Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


"Sixth Head, Protestantism—the English 'Mother' church and her daughters.

"Seventh Head, 'The League of Nations'—not as now seen, in the making—but as the 'image of the Beast,' possessing life and great power.

"Eighth Head, Papacy, the Man of Sin, Son of Perdition—'the beast that was, and is not, and yet now is' restored to temporal power—having 'ascended out of the bottomless pit.' This 'head' will be the last 'end' of the Gentile 'beast,' which 'goeth into perdition'—utter destruction, oblivion."


Thus it is seen that G. K. B. credulously swallows this view, hook, line, sinker, bobber and pole, just as he did Adam Rutherford's view on, Behold the Bridegroom. Though recognizing that it differs materially from our Pastor's, he claims that it substantiates his view and while at it he betrays him with Judas-like kisses, "our dear Pastor," as he has often before done while advocating teachings contrary to his. As a means of furnishing a firm foundation for our refutation of these "new views," we will make some general remarks on the fourth beast of Dan. 7, and on the beasts of Rev. 12, 13 and 17.


Not only in general does Studies, Vol. III, pp. 19-226, cover the main features of Rev. 12, 13 and 17, but specifically on page 131 do we find a diagram that gives us a partial key to the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of Rev. 17 and a fairly full key to the seven-headed and ten-horned beasts of Rev. 12 and 13. Please see the diagram. The foregoing remark leads to another consideration that must be kept in mind to enable us to see daylight on the subject of Daniel's ten-(eleven, counting the little— papal—horn) horned beast and the three seven-headed and ten-horned beasts of Rev. 12, 13 and 17. While in general they represent the Roman government, they represent it from four not just identical standpoints. The ten horns of Daniel's beast are not the same ten



horns as those of the three Revelation beasts. The following are the eleven horns of Daniel's beast: The Roman Republic; The Roman Empire; The Western Empire; The Kingdom of the Heruli; The Kingdom of the Ostrogoths; The Papacy; The Exarchate of Ravenna; The Kingdom of the Longobards; The Holy Roman Empire; The Kingdom of Naples, and The Kingdom of Italy. The seventh, eighth and tenth of these did not hold sway over the city of Rome; the others did; and all of them held sway over more or less of Italy. The reason why we begin with the Roman Republic is because the fourth beast of Daniel 7 had it as its first form to come under the scope of Scriptural prophecy. Again, the seven heads of the beasts of Rev. 12 and 13 are not just the same as the seven heads of the beast of Rev. 17, though much alike. The diagram (Studies, Vol. III, 131) shows that he there counts Rome as a republic as the first head, and this is correct for the beasts of Rev. 12 and 13, but it is not correct for the beast of Rev. 17. Why, one may ask, should we differentiate between the ten (eleven) horns of Daniel's beast and the ten horns of the three Revelation beasts? We answer that the ten horns of the Revelation beasts are contemporaneous and exist at present (Rev. 17: 12-17), while the fact that three horns were plucked up to make way for the little horn proves that all of the horns of Daniel's beast were not mainly contemporaneous, but arose successively, just as the seven heads of the (Rev. 12, 13) beasts are not contemporaneous, but arose successively, and those of the Rev. 17, except two, are not contemporaneous, but all arose successively. Again, most of the ten horns of Daniel's beast exist no more, while the ten horns of the Revelation beast all now exist. Briefly, we would say that we understand the ten horns of the Dan. 7 beast to represent successive powers that ruled in Italy, either in or outside of Rome, while the ten horns of the Revelation beasts



represent the ten language nations of Europe, reigning for most of the time contemporaneously (Zech. 8: 23). The connection shows this passage to apply at the end of this Age. Europe for centuries has consisted of more than ten nations. There are now over twenty of them there. But for centuries Europe has consisted, and still consists (as Zechariah says), of ten language nations—"ten men of all the languages of the [European] nations," even as Israel, with Hebrew as its national language, though citizened in many nations, is spoken of as an eleventh man in the same verse. These ten language nations are as follows: Greek, Turkish, Slavic, Magyar, Scandinavian, English, Hispanian, French, Germanic and Italian. There is, apart from scattered Israel, no other language group existing governmentally in Europe than these ten. Thus Zech. 8: 23 gives us the key to the ten horns of the three beasts.


