not revealed, according to Paul. This only we know of him at that time; but now we see him revealed, and manifest, and we make him known to all who wish to beware of him. To these Bellarmine objects, that if the Roman seat can be properly called the seat of Antichrist, it follows that he was from the time of the apostles, and that Paul and Peter were Antichrists, (and Bailly the Jesuit adds, Linus, Clement, &c.) for they sat in that seat. I reply, this is a false conclusion. For when we say the Roman seat would be the seat of Antichrist, we do not speak of Antichrist hidden, but manifest and reigning, and in this sense also the seat is his. The name presupposes the power and authority as known. On the contrary we say that those good bishops were the cause of Antichrist's remaining hid, who by their vigilance and patience resisted the apostacy, that it could not make an increase. This simplicity being taken away, Antichrist occupies the place, in which he domineers over those minds which he has reduced under his power by apostacy, in which he has drawn them down, and of which Cyril of Jerusalem, most bitterly lamented in his time, saying "Now is the apostacy; for men have departed from the true faith,"

(Cyril. Hier. Cath. 15.) 3. It does not follow, that Peter, and the good Bishops of Rome were Antichrists, because he reigning and revealed, may have occupied the seat in which they sat, any more than that Paul and those Bishops of whom he spoke were wolves, because he predicted, "that after his departure grievous wolves should enter in not sparing the flock, and of themselves those would arise, who should speak perverse things;" or that Alexander bishop of Constantinople, a great champion of piety and defender of the Catholic faith (as Baronius says) was a heresiarch, because Macedonius, Nestorius, Sergius, &c. who afterwards occupied the same seat were. The apostacy of those coming after in no way affects the faith of those preceding them. Nor do I think, this Jesuit would judge of the state of the Church at Rome under Linus, Clement and such like, by that which Baronius (n. 807. sect. 4.) says of it. When the princes of Tuscany thrust into the seat of Peter, the throne of Christ, MEN WHO WERE MONSTERS, most base in their lives, most dissolute in their morals, and in every way, most vile." And 900. (sect. 1) which he calls, "an iron and leaden age," and again immediately following is compelled to confess, "that it seemed as if the abomination of desolation was in the temple." Again he exclaims "How much shame and grief should they manifest, who dare thrust MONSTERS, horrible to be seen, into the chair reverenced by angels? the many evils produced by them, have finished the tragedy! By these she who was without spot or wrinkle, is bespatted with filth, made to stink, polluted and blackened with perpetual in famy." In the same age, (year 912-sect. 8) "Such was the state of the Roman church, that the most powerful and filthy strumpets reigned at Rome. The bishops were removed, the seat of judgment changed, and what is horrible, and abominable to be heard, their lovers, and FALSE POPES were thrust into the seat of Peler."?- "For who could say that those were lawful Roman Pontiffs, who had been thrust in after this manner without law, by Prostitutes: No choice of the clergy, no mention even of their consent to it

all the canons pressed into silence, the decrees of Popes choaked, ancient tradition outlawed; the ancient custom of choosing the supreme Pontiff, sacred rites and former usages all abolished." Truly then Antichrist could easily occupy that seat, where now, there are no more Clements, no more Anacletus's and the like to be found, but Christopher usurping the seat of the captive Leo; then Sergius doing to Christopher, as when he seized it; "an impious man, the servant of all vices, the most villanous of all," as says Baronius, (Anno 908. Sec. 2.) Lando who was put in by the request of the strumpet Theodora, made way for John X. Archbishop of Ravenna, who by the work of the same prostitute occupied the Roman seat after Lando. After some time, John XI. bastard of Sergius and Marozia occupied the same seat. During this time one pope disposed of the popedom to another, thus those who were appointed by their predecessors acted, and resigned it to their posterity: so that at that time, "one Auxilius wrote a dialogue under the person of a plunderer and defender, fortifying it with examples from divines and the canons, against the internal discord of the Roman church, &c." (Baronius An. 908. Sec.3) Genebrard in the 4th. Book of his Chronicles and year 901. says. "That in this unhappy age for nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty Popes, from John VIII. who succeeded those holy popes Nicholas I. and Adrian II. until Leo XI; had departed ENTIRELY from the virtue of the ancients, and were APOSTÁTICAL rather than apostolical, &c. that they did not enter the fold by the door, but entered through the tyranny of the emperors." He declares the same, in the year 1007. "That the popes of that time thrust in by the emperors, rather than by election, were MONSTERS." According to the doctrine of the Papists, where there is no lawful succession there is no church. Where then was the true church at this time?

