account of the manner in which he ascertained that an accused person was not a Christian but a heathen. It was simply to compel him to call on the gods; then to offer frankincense and a libation of wine to the image of Trajan, accompanied by supplications; and lastly to utter maledictions against Christ;' Plinii Epist. 96. Lib. X. In other words; a true heathen was ready to do all this, and did do it, and none but a Christian would refuse to do it. We cannot well suppose that the conditions of escape from the heathen tribunals were milder than these, in the days of the monster Nero.

I need only to remark here, that from the character of the people at Ephesus, it is highly probable that the persecution of Christians and deification of Roman emperors were both urged on to great excess, in the time of John. The Ephesians as we have seen above, were among the first of all the provincial citizens in ask

different empires, John has here combined in one monster. There is much of significancy in this. The Roman empire combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive, which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that preceded it; its extension too was equal to them all united. Hence the propriety of the composite symbol which unites the symbols of other empires in that of Rome, and thus makes the complex unity of the latter a most significant index of power, and cruelty, and extent of imperial dominion.

Пlagdaha does not mean, as in our English version, leopard, but a much more powerful and ravenous beast, viz. the panther; which latter is the rival, and nearly the equal, of the lion.-"Aoxov is a milder Alexandrine form of the common άozrov. The strength of the bear, as to his feet and claws, is a characteristic too well known to need explanation.-zóua Lovros designates a mouth of great capacity, or rather, one which has a large extent of opening, rictus magnus. In this idea is also to be included the formidable teeth which the lion's mouth exhibits. The three animals, thus combined by the writer, symbolize swiftness and ferocity in springing upon the prey, tenacity in holding it and dragging it away, and a ravenous appetite for devouring, with extraordinary powers adapted to satisfy it; like to what the Hebrews express by their

. אַרְיֵה עֹרֶף ושאג ואין מציל

Endowed with powers and a ferocity such as are implied by the description before us, no wonder that Satan, so discerning as to the most successful methods of doing mischief, should regard this beast as a ready and most efficient and hearty ally. Without scruple or delay he makes him his vicegerent among men, for the purpose of destroying Christianity. He gives to him, says John, his power, and his throne, and great authority. Avvaμiv means strength, robur, ability to accomplish anything. Ogóvos means regal power, i. e. civil and military dominion or magistracy.—Εξουσίαν μεγάλην refers to widely extended authority. Satan is elsewhere called the god of this world, 2 Cor. 4: 4. His ¿ovgía, therefore, is in a sense universal; and so the authority of the beast, his vicegerent, becomes universal. What the writer means to say, is, that the power and dominion and authority of the beast were widely extended, like those of Satan. The intensity of the expression is manifest at

ing leave of Augustus to build temples to [the goddess] Roma and to the emperor's father. How they regarded the worship of Diana, Luke has told us in Acts xix. It is more than probable, that in John's time, out of opposition to Christians and to court the favour of the Roman emperor, they carried even to the furthest extreme all the blasphemous claims of Nero, and demanded, as Pliny afterwards did, that Christians should utter execrations against Jesus Christ. With emphasis in his own mind John could doubtless well speak, to his fellow Christians and fellowsufferers, of the ovóμara ßhaoqquías on the heads of the beast.

first sight, and needs no elucidation. And the writer needs no apology for introducing such an incarnate demon as Nero, as one who was an agent "after Satan's own heart," and might readily be trusted as his vicegerent to carry on the war against Christianity.

(3) And [I saw] one of his heads as stricken unto death; and his deadly wound was healed. And the whole land wondered after the beast.

The corrected text omits aldov at the beginning of the verse. It is easy to supply it mentally, from the preceding context, and most probably it was so supplied by the writer himself; in which case the Acc. uíav is readily accounted for. But without resorting to this, the use of the Acc. absolute may easily be defended by reference to the classics; see Gramm. § 115. 4, and Kühner, § 566. § 670.

What the writer aims at, in this verse, is a matter of more serious difficulty than the form of his language. In Rev. 17: 10, the seven heads are interpreted as meaning seven kings. The beast itself then is, when distinguished from them, the imperial or supreme authority, i. e. the genus, of which kings are representative and successive individualities. A part of the time, however, e. g. in chap. xvii, John employs noior to designate the individual emperor, in whose hands the imperial power then was. But there is nothing strange in this. Imperial power was successive, and was held by different individuals. Ongiov may therefore be a generic symbol, when brought into contrast with its individual parts, as here; but when the writer employs this symbol without any contrast, it may designate an individual who at any time possessed and wielded the imperial power; just as our English word Majesty or Excellency may have a generic or a specific and individual sense, according to the exigency of any passage.

One of the heads of the beast, then, is one of the seven kings or emperors of Rome; see 17: 10, 11. Which of these is characterized by the verse before us?

Bertholdt, who maintains (as I have done) that the Apocalypse was written near the close of Nero's reign, has an ingenious conjecture in regard to the passage before us. He begins the series of seven emperors with Julius Caesar, and refers uíav to him as the first head. In justification of his version, he refers us to Rev. 9: 12 and John 20: 19. The whole verse he explains by saying: "Julius Caesar founded the monarchy; by his death it appeared to be destroyed; yet this did not happen, but after a while, to the astonishment of the whole world, Augustus reëstablished it." Thus the wound was healed. Berth. Einleit.

IV. p. 1886.

The ingenuity of the solution must be admitted.

The validity of the argument for it, however, is very questionable. (1) Mía, in such