But why, one may ask, do we claim a difference between the seven heads of the beasts of Rev. 12 and 13 and the seven heads of the beast of Rev. 17? We reply: From the diagram in Studies, Vol. III, 131, we see that Rome as a republic was the first head of Rev. 12 and 13. This cannot be true of the first head of Rev. 17; for Rome as a republic had ceased to be before our Lord's birth, Augustus being the first Roman Emperor, and Tiberius, his successor, being on the throne years before our Lord's baptism and death (Luke 2: 1; 3: 1-3), while, according to Rev. 17: 9, 10, the Roman Catholic Church, which did not arise until nearly three centuries later, sat on all seven of the heads of the Rev. 17 beast, i.e., was supported by all seven of these heads. Hence its first head came after Rome as a republic ceased to exist. Moreover, it was only after the Dioclesian persecution ceased, 313 A. D., that the Roman Catholic Church began to be supported by the Roman Empire, i.e., after Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, came to the throne.



Hence the Pagan Roman had changed into the so called Christian Roman Empire, when the Roman Catholic Church began to sit on the first of the heads on which she has sat. Hence, from the standpoint of Rev. 17, we may call the first head of its beast, the so-called Christian Roman Empire. Its next five heads are the following: The Western Empire, the Kingdom of the Heruli, the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, the Papacy and the Kingdom of Italy founded by the House of Savoy in 1870, which, as our Pastor correctly taught, is the seventh head of the beasts of Rev. 12 and 13. A marked difference between the eleven horns of Daniel's beast and the seven heads of the three Revelation beasts is this: all of these heads ruled at Rome; but not all of Daniel's horns ruled at Rome, though all ruled in Italy.


What is the seventh head of the beast of Rev. 17? It must have come into existence years after 1870; for the angel's statement (Rev. 17: 10) to the effect that the sixth head— the Italian Kingdom as the seventh of the Rev. 12 and 13 beasts—was in existence, was made from 1891 onward to 1914; and, as we will show that the State of the Vatican recently established is the eighth head, the seventh must have already come. What, then, is it? We reply: It is the Fascist Italian State, which, having overthrown the Italian Constitution adopted under the House of Savoy and having destroyed parliamentarianism, an essential part of the Italian Kingdom, has organized an entirely different form of government from the limited monarchy established by the House of Savoy. Its establishment followed the Fascist Revolution of late Oct., 1922, whose climax was the Fascists' march to, and occupation of Rome. Hence it is another kingdom and is the seventh head of the Rev. 17 beast. The viewpoints of the pictures of Rev. 12 and 13, beginning with the Rome republic, when Rome first came to view in prophecy, and stopping short of the Time of Trouble,



1914, naturally do not contemplate the Fascist Italian State within their scope; while the Rev. 17 viewpoint, embracing exclusively the period of the Roman Catholic Church in its being supported by the Roman State (the woman seated on the seven heads), begins with the time of Constantine, shortly after 313, and ends with the harlot's annihilation in Armageddon. From this last viewpoint, we understand the Fascist Italian State to be the seventh and the Vatican State to be the eighth, head of the Rev. 17 beast.


There are some contrasted expressions that should be kept in mind while thinking on the subject of the beasts in Revelation. One of these is this: Whereas in Rev. 12, 13 and 16 the Roman government as a political power exclusively in its various phases is meant by the dragon, beginning with Rev. 13, and always afterward, the expression, the beast, applies to it as it exists in the papacy, one of its heads. Hence from Rev. 12 onward, the civil power as distinct from the papacy is called the dragon, while in contrast the papacy invariably from Rev. 13 onward is called the beast. This contrast can be seen especially as between chapters 12 and 13 and also in chapter 13, and is very manifest in Rev. 16: 13, as it is also in part seen in Ps. 91: 13. This also applies to chapter 17. Thus the sixth head of the beasts of Rev. 12 and 13 and the fifth and eighth heads of the beast of Rev. 17, are the papacy; and, while at the same time it thus is meant by certain heads, it also from Rev. 13 onward is called the beast. Another peculiarity of contrasted expressions that should be kept in mind is the clear-cut distinction that Rev. 17 makes between the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy, which most people look upon as the same. The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination. The papacy (in its full sense) is the hierarchy, which has as its head the pope, and which has usurped control of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church existed before the papacy. This distinction is shown in several



ways in Rev. 17. The Roman Catholic Church is the harlot who sits on the beast (Rev. 17: 3), which is the papacy. Again, she is the woman who sits on the seven heads, one of which, as well as the beast, is the papacy (Rev. 17: 9).