4. Who does not see that in that and preceding periods, Antichrist had all things to his mind under these monsters of men? The man of sin who by decrees had possessed the seat itself, now in its possession, and covering it as with a pestilence, is reckoned only for one man; to which apostacy in morals, at that time, there was only one head, as conceded by our adversaries; which apostacy from the faith we prove from their opposition to the doctrine of Christ. Ought they to deny the oneness of those succeeding to it, when in the pretended succession of the spiritual monarchy they do not disapprove it. "For (says Pope Boniface") of one church and one only, there is one body, ONE HEAD (not two heads as a monster) viz Christ and his vicar Peter, and Peter's successors." From all these the Pope makes only one head. So also Cardinal Hosius. "I confess among these ministers that Peter is the first, not that Galilean Simon, who having partaken of the reward of Peter departed; but Peter is that man, who under this name was appointed in the church by Christ, for the distribution of gifts and offices to be used for the safety of Christ's sheep; who never dies, but lives perpetually by succession, is in the church, was, and will be until the end of the world. I believe, and confess, and doubt not, that this Peter lives at Rome. All antiquity called this Peter, Pope." Hence the gloss of the decretal of Gregory IX. says, "THE POPE FOLLOWING ANOTHER 18

See Bull of Boniface VIII. page 173. of this Mag. for 1836.

RECKONED THE SAME PERSON WITH HIM. ."* Christ speaking of Peter, named him particularly; and discoursing of the foundation of the church, which they wish to be Peter, designated the particular rock by the pronoun this, and added the Greek article in the gender of the rock. All these things do not hinder them from making out that there is only one rock, one foundation, one head of Peter and his successors. Why then do they wonder, that from so many men succeeding each other we should say, that there is one Antichrist, one man of sin, one head of the Apostacy?

5. But they say Antichrist will come near the end of the world, and the Popes succeeding each other whom we call Antichrist began a long time since. I reply: The end of the world here is taken for the three or four years before the coming of Christ, and thus we deny that Antichrist will come or be revealed at the end of the world. Truly we grant that he will be destroyed at that time by his glorious coming. (2 Thes. II, 8.) But if by the end of the world be meant the time between his ascension and his return, we grant that in that time Antichrist will be revealed and also made manifest. So said Peter. (1 Ep. 4. 7.) "The end of all things is at hand, be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer." And John (Apoc. 1. 3.) Says. "The time is at hand." Again speaking of this matter; (1. Ep. 2. 18.) It is the last time and as ye have heard, that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many; whereby we know it is the last time. Therefore it does not oppose it because Antichrist should reign a shorter period, because the Jews and Greeks by the last time, mean that which will come to pass, not a few days from the extreme end of the world but in after time. For often in relation to times past, they are called, the last times. I send my prophets for the last time, limited to the old time all of which things are long since fulfilled. The apostles predicted, what would be in the last times, that many would depart from the faith, &c. The Jesuit Lorinus, (On Acts. ii.17) says, "this happened a little after, while they were yet living." The Jesuit Baradas (lib. 2. cap 4. Harm. Evang,) says "" so the time of the New Testament is called because it is the last age of the world." So Antichrist could long since.have come, even in the last time and at the end of the world.

6. Again they object; Antichrist will call himself the true Christ, he will have no successor, and will be consumed by the spirit of Christ's mouth and the brightness of his coming. The apostle says "that the Lord will destroy him by the spirit of his mouth," that is, by his word, which as a two edged sword will slay Antichrist. That we believe, and have daily proof of, but his entire destruction is not to be looked for, before the glorious coming of the Lord. This does not prove that he will be one man without a succession.

Indeed John, (1 Ep. 4. 3.) says "whatsoever spirit shall not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, but the spirit of Antichrist. "Hilary says "the proper name of Antichrist is, that which is contrary to Christ." It can indeed be openly, or secretly. But Antichrist calls himself Christ in the last manner, and shows that he is the enemy of Christ. Now, says Hilary again,

* Gloss, on Proem to Decretal of Gregory IX.

"This will be effected in hyprocrisy, under the pretext of preaching the gospel, so that it will be believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is preached, whilst he will be denied." In this way preachers of Antichrist have been made. That beast is described with two horns like to those of a lamb: That is according to Primasius on Rev. xiii. 11: "The two horns like to those of a lamb, are the marks of the true lamb, which we will endeavour to apply to himself in the character of a lamb, yet as a dragon he is said to speak, because he deceives those whom he has seduced, pretending, or feigning the truth in hypocrisy. For he would not have been like a lamb, if he had openly spoken as a dragon: now he feigns the lamb, that as a lamb he may enter the body of Christ." And Thomas on the same place, "They will speak, feigning to have the horns of a lamb, that they may deceive." Whence Gregory on this passage, "Therefore that beast, that is, the multitude of his preachers, will assume the appearance of a lamb, that he may exercise the power of a dragon, hence very little faith is to be put in the outward appearance, or words of hypocrites." Says Augustine, "who will deny that we look not to the language, but the acts; for if all were interrogated, all would confess with one mouth that Jesus is the Christ. Let the tongue be a little quiet-ask the life. From which it will appear that those are Antichrists, who deny Christ in their life." Yet indeed, "says he," Antichrist is the greater deceiver, who with his mouth professes that Jesus is Christ, and by his actions denies him."

