there it would not be detected, but here it is otherwise. Not a final triumph, sir! -You have heard the song of triumph at the downfall of paganism. Now, upon the supposition, that the church could never err that it could never become obscuredor be in any sense invisible-or that there was no apostasy we might expect this song to be continued, almost indefinitely but, mark the change-scarce does the song of joy go forth until a wail is heard-" Wo to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast into the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the mau child. And to the woman where given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, (mark that! mark it well!) into her place where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, or three years and a half." Now, I ask you, have we not proved our point? Can any thing but a determination not to see prevent the acknowledgment? Here the pure spiritual church is, you perceive, driven into the wilderness, and this not contrary to what was forseen and forshowedthere, "she has her place prepared by God," and there she remains in obscurity— how long? read the sixth verse and the fourteenth verse, in both places it is foretold. She remains in obscurity for a thousand two hundred and three-score prophetic days, the celebrated period of 1260 years-so often referred to before. Observe how plain an answer is thus given to the reverend gentleman, who says that there could be no room for reformation-none for bringing forth of a concealed or hidden spiritual church from darkness and obscurity. God himself points out to us his church driven away by Satan, and resting in a desert for 1260 years-and what became of the visible church then? That you shall hear in due time. "The dragon pursues the woman, endeavouring to destroy the remnant of her seed, even those which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—an exact description of true Christians-and casts floods of water out of his mouth, to cause the woman to be carried away by the flood; but the earth helps the woman, opens its mouth, and swallows the flood. What is this flood? It is afterwards explained to mean multitudes, and people, and kindreds, and tongues." Rev. xvii. 15. The devil, in fact, excites the enmity of the nations against the church, which would have been destroyed, but that death swept away the adversaries, and averted the calamity that would have grown out of the enmity of the wicked, if these wicked had not been mortal. Thus, then, we have two remarkable events brought before us especially bearing on the subject. 1. The casting down of paganism. 2. The obscuration of the glory of the church. The seeming downfall of pure religion.Mark that, sir! Well, during this period what power became apparent in the world? This is stated in the next chapter-"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion, and the dragou gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." Here you see is a character partly new. The well-known mark of seven heads and ten horns at once will lead you to see that it is Rome. This empire before appeared as a great red dragon; here it is represented to us in a milder form, as a multiform beast. But mark, it is said to derive its authority from the dragon or the devil. "The dragon gave him his power, and seat, and great authority." The great red dragon before was called the devil, and it was identified with Pagan Rome. Here the empire mentioned is not actually called the devil, it is only said to derive its authority from the devil. "The whole world wondered after the beast, and they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth, speaking great things, and blasphemies; and power was given him to continue forty-two months." (1260 prophetic days, i. e. years, 1260 years.) Mark that! just the very duration before assigned to the obscu.

ration of pure religion." And he opened his mouth against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over all kindreds and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear to hear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." Is that any thing like the binding of Satan for a 1000 years after the conversion of Constantine, which binding the reverend gentleman supposes to have been effected?

You will at once recognize in this beast essentially the same characteristics which distinguished the beast that carried the great whore The latter "slew the witnesses of Jesus." chap. xi. 7. This "makes war with the saints and overcomes them.' The latter was covered over with names of blasphemy," this "blasphemes God and his tabernacle." The latter was ridden by an idolatrous and apostate church, this is guided by a false prophet. In the main, then, there is an identity between them, while that in the 17th chapter certainly seems to be more advanced in wickedness, if I may use the language: for it is clothed in scarlet, (the colour in which Pagan Rome first appeared) being thus, as it were, more diabolical in its aspect.— The church, then-our Holy Church-the Holy Catholic Church-considers this multiform beast with seven heads and ten horns to be the Papal Roman Empire.Now you will understand the mystery. You will see how far it is from establishing the views of my reverend opponent. No wonder that he falls into those grievous errors, when, instead of taking a view of the whole, he stops in the middle of the context, and thus concludes on insufficient data; just as if a man should argue on the text of any tree in the garden ye may freely eat," instead of going on to discover the limitation subsequently placed on the general expression. Do you remem ber what we read in the book of Proverbs? He that answereth a man before he heareth him, it is folly and shame to him." Is it not applicable here? We need not wonder at the mistakes a man makes who will only listen to half the story.

