prophet of those two passages. And according to the definition before given of the term prophet, (§ 69,) viz., an interpreter, we assume the beast with two horns to be a false interpreter, or rather a false interpretation or standard of interpretation of the language of revelation—a false mode of interpreting -a misconstruction of the sense and meaning of the revealed word of God: a mode of interpretation arising from the self-righteous system represented by the earth; and which itself depends upon a literal or carnal construction of the sacred Scriptures.

The horns of this animal we suppose to represent the false prophet's powers (instruments) of perverting the sense of revelation; that is, the leading doctrines upon which he depends for his misrepresentation of gospel meaning. The appearance of the beast, as a lamb, indicates the apparent tendency of this misinterpretation to sustain the propitiatory views of the gospel plan; and if we suppose its two horns to be in appearance like those of a lamb, although not really such, we may suppose the two doctrines by which it effects its purpose of misconstruction to have the appearance of evangelical or gospel doctrines, although in reality something very diverse; or, if once such, so changed in their nature by misapplication as to become the converse of the power of a vicarious or propitiatory scheme of redemption the signs of an element of atoning sacrifice becoming the indications. of an element of destruction; as the horns of a lamb transplanted to the head of a wild beast would thenceforth become the weapons of a ferocious animal. Corresponding with this, while the earthborn beast wears the insignia of peace and reconciliation, his speech or doctrine is that of accusation; as we might suppose a certain mode of interpreting Scripture to carry with it, and to be sustained by, two doctrines bearing the appearance of gospel doctrines, while the system of faith to which they belong is really calculated by the aid of these doctrines only to enforce the law with its utmost rigour, leaving the sinner as much without the hope of salvation as if no plan of redeeming mercy had existed. We should say of such doctrines, that although they wore the appearance of powers of salvation, they were virtually and in effect powers of condemnation.

V. 12. And he exerciseth all the power Καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου of the first beast before him, and causeth πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν the earth and them which dwell therein γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας ἵνα κινήσωσι τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρῶτον, οὗ ἐθερα πεύθη ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ·

to worship the first beast, whose deadly

wound was healed.

προς

§ 309. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast.'-The power of the first beast was represented by his ten horns, being the same horns as those of the dragon; and these ten horns we suppose to represent the law, as a whole. The power of the first beast was also a transmitted power, having been bestowed by the dragon. It was in effect the power of

the accuser of the brethren; all which power is put into operation by this second beast. This false prophet (false interpretation personified) sustains his perversion of divine revelation by appealing to the law; by professing to enforce the law on the ground that it has not been fulfilled by Christ, and consequently is yet to be fulfilled by man. The first beast receives the law from the accuser, and uses it as the constitution of his government; the second beast acts under the authority of this law, and places himself in the stead of the accuser, acting as proxy for the public prosecutor; in doing which he employs his own two horns or powers as the elements of his argument. As we may suppose, by way of illustration, a controversialist professing to advocate the gospel view of God's plan of salvation, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so arguing his case as to leave the sinner more than ever, if possible, in the position of condemnation. He admits the law to have been fulfilled and satisfied by a divine surety; but in order to maintain, as he supposes requisite, the perpetual authority of the law, he brings forward two leading doctrines of the gospel; by which, through his misinterpretation, he makes it virtually to appear that, notwithstanding the redemption wrought out by the Son of God, a perfect fulfilment of the law on the part of the disciple, (a work to be wrought by his own conduct and actions,) is still the condition of eternal salvation. Here the second beast uses all the power of the first beast, which is in effect the power of the accuser or dragon, through the instrumentality of his two horns-two doctrines of the gospel, either perverted in their character and features, or misapplied in the use for which they were designed.

'Before him ;'έvwzíov avrov, in presence of-not before in point of time. The second beast exercises all this power in the presence of the first beast; that is, with his consent, concurrence, and approbation; as a prime minister, acting under authority of his master, may be said to exercise the sovereign power in the presence of the sovereign himself. In fact we may take all that is supposed to be done in the first part of the chapter by the first beast, to be done through the instrumentality of the second beast; the last coexisting and co-operating with the first, as we have before remarked. So an historian may first state in general terms what was done by a certain temporal monarch during his reign, and then give an account of the character and management of the prime minister through whom these things were done. In reading this account of the second beast, therefore, we must carry our minds back to the account given of the first; and when it is said that all the world wondered after the beast, we may conclude that this general admiration of the sovereign ruler was brought about in a great measure by the artifices of the premier.

'And causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast.'-This is a confirmation of the idea just enlarged upon. In the fourth

verse it is said, they worshipped the beast, saying, &c.; and here in the twelfth verse we are told that it is through the second beast that this worship is brought about; that is, we suppose the use made in the misinterpretation represented by this lamb-like beast of the two doctrines, symbolized by his horns, to be such as virtually to cause a worship and service of the element represented by the first beast.

'Whose deadly wound was healed;'-or, of whom was healed the stroke of his death. In the first mention of this wound it appeared as if only one of the heads of the animal had been slain, leaving the beast alive; but here it appears that this slaying of one of the heads was a stroke of death to the beast, so that the whole animal had the appearance of having been dead, and of being again alive. As the principle of self-justification, or self-propitiation, may be said to have been alive in the first instance, under the legal dispensation; to be dead on the coming in of the gospel economy, and to be alive again when that economy is so perverted as to render it a legal system.

