Terms] of both with the second is indicated. The destruction of the fourth beast in Daniel is connected with the destruction of the former beasts, ch. vii. 12, ii. 35, 45, and with the destruction of the Apocalyptic beast which afterwards arose.
Thus far concerning the ten Propositions. Whatever I have spoken concerning these, I had already spoken in my German Exegesis : but because many judge , wrhile but few read , it was right that the subject should again be submitted to the eyes, com- prised as it is here in one collection. Then next the Divine of Halle, being about to examine my annotations on the verses of ch. xiii. separately, considers by what means I shall show that the beast is the Papacy. But in the annotations I presuppose this, as already demonstrated, and I proceed in the handling of the text, as each portion demands. He wrho shall duly have made himself acquainted with the former parts, will easily reply for me : yet I will make some remarks in a summary way. He denies that any application of this verse, and of those which follow^, to the Papacy, is given by me. Epicr. p. 386, etc. I have not given it in pp. 690-695, which he quotes ; for there I laid dowrn the resemblance and also the dissimilitude between the beast of Daniel and that of the Apo- calypse, as was befitting. I gave the application in order, pp. 658, 678, 696, etc. ; and in p. 663 I referred the reader to ch. xvii., where I distinctly and fully treated of the heads and horns , p. 853, etc. On the subject of the leopard , the hear , and the lion , I wTas able to be the more concise, because a fuller explanation is given by those who in great numbers interpret this passage of the Papacy. Nor have the interpreters of Daniel failed to accomplish something. I do not readily write that which has been before written by others. He denies that the name of Pope (Erasmus restores ovo^aa, in the singular, from an ancient reading of Andreas of Caesarea1) is blas- phemous, p. 388. Since the Pope has taken this name to himself alone, he has no name greater, and therefore none more blasphemous. See Erkl. Ojfenh. p. 697, and add Forbes on Ap. p. 118.
3. Ka/' /j,Iuv) Thus all the most ancient remains : two or three copies insert sldov.2 I agree with Wolf, that fiiav, when you destroy tldovj does not refer to the verb which immediately precedes it, although there appears to be a gloss, as noticed in the Apparatus,
1 A reads yepoyroi ovopoiTot; Rec. Text, yepou ovoponuv. Tiscli. has ysfio v roc 6v6/xutoc', h and Vulg. have “plenam nominibus:” xvii. 3. — E.
2 ABC/* Vulg. (Amiat.) Iren, omit ulov. Rec. Text inserts it, with no very old authority except Fuld. MS. of Vulg. (inferior to Amiat.) — E.