"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" (Rev. 13: 11-18). Protestant commentators generally apply both the ten-horned beast and the two-horned beast to Rome, the first representing the political power, and the second the ecclesiastical power. But this position, while clearing Protestantism of any moral stigma, is such a manifest violation of the laws of symbolic language and the general principles of Scriptural interpretation that I marvel that any critical thinker could decide to adopt it. The two beasts are especially distinguished, and in each case the symbol is complete. The first beast combines with its beastly characteristics the qualities of the human, as did the little horn of Daniel 7, thus clearly and positively representing _both the political and the ecclesiastical dominion_ of Rome. It is the human characteristics that constitute the leading feature of the terrible work ascribed to the first beast; therefore, the papacy _as a religious power_ is particularly intended. Hence the second beast can not be intended to represent the ecclesiastical phase of Rome. Notice, also, that the symbol of the second beast is likewise complete in itself--animal and human--thus embracing both the political and the ecclesiastical. _Another system totally distinct from the first is therefore represented._ I call attention to certain distinct points proving that these two beasts are not identical or simultaneous: 1. The first is spoken of as "a beast"; the second is called "another beast." 2. The first came up from the sea; the second came out of the earth. 3. The first was like a leopard; the second was like a lamb.