Jews against the Romans, and the fearful punishment inflicted upon them by God in the destruction of Jerusalem, by which their national independence was destroyed and the Old Testament economy brought to an end, must, in the passage before us, as well as in Matt. xxiv., be looked upon as a prefiguration of the proceedings connected with Antichrist.-In the same way, if we descend lower down into the history of the world, we must as decidedly recognize individual traits of Antichrist in Mahomet, and the spiritual desolation that he wrought; in the building up of the Papacy in the course of the middle ages; and finally in the person of Napoleon in our own days and yet nobody can seriously maintain that Mahomet or Napoleon was THE Antichrist; not merely because their appearance was not followed by what, according to the Scriptures, is to follow the revelation of Antichrist I mean the general apostacy and establishment of the kingdom of God, but also for this reason, that they exhibited some features of Antichrist, but not all. Now nothing short of all the traits combined constitute THE Antichrist, just as Jesus of Nazareth was pointed out as THE Messiah, because in his person were combined all the features of that image of the Messiah, which the prophets had pourtrayed. Nor can we establish the opinion that the Papacy is the Antichrist: for to do this, we must first give up the doctrine of Antichrist's personality, which has been expressly proved to be the doctrine of Scripture: Antichrist must then be considered as merely a spiritual principle.'

This learned man, whose dictum is to settle the question, is thus evidently ignorant of (or else criminally suppresses)-the famous argument of Lainez, the general of the order of the Jesuits, at the Council of Trent; one sentence of which runs thus

"These things, that is, to be a key-keeper, and pastor, being "perpetual offices, must be conferred upon a PERPETUAL PERSON; "that is, not upon the first only, but upon all his succession. So "the bishop of Rome, from St. Peter to the end of the world, "is true and absolute monarch, with total power and jurisdiction; " and the Church is subject unto him, as it was to Christ."

Yet, after all, here, as in other parts of the question, Mr. Arnold can fix upon no producible interpretation of his own.

says:

He

"I am well aware that if I quit the subject without mentioning' the seven hills," I shall produce no permanent impression on any mind that has hitherto believed itself to read in those words a declaration that Rome, and Papal Rome, is the city, whose destruction is described in the Apocalypse. At the same time, I feel that I cannot offer such a person an interpretation of that passage which I can receive myself as certain. My own opinion agrees with that of such different men as Dr. Arnold and the writer of the Oxford Tract

on Antichrist.-That Rome is the city intended, I have no doubt; but I be lieve Rome to be symbolically used for the seat of all antichristian political power-for the world, in its manifestation as a government or principle of government, opposed to the doctrine and Church of Christ."-(p. 51.)

Thus he refuses the interpretation which has the consent of at least nineteen-twentieths of all the Protestant commentators of the last three hundred years; and offers us in its room nothing better

than a guess that "Antichrist" and "Rome" mean "the world."

And while he thus reduces the prophecies to a vagueness which renders them useless, he protests, in other places, against any "lowering down the plain language of the Bible!"

This question, of the true character of Popery, whether apostate and antichristian, or only corrupt, is assuming, daily, a deeper and deeper importance. It appears that the recent votes of the Earl of Chichester, and some other Christian men in parliament, in favour of a public grant to Maynooth college, rested upon what we must consider to be an erroneous view of this subject. Lord Chichester, we perceive, said, in one of the recent debates, that

"Although he entertained as strong a feeling (?) as any man, "with reference to the tenets of the Roman Catholic church, he "would feel it an outrage upon their common Christianity if he "could look upon that church as professing a heathen or Anti"christian system of religion."

"The petitioners against the bill appeared to look only at the errors of that religion of which they spoke in such strong terms; seeming to forget the great residuum of truth which they must "admit still existed in it." "Surely it was consistent with common sense, and was the duty of those who owed a common allegiance to the Saviour, to give encouragement to the Roman "Catholic religion, when they had no opportunity of choosing "between it, and what they might consider a better."

Here we have, then, a Whig, a liberal in politics, cordially agreeing with Mr. Arnold, who is nearly a Tractarian, in the sentiment, that Popery, on the score of "the great residuum of truth, which still remains in it," is to be regarded as one form, though "a less pure form," of "our common Christianity;"--and that we should readily assist in promoting that religion, when we had no opportunity of introducing what "we might consider a better."

Although, however, these two very different individuals agree, they do so on very different grounds. Mr. Arnold is brought to this conclusion by his Tractarian or popish leanings; the Earl of Chichester by a natural amiability of character, concurring with "liberal views" of things generally; and an imperfect conception of the real character of Popery.

Let us consider, for a few moments, the argument which they both advance, that Popery holds a great amount of essential truth-that it has "a great residuum of truth still existing in it." Doubtless, this is true; but is it not equally true of all heresies of all departures from the gospel? Arius was willing to abide by the orthodox creed propounded to him, if only he might slightly vary one word in it. Pelagius was even still more conformable But we may go still further back, and ask, whether the Pharisees had not "a great residuum of truth," to whom our Lord addressed those terrible sentences,-" Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer. ye them that are entering to go in. Ye devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation?" Some, doubtless, in that day, among our Lord's own followers, thought the religion of the Pharisees only somewhat less pure" than the doctrine of Jesus;-but Jesus himself said, "Ye, compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Some, then, unquestionably, would have spoken of the orthodox creed of the Pharisees, and have regarded them as holding "a common faith" with themselves. But our Lord says, "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, "for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and all un"cleanness. Even so, ye also outwardly appcar righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Ye "serpents! ye generation of vipers! how can ye escape the damna"tion of hell?"