But, to return, I would ask, is it Rome or Leitrim that speaks? Which is it we have heard? Hle that dwells so much upon authority should make us very clear as to the nature of that which we should attach to his statements. He has told us of the opinions of Protestant commentators—of Faber, and Hammond, and Whittaker, and Whiston, and Thorndyke, and goodness knows who besides. He tells us that the very celebrated Dr. Heyland differs in opinion from the very little celebrated Dr. Gregg, but what matter about Dr. Heyland, or Dr. Gregg, or any other private individual, as such? The question is, I repeat, what does the church say? Now I say that Dr. Gregg agrees with the church, and therefore he very little regards those names, however respectable, who differ from him and her; and he would be content, as far as individual support goes, if need werę, to stand alone-yea, to stand against them all. Dr. Gregg is a consistent churchman-and Dr. Heyland, if Mr. Maguire has quoted him correctly, was not.

Yet do not mistake me. I urge the views that I lay down upon their own Scriptural merits-they entirely satisfy my private judgment. I assent to them because they do, and I am sure they would in like manner satisfy the private judgment of any rightly-thinking individual, because they are held in the church. Observe, then, I judge for myself. I am a freeman. I did not, like Mr. Maguire, allow my hands to be tied together when I entered the priesthood. I did not give myself up, bound neck and heels like an unthinking animal, to any body of men. Here I have the form for the ordination of Priests in his Pontificale Romanum; and by that you will perceive that the hands of Priests are bound when they are ordained by the Bishop. Here you will perceive is a grand picture of it, and I will give you the Rubric: Then the Pontifex (i. e. the Bishop) closes or joins the hands of ench successively, which being thus consecrated, some one of the attendants of the Bishop binds with a white linen cloth, to wit, the right hand upon the left, and presently *11

each returns to his order, and holds the hands thus closed and bound." (Pontifieale Romanum in Rubrica Ordinationis Presbyterum.)

Mr. Maguire, then, must act as the bond-slave of his church, whereas the Holy Catholic Church-the old Irish Catholic and Apostolic church, with its truly apostolic Bishops-the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which I am a Minister says, "Your hands are free; use your senses, exercise your reason, and you will agree with me in all matters. Render me only a respectful deference, and there will be no dissension between us, for you will fully agree with me." This I have done. My own judgment is satisfied with the views which I have taken from Scripture, and I set little store by those individual opinions, which, while they differ from me, differ also from the Holy Church,

Now I shall give you the voice of our church as to the character of the church of Rome. You will find it in the Homilies; and, in compliance with the raillery of my respected opponent, I shall put on my spectacles to it give full effect. Long may you, my dear sir, have such good eyes as not to want them; but I am waxing old, and have got a family of children, for I do not belong to the corporation of bachelors.

Public Testimony.-The Church of England.

The Articles of the church are almost one series of testimonies against Papal doctrines. In the Homilies, sanctioned by these Articles, the following testimonies appear respecting the Pope as Antichrist, Babylon, the man of Sin.

"In the Homily of Obedience, Part iii. "The Bishop of Rome teaches, 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 doctrines 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 on this point, but also in other weighty matters of Christian religion, in matters of remission and forgiveness of sins, and of salvation, he teaches so directly against both St. Peter, and against our Saviour Christ.'

In the Homily against Peril of Idolatry, Part iii. speaking of the worship of images, and the miracles of the Papists, the Homily says

"The Scriptures have for a warning hereof showed, that the kingdom of Antichrist hall be mighty in miracles and wonders, to the strong illusion of all the reprobates." And again, "Such sumptuous decking of images with gold, silver, and precious stones,

be a token of Antichrist's kingdom, who, as the prophet foreshows, shall worship God with such gorgeous things."

Serinon against Wilful Rebellion, Part v.

