269
Epicrisis of Lange, and shall compare my present explanation with both, will not repent of his labour.
Proposition 1. It is one and the same beast , having ten horns and seven heads , which is described , Apoc. xiii. and xvii. — D. Lange con- cedes this, p. 376. But when I had prepared this Proposition with this intention only, that the demonstration about to be then deduced from ch. xiii. and xvii. jointly might cohere, he, before I say any- thing about the whore, immediately anticipates me, and says, that in Ap. xiii. and xvii. the beast is so brought forward as to destroy [ch. xvii. 16] the whore or papacy. He adds, or Papacy , from his own theory. That the beast is different from the whore, each of us, as I have said, equally admits : but before the question is decided respecting the texts which signify the Papacy , it is neither allowable for me to put the Papacy for the beast , nor for him to put it for the whore. A perpetual error, arising out of Homonymia (see Append.), prevails throughout the Epicrisis. Do you, Reader, bear this in mind ; for I shall not inculcate this at every passage. But for my part I shall proceed distinctly.
Prop. 2. The beast is an ecclesiastico-political power opposed to the kingdom of Christ. — He concedes this also, p. 377. But when I opposed the opinion of some, who regarded the beast as a power either purely spiritual, or purely political (against the opinion of D. Lange), and when I did not as yet assume it as applying to the Papacy, he protests against my taking it of the Papacy. He ought to have waited, until, in the course of my argument, I seemed to abuse this Proposition which is agreed upon on both sides.
Prop. 3. The beast has an intimate and altogether peculiar con- nection with the city of Pome. — The Epicrisis, p. 377, so concedes this Proposition, as to say that it does not even need proof : and yet, p. 378, it refuses to it even probability itself, inasmuch as the beast and Rome are not therefore the same. But I do not say that they are the same, any more than he does Things connected are not the same: and I have proved the connection by reference to the 17th chapter, not because I thought that it is denied at the present day, but in order that this Proposition, together with the 4th, might more firmly support the 5th.
Prop. 4. T'he beast exists at the present time. — I had required that these Propositions might be examined as strictly as possible. The Divine of Halle has examined them, but, as he says, not strictly ; for that it was not necessary : p. 386. It certainly was necessary in this Proposition, on account of the following Proposition ; an exa-
270