, Heb.] against him." Here an angel of the Lord is
called a Satan to Balaam. In 1 Sam. 29:4 David is called an adversary
(Heb. Satan) to the Philistines. In 2 Sam. 19:22 certain opposers are
said to be adversaries (Satans, Heb.) unto David; while in 1 Kings 11:25
a certain man was said to be an adversary (Satan) to Israel all the days
of Solomon. A number of other instances could be given if necessary. In
the New Testament, also, the term _Satan_ is sometimes used to signify
merely an opposer. "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
me, Satan." Mat. 16:23. In 1 Cor. 10:20 Paul declares "that the things
which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to _devils_." Paganism
stood as the great opposer of Christianity, hence was a Satan
(adversary) unto it; while the apostle denominated its religious rites
as devil-worship. I do not question the fact that the spirit of
Beelzebub was manifested in the thing; but the dragon itself was the
empire, as is proved by the heads and the horns. However, the Devil and
the agency through which he works are often used interchangeably. Satan
and the serpent in Eden stand in the same relation as do Satan, or
Beelzebub, and Paganism in the New Testament; hence to bind Paganism was
to bind the Devil and Satan in one important sense.

The dragon would be a beast from the natural world (if such a creature
actually existed) and as such could represent nothing more than a civil
empire; but in the vision under consideration he is represented as
accompanied by _angels_ actuated by his spirit and defending his cause.
By this combination of symbols is set forth the politico-religious
system of the empire--a religion that denied the doctrine of the one
exclusive God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. It was the religion of
_infidelity_. It was the dragon as a false religious system that
Christianity attacked, and not the State itself. The following quotation
from Butler's Ecclesiastical History will show the relation of
Christians to the empire:

"The Romans were accustomed to tolerate all new religions if they took
their place by the side of those already existing, and if they did not
cast reproach upon them.... But Christianity, by its very nature
exclusive in its claims ... was offensive to the Romans and to the
State. A religion which cast contempt upon the religions and rites
sanctioned by the laws, and endeavored to draw men away from them,
seemed to express thereby contempt and host