ITT

It will doubtless be objected, that we ought to be careful how we take these awful words into our own lips, or direct such ana themas against our fellow-creatures at our own pleasure. We readily admit it but the object of our reference to them is this ;-to shew in what light the tender and compassionate Saviour, HE who came to seek and to save that which was lost,could look upon a system which contained an orthodox creed, which had "a great residuum of truth in it," but which "made void the commandment of God by tradition." He treated it, not as "a com mon faith" with that of his church, but as detestable and devilish. And this brings us to remember also, that "a great residuum of truth" is plainly stated in scripture to be possessed by devils. "Thou believest that there is one God:-thou doest well,-the devils also believe, and tremble." Can we doubt, that Satan himself holds a very orthodox belief in most points,-perhaps in aik Surely, then, to plead that this or that system has much truth in

it, is a very insufficient plea. Our charge against Rome is not that she has openly denied any article of the faith, but that she has "made the commandment of God of none effect by her tradition." We do not read that Manasseh destroyed the altar of the Lord; but that "he built altars for all the host of heaven in the "courts of the house of the Lord," which is precisely what Rome has done throughout Christendom. Rome has kept her temple, and her scriptures, and her creeds. She has indeed " a great residuum of truth." But all this she has "made of none effect." Her temple she has filled with idols; "provoking the Lord to anger." Her scriptures she has as thoroughly buried out of sight as did Manasseh; so that, where she reigns supreme, the priests sometimes discover a copy of the word of God, just as Hilkiah "found the book of the law." Her creeds she uses as did the Pharisees of old; making the truths contained in them "of none effect, by her added traditions." And what, then, is to exempt her from the judgments pronounced against idolatrous Judah, and against the orthodox but self-righte ous Pharisees? Not, surely, the mere possession of much truth. That could not save either Solomon's temple, or Nehemiah's.

Nor ought Lord Chichester to forget that an inspired apostle has told him, that " we have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto we do well that we take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." It is impossible to imagine that such a man as the president of the Church Missionary Society can have neglected the prophetical parts of God's word. Yet, in discharging the duties of a legislator these scriptures seem quite left out of his view: But we must give Mr. Bridges' remonstrance on this point:

"After all—what is Rome? Is it a less pure faith than our own, virtually upon the same foundation, only with a large admixture of wood, hay, and stubble? Or is it a system built upon another foundation, therefore not partially, but radically, corrupt; not corrupt only, but Antichristian? The question turns upon this point. Those, who have moderated views of Romish error, will obviously have slight apprehensions of the evils of propagating it. This is no place for a lengthened theological argument. But I hesitate not to express my long-formed conviction, that the apocalyptic visions, and the prophecy to the Thessalonian church (not to speak of other Scriptures), describe a picture of Rome drawn to life, in my judgment too plain to be mistaken. The grounds of this conviction may be seen in Mr. Elliott's standard work, as I conceive, incontrovertibly proved by weighty authority, and sound argument. The consentient views of our Reformers are clearly proved by their constant designation of

Antichrist as applied to Rome; by the uniform tone of their writings; and by the petition which they inserted into their early Litany, for deliverance from the detestable enormities of Rome.' Some, indeed, draw a distinction between the Romish Church and its corruptions; as if the system was fundamentally Christian, the errors Antichristian. But we define the Romish, as the English Church, by her accredited standards. Her errors are not the abuses fastened upon her by her ill-judging children, but those that are incorporated into her acknowledged standards. We identify-instead of distinguishing between-Rome and her errors. We insist that

her system, as determined by herself, is upon another foundation; in other words-that it is fundamentally erroneous. Admitted, that, unlike Mahometanism or Hindooism, she may contain original recognitions of Christian doctrines; yet the vital corruptions of these doctrines form a component part of her faith, and therefore give to her the plain stamp of an Antichristian faith. Admitted, also, that she may contain a small remnant, preserved in Babylon, as was one of God's servants in Sodom; yet these few exceptive instances Christianize the system of Babylon no more, than Lot's keeping in Sodom consecrated that abominable city. Where is the Christian, who does not acknowledge the salvation of his soul to depend upon a scriptural apprehension and honour of the person of Christ; an entire dependence upon his work; and absolute renunciation of his own merit? A system, therefore, that so manifestly usurps his office, debases his work, and exalts human merit, must be (notwithstanding instances of special preservation) in its direct tendency and influence, a soul-destroying system." 1

"This witness is true." Mr. Bridges is not one who speaks unguardedly, or without constant reference to the teaching of God's word. And, from Bishop Grosstete, one of the most learned men of the thirteenth century, who, on his death-bed, earnestly contended that the pope was Antichrist,-down to the best divines of our own day, all authority of any value is found to concur in this belief. Scarcely a theologian whose works are of any real worth, has expressed any other opinion than that which the Tractarians and Liberals of our day strive so earnestly to banish. Nay, in former days, even the highest churchmen were ready to admit the antichristianity of Rome. In the work noticed in the article which follows this, we perceive the following quotations :

"A church may err greatly, nay damnably, in the exposition of it (the fundamental points of Christianity); and this is the church of Rome's case.There is great peril of damnation for any man to live and die in the Roman persuasion.- Archbishop Laud, "Hist. of the Troubles," &c., p. 308.

1 Letter of the Rev. C. Bridges, in the Record, June 23, 1845.