out of her, that we be not partakers of her sins, and that we receive not of her plagues."

That Popery is Antichrist may be conclusively established from a single text in Scripture, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, 2nd chapter, 3rd and 4th verses: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the day of Christ) shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who OPPOSETH and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

We request particular attention to the following commentary, given by that high authority, the Rev. Thomas Scott, on this passage.

"In the language of prophecy, a king generally signifies a succession of monarchs, of the same family or dynasty, carrying on the same design. Thus the man of sin' does not mean a single person, but a succession of men, impious in themselves, and conducting the same wicked design of corrupting, in doctrine, worship, and practice; establishing an intolerable tyranny on religious pretences; and using all kinds of seduction, iniquity, and cruel persecution, to induce mankind to adopt the antichristian system. This man of sin' would be the 'son of perdition;' a genuine descendant of Judas, the apostle and the traitor, who sold his Lord for money, and betrayed him with a kiss; a peculiar factor and agent of satan, in destroying the souls of men; and finally sinking himself into perdition as his inheritance. It is manifest that no succession of men have yet appeared on earth to whom this description fully accords, except that of the Roman Pontiffs, as in succession the visible head of the Popish Church. This deceiver would'oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or is worshipped,' either by Christians or Pagans;—thus the Roman Pontiffs have opposed the truths, commandments and disciples of Christ, in every age and by every means; they have opposed the prophetical office of Christ by teaching human inventions, his priestly office by the doctrine of human merits and created intercessors,-and his kingly office by changing and dispensing with his laws. They have exalted themselves above all that is called God and is worshipped,' by claiming authority to forgive sins, even in those who manifestly continue impenitent,-by granting indulgences to men to break the commandments of God,-by dispensing with his laws and placing their own decrees above them, as if of superior validity,-and by presuming to give meaning and authority to the scriptures themselves, which must not be understood in any other sense than what they impose upon them. Moreover, this 'man of sin' 'sits as God in the temple of God,' and we must therefore look for him in the visible church: there he blasphemously usurps the throne of God, shewing himself to be God.”

Our church in her homilies teaches the same doctrine with reference to the Papal Antichrist. The following is extracted from the Homily of Obedience, part 3rd:

Concerning the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome, which he

most wrongfully challengeth as the successor of Christ and Peter, we may easily perceive how false, feigned, and forged it is, not only in that it hath no sufficient ground in Holy Scripture, but also by the fruits and doctrines thereof. The Bishop of Rome teacheth, that they that are under him are free from all burdens and charges of the commonwealth, and obedience towards their prince; most clearly against Christ's doctrine and St. Peter's. He ought, therefore, rather to be called ANTICHRIST, and the successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's vicar, or St. Peter's successor; seeing that not only in this point, but also in other weighty matters of Christian Religion-in matters of remission and forgiveness of sins, and of salvation—he teacheth so directly both against St. Peter and against our Saviour Christ."

The Homily on Whitsunday, published in 1562, after giving the seventh century as the period when the Church of Rome fully apostatized, contains the following decided testimony against her:

"We may well conclude that the Bishops of Rome and their adherents are not the true Church of Christ."

Wickliffe in one of his Homilies (on Rom. xiii.) affirms of the Roman Pontiff,

"That he is not on Christ's side, who put his soul for his sheep, but on the side of ANTICHRIST, who putteth many souls for his pride. This man feedeth not the sheep of Christ, as Christ thrice commanded Peter, but spoileth them, and leadeth them many wrong ways."

With regard to this eminent and first of our reformers, Bishop Hurd in his work on the Prophecies, states:

"But the example of our Wickliff, who adorned that age, is most to our purpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary man saw far into all the abuses of his time; but he had nothing more at heart than to expose the Antichristianism of the Roman Pontiff."

The Bishop adds, that

"Lord Cobham and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames for nothing so much as for asserting the impious doctrine that the Pope was ANTICHRIST."

