is still, Rome. But the dragon symbolized Rome, and why not
let that symbol continue to represent it? Whoever attempts to answer
this question must say that it is because a change had taken place in
the power. What change? Two kinds of changes are conspicuous in the
history of Rome: changes in form of government, and a change in
religion. But this cannot denote any change in the form of government;
for the seven different forms of government that Rome consecutively
assumed are represented by the seven heads of the dragon, and the seven
heads of the leopard beast. The religious change must therefore be alone
denoted by this change of symbols. Paganism and Christianity coalesced,
and the mongrel production was the papacy; and this new religion, and
this alone, made a change in the symbol necessary. Every candid mind
must assent to this; and this assent is an admission of the utter
absurdity of trying to limit this symbol to the civil power alone. So
far from its representing the civil power alone, it is to the
ecclesiastical element that it owes its very existence.

That the leopard beast represents ecclesiastical as well as civil power
is further shown in the arguments already presented to prove that this
beast is identical with the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast, which
symbolizes the papacy in all its components parts and through all its
history. It is the leopard beast alone that is identical with this
little horn, not the leopard beast and the two-horned beast taken
together.

Again, Pagan Rome gave its seat to the papacy. The dragon gave his seat
to the leopard beast. If it takes both the leopard beast and the
two-horned beast to constitute the papacy, the prophet should have said
that the dragon gave his seat and power to these two beasts combined.
The fact that his transfer was to the leopard beast alone, is proof
positive that that beast alone symbolizes the papacy in its entirety.

When, therefore, John calls the two-horned beast "another beast," it is
certain that he does not mean any particular phase, or any part, of the
papal power.

It is claimed by others that the two-horned beast represents England; by
still others, France; and by some, Russia, &c. The first, among many
other fatal objections to all these applications, is, that the territory
occupied by all these powers is already appropriated by preceding
symbols. If the two-homed beast symbolized any of these, it would be a
part of other beasts