271
point on which the controversy turns, to have attributed to me a solitary argument entirely destitute of weight, and, having easily refuted that, to have represented the matter as though quite settled in other respects.
Pkop. 5. The beast is the Roman Papacy. — This in truth is the chief Proposition, respecting which the Epicrisis treats, p. 378. The 3d Proposition is beyond the reach of controversy : we have recently vindicated the 4th. This 5th Proposition, resting on those two, remains irrefutable, that is, evident and certain. The beast, I say, is intimately connected with the city Rome : and the beast exists at the present day. Therefore either another power of the present day, greater than the Pope and more intimately connected with the city Rome, must be pointed out, or the Pope must be regarded as the beast. I had spoken more at large on this very Proposition, p. 664 ; and the things which I had discussed, p. 659, are in agreement with this. By the consideration of the three woes , and moreover of all the things which precede and follow in the prophecy and its accomplish- ment, we are so shut in , that neither before nor afterwards , neither in the east nor in the west , can we think of anything else than the Papacy. Let those things be compared which are set forth at ch. xii. 12, 14. Add the Introduction, especially § 31, 40, 42, 44, num. 12. All these strong points are as yet unrefuted.
A further argument, with a special reference to Daniel, has been prepared by the illustrious man, recently, with the intention of con- vincing me: p. 393, etc., compared with pp. 381, 384. It is a pleasing task : I will consider the subject itself.
The argument proves, 1) That the beast of the Apocalypse is viewed, first, as an entire body, afterwards as an individual : 2) That the same belongs to the Roman monarchy: pp. 393, 394, 402, 403. I reply : I concede both points, even without the circuitous reasons sought from Daniel ; and this very admission shall assist in proving the interpretation of the beast as given by me. Let us see the points of importance separately.
1) Without perceiving this difference, which takes the beast first as an entire body, and afterwards as an individual, he says, that an error is at hand: p. 394. I reply : It is true that there is this differ- ence; and even one of greater distinctness than appears to the Divine of Halle. Thence we shall see the origin of the error, in which he is involved, especially in Proposition 10.
2) He demonstrates, p. 934 (394?), etc., that there is a great conjunction between the beast , even taken as a whole, and the whore
272