Bishop Ridley, previous to his martyrdom, maintained in the presence of the House of Lords, that the Roman Church was Antichrist in the following bold and uncompromising language:

"But since that time, that see hath degenerated from the trade (practice) of truth and true religion, the which it received of the apostles at the beginning; and hath preached another gospel, hath set up another religion, hath exercised another power, and hath taken upon it to order and rule the Church of Christ by other strange laws, canons, and rules, than it ever received of the apostles, or the apostles of Christ, which things it doth at this day, and hath continued so doing, alas, alas, of too, too long a time,-since the time, I say, that the state and condition of that see hath thus been changed, in truth it ought, of that duty and right, to have the names changed, both of the see and of

the sitter therein. For understand, my lords, it was neither for the privilege of the place or persons thereof, that that see and bishop thereof were called apostolic, but for the true trade of Christ's religion which was taught and maintained in that see at the first, and of those godly men. And therefore as truly and justly as that see then, for that true trade of religion and consanguinity of doctrine with the religion and doctrine of Christ's apostles, was called apostolic; so as truly and justly, for the contrariety of opinion and diversity of doctrine from Christ and his apostles, that see and the bishop thereof at this day both ought to be called, and are indeed, ANTĪCHRISTIAN."

We can only select for the present, out of a great number which might be produced, another quotation from that distinguished historian of the Church of Christ, the Rev. Joseph Milner.

"In the former part of this volume, Gregory I. of Rome and the English christians will be found objects deserving our serious attention. Nor should we be prejudiced against the real church because she then wore a Roman garb. Undoubtedly she was by this means much defiled with superstition; for that was as much the predominant evil of those times as profaneness is of our owe The last mentioned evil admits of no coalition with christian holiness; but superstition to a certain degree, may co-exist with the spirit of the gospel. When that degree is exceeded, and general idolatry takes place, the system then becomes too corrupt to deserve the name of the Church of Christ. I have marked this limit to the best of my judgment in the course of this history, have exhibited the MAN OF SIN matured in all his gigantic horrors, and from that epocha I despair of discovering the church in the collective body of nominal christians. Every reader will observe the various features of ANTICHRIST described in this volume, and some may perhaps be enabled to form a more distinct and adequate conception of the nature of Popery, than they had before acquired. Leaving, therefore, the general Church of Rome, after she had entirely ceased to HOLD THE HEAD, I either travel with faithful missionaries into regions of heathenism, and describe the propagation of the gospel in scenes altogether new, or dwell with circumstantial exactness on the lives and writings of some particular individuals, in whom the Spirit of God maintained the power of godliness, while they remained in Babylon."

In the 17th chapter of the Book of Revelation, an angel shews the Apostle John the persecuting idolatrous power, which was to be destroyed, under the emblem of an infamous but splendid harlot, riding on a scarlet coloured beast, and drunk with the blood of the saints. Regarding the beast, it is said "that it was, and "is not, and shall ascend from the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on earth shall wonder (whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the "world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet

is." Of this passage, Bishop Newton gives the following explanation :

"The Roman Empire was idolatrous under the heathen emperors, and then ceased to be so under the christian emperors,-and then became idolatrous again under the Roman Pontiffs, and hath so continued ever since. But in this last form it shall go into perdition; it shall not, as it did before, cease for a time and revive again, but shall be destroyed for ever."

On the words, "shall ascend out of the bottomless pit," the Rev. Thomas Scott makes these remarks:

"Yet it (the beast) would afterwards ascend out of the abyss'; that is, when the Antichristian empire became idolatrous and persecuting, and the dragon gave his power to the beast, it seemed to arise out of the sea-the tempestuous state of the nations; but it was in fact from hell, being satan's grand scheme for opposing the gospel; and, therefore, after a time it would go into perdition, and be destroyed finally and for ever. In the mean while, however, it is foretold, it would deceive into a stupid admiration and blind submission, all the inhabitants of the earth, within the sphere of its influence, except the remnant of the elect. 'Shall ascend': this determines the rise of the beast to a period subsequent to the prediction being delivered; and consequently Rome Pagan cannot be meant, for that had risen long before. A Beast is the emblem of an idolatrous and oppressive empire."