The seven heads are defined (v. 9) first in a figurative way, as seven mountains, and then, literally, as seven kings, which word in prophecy is frequently used for kingdoms (Dan. 2: 44; 7: 17, 24; 8: 20; 11: 5, 6, etc.), while in many passages, the word, mountain, is used figuratively to represent a kingdom (Dan. 2: 35; Is. 2: 2, 3; 11: 9; 25: 6, 7, 10; 30: 29; 56: 7; 57: 7, 13; 65: 11; 25; 66: 20, etc.). The time that God's people began to expound, etc., the message of Vol. III as to the Roman government in its various heads was especially from 1891, when Vol. III was published, onward; and since the papal head ceased to be in 1870, the beast from 1891 until just recently could truly be spoken of as having once been, as not longer being and as later coming to be again (vs. 8, 11). This was repeatedly done by them, as all of us know, from 1891 onward. All of us know that they spoke of the beast (papacy) being from 539 until 1870, then of its being out of existence as a temporal power, and then as coming again later into existence as a temporal power. Certainly the papacy originally, when it became the fifth head, ascended out of the abyss—error (Rev. 11: 7); and in its second time of becoming a head— the eighth—it came out of the abyss—error, especially its claims to temporal power by Divine right as an alleged necessity of its office requirements (v. 8). God says it goes to destruction.


At the time when God's people were expounding the message of, and matters germane to Vol. III, they taught that the so-called Christian Roman Empire, the Western Empire, the Kingdom of the Heruli, the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths and the Papacy-the five kings—had fallen— ceased to be—and that another



(the sixth of the Rev. 17 kings, or heads) reigned, viz., the Italian Kingdom of the House of Savoy. They also, without understanding its character, forecast the coming of another—the seventh—which has proven to be the Fascist Italian State. They did not know exactly the length of the stay of what proved to be the Fascist State, but from v. 10, as well as from the chronology, they knew that its stay would be short. It will probably last until the symbolic earthquake, although it could fall before, and if it should, the papacy would get exclusive power in Rome; for if another power should do this before Armageddon, there would be nine heads—a thing contradictory to the Scriptures (vs. 9-11). The Lord's people often mistakenly spoke of an eighth beast coming, calling it a headless beast, mistakenly understanding that it would be the form of government following the Revolution. Their mistake on this point is, of course, not shown in the angel's speech. On the contrary, the first time the angel says anything about the eighth (king, i.e., head) he speaks of it as an already existing thing—"The beast … is himself an eighth [king]." This proves that the true interpretation would not be clearly declared by the Lord's people until the beast as the eighth (king, i.e., head) would be here. The fulfilment has finally enabled us to understand its character and the time of its coming, as we knew and declared beforehand, on the basis of Rev. 17: 9-11, that some kind of an eighth power would come. The angel's statement, therefore, proves that now is the due time for the Lord's people to declare, especially to one another, the presence of its eighth king, or head.


The beast (v. 11)—the papacy—which was until 1870, and which, at least from 1891 onward until recently, was spoken of by God's people as not being, i.e., not existing as a temporal power, becomes the eighth king. We add the word king after the word ogdoos (masculine), eighth, because the masculine adjective



ogdoos requires a masculine noun for completeness, and the connection (vs. 9, 10) shows that the angel is speaking of the heads as representing kings—basileis (plural), basileus (singular). The word beast (therion), being neuter in Greek, cannot be supplied after the word ogdoos, whose masculine form cannot be used with the neuter therion. If therion were to be supplied, the word form for eighth would be ogdoon. Moreover, the facts of the case disprove the reading, eighth beast; for nowhere do the Scriptures speak of such a thing, when treating on this subject. Nor can the word head (though it is the proper symbol for the thing meant—v. 9) be inserted after the word ogdoos; for the Greek word for head (kephale), used in this connection, is feminine, and to agree with it the Greek word for eighth would have to be feminine in form which, therefore would have to read ogdoe. Hence, properly, the connection shows that basileus, king, must be supplied after the word ogdoos—eighth. Hence the following is the proper translation: "And the beast which was, and is not, is also an eighth [king] himself, and is [one] of the seven." The papacy, as the fifth king of the Rev. 17 beast, is self-evidently, as the eighth, one of the seven kings—kingdoms. Praise be to God for the next clause: "and he goes down into destruction."