7. Not only the life, but also the consequence of the doctrine and the titles usurped by the Pope shew sufficiently, that he is the enemy of Christ; that he denies Christ: so Epicurus destroying the doctrine of Providence denied God. This is sufficiently demonstrated by many when they shew that the Pope has proudly assumed the chief part, of the kingly, priestly, and prophetical offices of Christ, rendering those which remain to Christ useless. Withdrawing men from the true Saviour, he grants them indulgence; from the true doctrine that they may submit their consciences to his commands:— from subjection to Christ, that he may bring even kings and princes under his feet, The Romanum Ceremoniale (Lib. 1. Tit. 7. Sec. 7. fol. 85) says "the Roman Pontiffs on the great celebration of the birthday of Christ are accustomed to give or appoint a splendid sword, to some illustrious Christian (Popish) prince; which thing indeed is not without mystery. It represents the supreme temporal power given by Christ to the Pope his vicar on earth, according to that passage, "All power in heaven and earth is given me." Then truly the Pope goes beyond the temporal power, and attributes to himself that which belongs to Christ only, when he pretends that, that which was given to Christ in heaven and on earth is given to him. And Augustine of Ancona (Præf. in lib. de potestate Eccles:) does not hesitate to say of the power of the Pope, "that it is infinite, inasmuch as he is the great Lord; his great power and majesty are boundless; every created intelligence is found wanting in his sight." All this he says of the ecclesiastical power, "which places itself above all principality and power, that every knee may bow to him, of beings in heaven, earth and hell," What then remains for Christ? Durandus Episcopus

says, (Divin. off. lib. 2. chap. 1. num. 17.) "He is Melchisedeo, whose priesthood has none to be compared with it. Also he is called the Chief Pontiff, because he is the head of all Pontiffs, from whom they all descend, as the members from the head, and or WHOSE FULNESS THEY ALL RECEIVE." Panigarola, openly asserts, "that he may be that ONE LORD, of whom Paul speaks in his epistle to Ephesians, iv. ch: that Jesus Christ is not the only Lord of Christians." Indeed Episcopus in a full council at the Lateran, called Pope Leo. "The Lion, (Leonem) of the tribe of Judah, the root of Jesse." Is not this expressly calling him Christ, when all even the incommunicable attributes of Christ are attributed to him? Let us now collect a few flowers from the canonists and theologians. Cardinal Bertrand says, "Because Jesus Christ the Son when in this world and from eternity, was its natural governor, and by natural law, could pass sentence of deposition or condemnation against emperors or any one, as he had created,bestowed favors upon and preserved them; FOR THE SAME REASON, his vicar can do as he wishes. For the Lord would not seem to have acted discreetly (I speak with reverence) unless he had left one such vicar after himself, who could DO ALL THESE." According to these men, *he has divine Judgment, and therefore changes the nature of things, by applying the substance of one thing to another; of that which is not, he con make that which is, and an opinion which is as nothing, he can make important, for what he desires in these things to him, his will is for the reason, nor is there any one whocan say unto him, what doest thou? For he can dispense without law, so of injustice he can make justice, by correcting and changing laws, and has the fulness of power." His law is even divine. (Says John Sylva) "Although the divine law declares that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand, the Pope decrees contrary to it." For against the apostle, the apostolic canons of the Old Testament, in not giving tythes, and in the matter of vows and oaths, he dispenses-If he is not superior to God, he is at least equal to him, "The judgment of the Pope and of God is one, as is the judgment of the Pope and his follower. When an appeal is made it is from an inferior judge to a superior; as there is none greater than himself, so no appeal lies when made from the Pope to God, because there is but one council of the Pope and of God,"-also, "there is one judgment, and one court of God and the Pope." And if we may believe Alvarus Pelagius,-"The Pope partakes of each nature with Christ."

8.Gregory, the Pope who was called holy by Calvin was very far from any such profane and impious arrogance. So far was he from it, that he preferred being like Christ, to have all earthly power, and when pleading with the Lombards reigning in Italy, he called himself their servant. "If I a servant wished to engage myself in the death of those Lombards, then their nation would have neither king nor subjects, and would be thrown into the utmost confusion; but because I fear God, I fear to engage myself in the death of any man."

* See note (a) at the end of the article.

+August. de Ancona, de potest. Eccles. q. 6. Art. 1. De Planet. Eccles. lib. 1. Art. 3.