This last change in the ten-horned beast may be supposed to have been brought about through the operation of the two-horned power of the second beast; this apparent exercise of power being a portion of the wonder-working ability displayed by the false prophet.

Vs. 13, 14. 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.

Καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα, ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον του θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃ ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρας καὶ ἔζησε.

$310. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire,' &c.That is, in the sight of men he doeth great wonders; the making fire to come down from heaven being one of these wonders. He is a deceiver or false interpreter of the divine will; he brings forward these signs in testimony of the correctness of his interpretations: but the signs, as well as the interpretations, are false. They appear to human apprehension to be signs and wonders, but they are not really such; neither is the fire really heavenly fire, nor does it really come down from heaven; but in the sight of men it appears to be what it is given forth to be;-as it was predicted, Matt. xxiv. 24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Fire is the symbol of the element of trial. The revealed Word of God is the true fire by which every work or doctrine is to be tried; heaven

being the system of divine government as exhibited in the Scriptures. Out of these Scriptures the false prophet brings the revealed word to prove the correctness of the earthly system; that is, to human apprehension he does this, or rather, to the literal or carnal apprehension this appears to be done. Taking Scripture in its literal sense, passages may be quoted sustaining apparently the delusive mode of interpretation, represented by the false prophet or two horned-beast; and supporting the system or view of man's position under the law, figuratively spoken of as the earth.

And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth,' Kai nhavă, and leadeth astray. The elements of the earthly system are perverted by this false interpretation of Scripture. They are made to lead away from the truth something of the character of the perversion of the right ways of the Lord, charged upon the sorcerer, (Acts xiii. 10.)

311. Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image,' &c.—The tendency of the false interpretation, represented by this second beast, is such as to cause the elements of the earthly system to sustain a view of religious faith, equivalent in effect to the erection of an image to the principle figuratively spoken of as the beast. Not that the image and the beast are two different objects of worship, but that the beast is worshipped in its image.

From the account we have of the image set up by the king of Babylon in the plain of Dura, we cannot but suppose that the worship of the image was in effect a worship of the king. Nebuchadnezzar did not intend to divert the homage of his people from himself, but he aimed at receiving divine honours through the instrumentality of this image; the erection of which may be called a royal contrivance for deifying the monarch, without an absolute pretension on his part to the character of a divinity. We read, indeed, of sovereigns of later times mad enough to make such pretensions openly, giving themselves out as descendants of the gods; as themselves demi-gods, and even gods; and when the admonitions of mortality have convinced the more thinking part of them of the folly of such pretensions, they have indemnified themselves in this particular by making provision for their own apotheosis after death. But Nebuchadnezzar appears to have been an intellectual, thinking monarch, as well as an ambitious and powerful one; and he was probably too well imbued with a knowledge of the true God, derived from his Hebrew captives, not to be convinced of the madness and even impiety of assuming to be himself an object of religious worship; but the same feeling, which would otherwise have prompted him to such an assumption, easily led him to gratify his desire of adoration, by requiring it indirectly from his people; as if one, not himself a deity, could make a deity for others. Even the ministers and flatterers of the Babylonish monarch would not venture, we may suppose, upon such an excess of

sycophancy, as to suggest his setting himself up as an object of worship; but they appear to have fallen readily in with his vain imagination, in maintaining this right and power to create such an object of worship, and the reasonableness of the requisition in behalf of his idol, that it should be adored by his subjects.

Something like this may be found in the heart of man, even in the most enlightened portions of Christendom. Common sense, common experience, is sufficient to convince any human being of ordinary understanding of the folly of setting one's self up as an object of worship; of placing one's self in the position of Deity. The idea is revolting, and repugnant even to our ordinary sentiments of propriety; how much more must it be so to those enjoying a knowledge of revealed truth, and professing to be actuated by its precepts! What the Christian disciple would not do, however, directly, he may do indirectly; and a folly which he could not be persuaded to commit avowedly, he may be led away to commit, or may be deluded into committing virtually and in effect.

We have already more than once intimated that there is such a worship as that of self; that the worship of God is the service of God; that this service or worship must be characterized by the motive of conduct or action; and that if even our best actions proceed from a motive of benefiting ourselves, it is self that we are serving, and not God. So we have noticed that if, by any merits of our own, we justify ourselves,justify ourselves,-save ourselves from eternal punishment, and obtain for ourselves eternal happiness,-we then become our own saviours. Accordingly, he who pretends to have accomplished such a work puts himself in the place of God, making himself the object of his own grateful adoration for this work of redemption: placing himself in such a position that, as in the first instance he acted from no motive but that of benefiting or serving himself, so subsequently his only motive even for eternity must be that of gratitude, or love to himself: thus constituting his own self the object of his love, and worship, and service, both in this life and in the next.

There is scarcely any one professing the Christian name, who would openly and avowedly make such a pretension as this. There is scarcely any Christian disciple of ordinary intelligence who would not reject with abhorrence and disgust an interpretation of the Scriptures, directly inculcating such an extreme of self-worship.

But while the direct and avowed error is easily detected, and instantly repudiated, there is an indirect mode by which the disciple may be deluded or led away into precisely this species of idolatry. A false interpretation, or misconstruction of the language of revelation, leads him into the belief that he is to work out his salvation by an intrinsic holiness, perfection, and goodness of his own; causing him in effect to create an image of his own