Seeing then that the Roman Church is so clearly pointed out in scripture as ANTICHRIST,-as a persecuting power drunk with the blood of the saints, and leagued with hell and the prince of darkness, as irreversibly doomed to perdition without any place being left her for repentance, we may well wonder at the blindness and infatuation of those who cherish a lingering attachment towards her, and claim relationship for her with the Church of England.

But we are told that she " 'Holds the Head," and retains the fundamentals of christianity and the marks of a true church. Is it necessary, after having shewn that she is so clearly designated in scripture as Antichrist, to waste a single moment in denying these unwarranted pretensions? But we will state as to the first, that in the litany to the Virgin Mary, supplication is directly made and worship actually offered to a created being. In the tablets in their cathedrals on the continent, the offices of the Mediator are blasphemously ascribed to the Virgin. Indeed, go where you will, you may see that this apostate church pays more honour to the Virgin and the Saints than to Christ, and that she denies the exclusive mediatorship of Christ. The present Bishop of Calcutta has noticed in his letters from the Continent in 1823, that in Papal countries "THE VIRGIN MARY is beyond all comparison more adored than the everblessed God; the worship paid to her is universal in all places and by all people. After the Virgin some of the principal

Saints seem to be most worshipped; then our SAVIOUR; and lastly, GOD our HEAVENLY FATHER." On which fact, the Rev. E. Bickersteth remarks: "What a commentary on 'He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.'-(1 John ii. 22)" As to the second assertion, that Rome retains the fundamentals of christianity and the marks of a true church, surely no one will venture to affirm that these are to be found in the doctrines of the supremacy of the Pope and his churchtransubstantiation-the sacrifice of the mass-the worship of saints the veneration of images and relics-purgatory-penance for the remission of sins; all which, with many other articles of Pope Pius's Creed, are fundamental doctrines of the Church of Rome, and were rejected by the Church of England* three centuries ago as idolatrous, impious, and heretical. The Homily for Whitsunday, before referred to, declares the Church of Rome, as it is at present, and hath been for the space of nine hundred years and odd, to be so far wide from the nature of the true church, that nothing can be more so. On this point, we are happy to be able to produce the high authority of Dr. Howley, the present venerable Archbishop of Canterbury. In a letter to the Church of Geneva, His Grace prays "that that church may be united by the Spirit of Christ in the profession of pure evangelical faith, and also be for ever preserved from that ANTICHRISTIAN despotism (Popery), which is equally hostile to intellectual improvement, to civil liberty, and to the fundamental principles of the gospel." Dean Sherlock says:

"There is one mark without which it is impossible we should be certain which is the true church, and that is, that she professes the true faith and worship of Christ."

But whence, we ask, this longing after the Church of Rome, and this desire to give to her the right hand of fellowship? Unhappily, they who evince this disposition cling to the tenet of apostolical succession. Unhappily, too, the Church of England, from a defect in her practice, holds baptism and ordination in the Church of Rome to be valid. But we would earnestly and affectionately say, let us not, for such wretched pretences as these, linger in the confines of the devoted city. The command is given to us, as it was to Lot, to "stay not in all the plain," not to turn our faces back to Rome, the modern Sodom, but instantly to "come out of her, and not to be partakers of her sins, that we be not punished with her plagues." If we are to understand by apostolic succession, mere lineal succession, the real value of that may be estimated from the opinions of such eminent authorities as Dean Sherlock and Bishop Davenant. The former says, with regard to the Church of Rome :

* See a letter of the late Bishop Burgess to Lord Melbourne, in 1835.