The above points, vindicating our Pastor's view and adding to it certain harmonious things that have occurred since his death in fulfilment of Rev. 17, give us a basis from which it is easy to refute W.C.'s views, as expressed in his booklet, "The End Of All Things," and republished in the Oct., Nov. and Dec. Berean Bible Student. We will now proceed to refute the view, first refuting it on general lines and then refuting its more or less essential details.


(1) W.C.'s view sets aside that Servant's demonstrably true views on the three seven-headed beasts of Revelation, on the two-horned beast of Rev. 13 and on



the image of the beast of Revelation, and sets in their place demonstrably false views. This is Azazelian revolutionism—just what we should expect to come from one who has the unenviable lot of having been the first member of Azazel's Goat to be led to the gate and the fit man in the Epiphany. In this action he has shown that he pays our Pastor the same contemptuous disregard that he accorded him in his place as that Servant in charge of the London Bethel and Tabernacle. Certainly the Lord would not use such an one to bring forth things new.


(2) W.C. claims that Bro. Russell's view has not been sustained by historical facts; hence, he claims, it must be set aside for one that is (allegedly) so sustained. He has not put himself to the pains of pointing out even one particular wherein our Pastor's view of Daniel's and Revelation's beasts is unhistorical. We are certain he cannot do this. Above we have shown it to be thoroughly in harmony with the fulfilled facts of history. Hence his claim for the necessity of a contrary view falls to the ground.


(3) W.C.'s view violates the Bible's usage, that only one beast is used to symbolize one government, though it may symbolize that one government's varying forms by a number of horns or heads; but never does the Bible use one beast to represent a number of successive governments, as W.C.'s view holds. Nebuchadnezzar's metallic image is used to represent a number of successive governments by its various parts; but never is a beast in Biblical symbols so used. Thus the various beasts of Daniel 7 and 8 in each case represent but one government. This is true of the four beasts of Revelation, as Bro. Russell's Biblically and historically corroborated view proves. Hence pertinent Biblical usage defeats W.C.'s view.


(4) Neither the Babylonian, Persian nor Grecian empires (nor the Pagan Roman Republic and Empire, which made Rome a universal government) ever supported



the Roman Catholic Church, because as universal empires (as such the four beasts of Daniel are presented) they were out of existence centuries before the Roman Catholic Church arose; nor as existent non-universal kingdoms have they, since their destruction as universal empires, ever supported the Roman Catholic Church. But all seven heads of the beast of Rev. 17 have supported the Roman Catholic Church ("on which the woman sitteth," Rev. 17: 9). Therefore the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires cannot be three of the heads of the beast of Rev. 17. Nor can republican nor imperial Pagan Rome be one of these heads, since they never supported the Roman Catholic Church, which first began to receive support from the Roman beast when it became nominally Christian, under Constantine, and that after the last Pagan Roman persecution ended, in 313 A.D. No sophistry of W.C. on the preceding empire's being (allegedly) assimilated into the later picture can meet this point. It simply annihilates his entire view so far as Rev. 17 is concerned; and it does the same with his view of the red dragon's and beast's heads of Rev. 12 and 13; for he makes them the same as those of the Rev. 17 beast. That the heads of the red dragon of Rev. 12, which are identical with the heads of the Rev. 13 beast, are not the same in every case as those of the Rev. 17 beast, is evident from the facts that all seven of the latter supported the Roman Catholic Church while the pagan head (Pagan Rome) of the red dragon persecuted both the Roman, as well as the True Church.


(5) As proven above, the ten (yea, eleven) horns of the Daniel 7 beast are not in most cases identical with the ten horns of the three Revelation beasts, as is evident from the fact that most of these eleven horns are now extinct, whereas all of the ten horns of the three Revelation beasts still exist. But W.C.'s view, requiring these to be identical, is by their diversity proved to be false. As a matter of fact, the Roman



beast, coming into such varied contact with God's people in fulfilled prophecy, both before and during the Gospel Age, had to be given from varied standpoints. These four beasts, in each case, give a different viewpoint of the Roman beast and to make them identical is a demonstrated fallacy. Above we have pointed out these differences, against which W.C.'s view impinges with disastrous effects upon itself.


