apacy, nor the Church of Rome, is the Antichrist of the apostle
John; yet I do believe that all these are essential elements in his
composition. The following are the principal component parts of that
complex moral person, as defined by the Holy Spirit, by which any
disciple of Christ without much learning may identify John's Antichrist.
His elemental parts are three, _and only three_, and all presented in
the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. The "beast of the sea," (vs. 1,
2,) the "beast of the earth," (v. 11,) and the "image of, or to the
first beast," (v. 14,) that is, the Roman empire, the Roman church and
the Pope: all these in combination, _professing Christianity_; these,
with their adjuncts as subordinate agencies constitute the Apocalyptic
Antichrist. Besides this personage, well defined by the inspired
prophets, Daniel, Paul, John and others, there is no other Antichrist.
An "infidel king, a professed atheist," as distinct from this one and
symbolized in prophetic revelation, I find not. I conclude that such a
personage is wholly chimerical, framed as a creature of a lively
imagination.

THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST.

Mr. Faber is unsuccessful in his interpretation of the "image of the
beast." His reasoning is ingenious, specious and intelligible as usual.
He labours to prove that the worshipping of images by the Papists is the
meaning of the symbol. Material images, however, whether of papal origin
or otherwise, are harmless vanities: "for they cannot do evil, neither
also _is it_ in them to do good," (Jer. x. 5.) The case is quite
otherwise with this image. It has "life, speaks, and has power to
_kill_," (Rev. xiii. 15.) These properties of John's "image" are so
opposite to those of the Papal images, that they effectually confute Mr.
Faber's fanciful, not to say whimsical theory. It has been already shown
that the "image" symbolizes the Papacy, the _fac-simile_ of the Roman
emperor.

THE BEAST'S "_deadly wound_."

The Erastian heresy, the usual concomitant of prelacy, will readily
account for Mr. Faber's explanation of the "deadly wound," which the
first beast received in his sixth head. Constantine, he thinks,
inflicted that wound by abolishing paganism. He writes as though the
beast had been _actually killed_, and had lain literally dead for a
period of nearly three centuries! (viz., from 313 till 606.) Yet the
apostle assures us that the "deadly wound was healed." The _beast did
not die_. Daniel gives