(6) The fact that three other beasts in Dan. 7 are used to identify Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires as separate and distinct from the fourth beast, which, generally speaking, is used to point out the same government (the Roman Government) as is symbolized by the three ten-horned and seven-headed beasts of Revelation, proves that the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires are not symbolized in these three Revelation ten-horned and seven-headed beasts, which argument, from the standpoint of separate beasts being used to symbolize separate governments, disproves completely W.C.'s view.


(7) The scope of the book of Revelation, as a symbolic-prophetic history of the Christ, precludes the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires from symbolization in a symbolic-prophetic picture of the Christ, since the Christ never came into factual contact with those empires by reason of their non-existence setting in before the Christ began to exist; while the Revelation beasts are introduced into the symbolic-prophetic history because of the Christ's coming into factual contact with its four beasts—the fourth being the two-horned beast. Hence those three empires cannot be symbolized by three of the seven heads.


(8) Nowhere in the Bible nor in Bro. Russell's writings does the expression of the thought, "the Gentile beast," occur, as representing the four universal monarchies of the Times of the Gentiles. It is an invention of W.C., to palm off his error under review, and is contrary to the Biblical use of figurative beasts,



each one used exclusively to designate one particular government.


(9) Protestantism never was, nor is now, a government. Therefore it cannot be one of the seven heads, all of which symbolize governments ("Seven kings," Rev. 17: 9). Protestantism is a designation of a number of religious denominations opposed to Romanism, some of which have been married to governments. But it is not a government. If it were such, all of the Protestant denominations would not only be under one political unit, but would have to be that political unit. But such things have never been the case; hence Protestantism cannot be the sixth head, inasmuch as all seven heads are kingdoms—governments (Rev. 17: 10, 11).


(10) The League of Nations is not a governments—a kingdom (Rev. 17: 10, 11); therefore it is not, nor can be, the seventh head, which, like the other heads, must be a kingdom. It is a very loose association of governments, not even having the cohesion of a real alliance of governments. This association of governments is very little more than a debating club on international matters. It has no sovereign authority, nor has it a citizenry, which a government always has. It has very little more than advisory powers, i.e., beyond advising it has bluffing powers, when a small power offends or is in the way of an ambitious large power; but when a strong power wrongs a weak power, e.g., Japan wronging China in the Manchurian and Shanghai affairs, it has not even bluffing powers—it is utterly impotent. It is merely a football kicked about by the stronger powers, particularly France. It lacks all the essentials of a government, prominent among which are sovereignty and citizenry, both of which it lacks, its members being nations and not citizens of one or more nations. Hence it is no government, and therefore cannot be the seventh head of the three Revelation ten-horned and seven-headed beasts.


To adapt G.K. Bolger's language, above quoted, to



the facts of the case, we would say that these ten points thoroughly prove that the article under review "bears the unmistakable evidence of [not] having been produced by one of the faithful scribes [writers (?)] of whom Jesus spoke in Matt. 13: 52." We might let the case rest on these ten points, but will answer W.C.'s main details, referring to these as they are paged in his booklet, and not as they are reproduced in the Berean Bible Student. On page 3 he says that the degeneracy symbolized by the change of the metals (from more to less valuable ones) in Nebuchadnezzar's image is that from absolute power to democracy. This is untrue to facts; for Persia was more autocratic than Babylonia, since the Persian monarch was so absolute, beside being regarded infallible, that his law could not be altered. Moreover imperial Rome from 155 A. D. onward and papal Rome were the most autocratic governments that ever existed. Bro. Russell's thought is better—increasing governmental degradation is represented by the progressive degradation of the image's metals. Contrary to W.C.'s claim, God's ideal for qualified man, apart from his own government, which must be absolute, is not that of an absolute monarchy, but that of a democracy, as is evidenced by the democracy that He established in Israel as between man and man politically (under His own theocracy), and that will follow the Little Season after the Millennium. While with destructive power the stone kingdom did not smite the image until the Times of the Gentiles were fulfilled, it certainly made verbal—Truth— attacks on it from 1874 and 1878 onward; the latter kind of a smiting W.C. denies by saying that the smiting began in 1914. His claim that chronology does not extend beyond 1914 contradicts not only our Pastor, who pointed out April, 1918, from the parallel dispensations, but also many other chronological fulfillments, pointed out in The Present Truth for the Epiphany.


His making the Church of England the mother of the



Protestant churches (p. 31), is "a rare bird" in mental gymnastics and natural law; for this alleged mother must have had four daughters: the Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist and Unitarian churches, respectively 17, 14, 13 and 4 years before she was born! Moreover, the Bible calls the Roman Church the mother of Protestant churches (Rev. 17: 5). His statement (p. 14) that "each phase of Gentile rule … is the embodiment of its predecessors, and the Gentile rule, as a whole being one unit, the last phase is the embodiment of the lot," is a clear sophism, contrary to the facts of the case, as proven by the facts showing that the four universal monarchies were not a unit and are set forth as separate and distinct in the Bible. None of the four points that he offers in proof demonstrates this view:


(1) The fact that the metallic image (p. 14) is one and that its five parts cover the whole Times of the Gentiles, does not, as W.C. claims, prove that these were a unit; for we have shown the opposite from the four separate beasts, which are the things by which he must prove them to be the Gentile unit rule.


(2) Nor does the fact (p. 15) that all parts of the image are destroyed in the end prove his Gentile unit rule, for as universal empires Dan. 7 shows they were each destroyed in turn to make way for the succeeding empire. Rather, as our Pastor shows, the remnant kingdoms that have survived after these universal empires were destroyed are the things that will be destroyed in the end of the Age, e.g., the present little kingdoms of Iraq and Persia, the republic of Greece and Europe's ten language nations.


(3) The Roman Catholic Church sitting on the seven heads does not prove his Gentile unit rule, as he claims (p. 15), for several reasons. First, she never sat on the first three of his alleged heads, for these alleged heads became non-existent hundreds of years before she came into existence. Second, because if one does a number of acts, some in the past and some



in the present and some in the future, the present tense is the one to use to cover all of the acts. Thus, at the time the angel spoke five of the heads had fallen, one was then present and the seventh was future. Hence the propriety of using the present tense, "sitteth," as a universal present to cover the past, present and future acts of the woman mentioned in Rev. 17: 9. This disproves his pertinent contention.


(4) His fourth point (pp. 16 and 30) in proof of his alleged Gentile unit rule, i.e., that the fifth head of the Rev. 13 beast is described with certain characteristics of the lion (Babylonia), bear (Medo-Persia), leopard (Greece) and dragon (Rome), falls to the ground when we remember that the papacy in fulfilling the pertinent 1845 years parallels actually acted out at the parallel times the characteristics of the four beasts of Dan. 7. Please see the Edgar chart VII on the Four Empires' Parallels, in the Berean Manual, page 12; and the detailed discussion of these in the Great Pyramid Passages, Vol. II, 199-204 (new edition); 226-233 (old edition). Thus the four proofs that he offers for his "Gentile unit rule" are in each case shown to be no proofs of his position. Like other Levite leaders he blames (p. 17) Bro. Russell for teaching the deliverance of the Church by Oct., 1914, and fails to state that he corrected this mistake quite a while before Oct., 1914. In this course the Levite leaders disparage Bro. Russell as nominal-church writers do. Again (p. 28), he applies Dan. 8: 24 to Pagan Rome and the Jewish nation, and v. 25 to our Lord's death; whereas our Pastor rightly applies v. 23 to the papacy and the devastation of v. 24 to the papacy's devastating of the Gospel-Age saints and v. 25 to the end of the Gospel Age, when the beast will war with the Lamb and the Lamb will overthrow him (Rev. 19: 19). He perverts the Truth for his errors!


The last point in his booklet that we will examine is



the following statement with reference to the two-horned beast (Rev. 13: 11): "According to the Diaglott translation, the word two should be omitted, as it is not found in the original text." This statement, in both of its parts, is not true to facts; for the word two is found in the original text according to every recension of the original text made since recensions have been printed. Nor does the Diaglott translation intimate that it is no part of the original text; nor does it omit the word from its Greek text, from its word-for-word translation, nor from its idiomatic English translation proper. The following are the facts: While retaining the word dyo (two) in its Greek text and in its two translations, it brackets the word in the Greek text and the word two in the word-for-word translation immediately under the pertinent Greek word, and puts an asterisk beside the word dyo referring to a note at the bottom of the page, to the effect that Vatican Manuscript No. 1160 omits this word. The Vatican MS. No. 1160 is not the Vatican MS. that text critics, antitypical Amram Gershonites, signify by the letter B, which is No. 1209, and which so far as it goes is the most exact of existing MSS. of the New Testament, and whose readings, as far as it goes, the Diaglott gives when it varies from Griesbach's Greek text, the Greek text of the Diaglott; but this MS. from Heb. 9: 14 onward lacks the rest of this epistle, the two Timothies, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. The readings of the Sinaitic, the second most exact of our MSS., were not yet available when the Diaglott was edited by Dr. Wilson. Accordingly, its main authority at that time for the book of Revelation was the Alexandrian MS., the third best New Testament MS. that we have. And Dr. Wilson, therefore, in Revelation offers the variants of Vatican MS. No. 1160 whenever it differs from his Greek text, not to indicate that his text is wrong, but to show that that MS. varies from his text. The fact that he kept the word, two in his



idiomatic English translation proves that he considered that reading to be correct.


Not only is the Vatican MS. No. 1160 an unimportant one, but when later the Sinaitic MS. was found it read just like the Alexandrian MS. on this word, even as do all other more reliable MSS. So little weight is to be placed on this variant reading that no recensionist since the art of printing has been used has given it as his text in this passage, though such recensionists as make it their business to print at the bottom of their pages all sorts of variants, like Tischendorf and Von Sodom point it out, but only as an unimportant and negligible variant. Souter, who next to Tischendorf and Von Soden gives the largest number of variants does not give this as one. Even the R.V. and the A.R.V., which indicate even many unimportant variants in their margins, pass this one by in silence. We looked up this word in every worthwhile recension of the last two centuries, and in none of them is it omitted from the text. Hence the word dyo (two) belongs in the text of Rev. 13: 11 and, therefore, is found in the original text. What follows from this? It completely refutes W.C.'s claim that the two-horned beast is Protestantism, as the two horns as well as the beast itself are unexplainable from that standpoint; hence to palm off his theory he tries to eliminate the word for two from the original text! The fact that the two-horned beast is called another beast than the ten-horned and seven-headed beast of Rev. 13, is also against his view; since his view of Protestantism as being the sixth head would require it to be symbolized by the ten-horned and seven-headed beast and not by another beast, just as the papacy, the real sixth head of the red dragon and of the first beast of Rev. 13, and the fifth and eighth head of the beast of Rev. 17, is symbolized in these three beasts and not by a separate one. Against his seventh head, the League of Nations, which, borrowing from J.F.R, he claims is the beast's



image, it must also be said that his sixth head, Protestantism, did not make it; for it was made by Romanist, Greek, Protestant and heathen governments, not religions. Thus his whole position, in so far as it differs from that of our Pastor, utterly collapses and is demonstrated to be another piece of Jambresian folly, indorsed by the Jambresite, G.K. Bolger, who, barren of ideas, borrows from others, as he formerly indorsed Adam Rutherford's folly on, Behold The Bridegroom, part of which W.C. also borrows, i.e., on the Bridegroom's tarrying. Accordingly, another Azazelite attack on our Pastor's teachings falls manifestly and incurably to the ground. We will review no more of W.C.'s errors, which abound in his numerous tracts. He left the B.S.C. (Bible Students Committee), which is in the charge of H.J.S. But there is a doctrinal looseness among its adherents. The B.S.C. recommends the P.B.I. Herald and presumably endorses its errors on the Chronology, Revelation and Daniel. Many of the members of this committee, like F.G. Guard, Sr., W.C. and others, have left the B.S.C. and have fallen into serious errors. E.g., F.G. Guard and numerous others have endorsed the Sin-offering, Mediator, and Covenant errors of the 1908-1911 sifters, which errors are making much headway among the P.B.I. The Shimite Gershonite errors of doctrine and arrangement we will discuss in the rest of this book.