"After this ambition (to be head of all the church, and lord of all kingdoms), the Bishop of Rome became at once the spoiler and destroyer both of the church, which is the kingdom of our Saviour Christ, and of the Christian empire, and all Christian kingdoms, as an universal tyrant over all."

"In king John's time, the Bishop of Rome, understanding the brute blindness, igno. rance of God's word, and superstition of Englishmen, and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonian beast of Rome, and to fear all his threatenings and causeless cursings, he abused them thus, and by their rebellion brought this noble realin of England under his most cruel tyranny."

The Church of Ireland

"Articles of the Irish Church :

"80. The Bishop of Rome is so far from being the supreme Head of the universal Church of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be that Man of Sin foretold in the Holy Scriptures, whom the Lord shall consume with the spint of his mouth, and abolish with the brightness of his coming.'

There is the public voice of our holy Catholic Church; I totally disregard all private authorities which being in opposition to this voice are, in fact, heterodox. Here I have also on the very same page with this public testimony, private testimonies of the greatest weight, which are all precisely accordant with the church. Here are Cran mer, Ridley, Bradford, Jewell, Hooper, Firth, Tyndale, and Fulke, all in the strongest terms proclaiming that the Pope is Antichrist, and his church an apostasy―time prevents me from doing more than barely referring to them at present.

These private authorities, in addition to the weight of their names, derive importance from their agreement with the voice of the church. I value private authorities who are consistent with their principles-I disregard them when they are the reverse,

You will perceive how strong was the impression produced at the time of the Reformation by the persecuting spirit which has ever characterized Rome. It would interest you much if I were to read for you a bull-a wicked, roaring bull with very desperate horns-horns very considerably longer than the reverend gentleman yesterday attributed to me-a furious bull, although it comes under the gentle name of de coena domini. Here is a bull abundantly verifying the statements which our historians have given us concerning the results which followed the excommunication of the kingdom in Popish times. The corpses were left unburied-the sick unvisited—the churches were closed-the ordinances of religion were entirely put a stop to—and all this to gratify the spleen or malice of the Pope or some of his allies. Is he not deservedly, then, called Antichrist? as one who forced his Antichristian system by such un christian means upon the people.

You have heard the voice of our Holy Catholic Church, and of our holy primitive bishops, and my reverend opponent would have done something much more calculated to serve his cause had he shown that these were not lawful bishops-that they had no succession, than he has done in bringing against them the testimonies of individuals, who, differing from the church, are inconsistent with themselves, had he invalidated our succession, it would have been something like, but this he could not do. Our succession is in every respect more valid and more orderly than his is. Instead of doing something to the purpose, he hath set forth a heterogeneous mass of opinions about which I do not care a single straw. The grand question is. What has God spoken? I have given as the voice of God his Holy Word, as it commends itself to my private judgment, which I have shown to be accordant with the mind that is in the holy church. Mr. Maguire, who cannot adduce the voice of his church at all as interpreting these Scriptures, has simply alleged against me a host of inconsistent individuals. He has said that Constantinople is the great city referred to in the Revelation. I

deed! Now, whoever heard of Constantinople forbidding to marry? Do the Turks, who hold Constantinople forbid marriage? I rather think, according to Mr. Maguire's statement of it, they come under Luther's standard, for he tells us that he recommended ten wives. The Mahomedans beat him out, for they would allow a man to have fifty or sixty, and yet, Constantinople forsooth, is the city spoken of as identified with the apostasy which forbids to marry!" Mr. Maguire would never have fallen into this error had he looked at the seriptures altogether, instead of viewing them piecemeal.

But, I ask again, how could it be possible that it was Constantinople which was meant? The whole Scripture represents the seven-headed beast as next succeeding upon the destruction of the Grecian empire. Now did Constantinople succeed to the overthrow of the Grecian empire? Is it not a well-known fact, that in its origin it took rise at the decline of the Roman empire. while in its Turkish character it is still more modern; and yet, according to my reverend opponent, Constantinople follows the kingdom of Alexander the Great, and should be the tourth power spoken of or represented in the image from the prophet Daniel, which 1 interpreted yesterday! Can any thing be more inconsistent ?

He told us, likewise, that the temple trampled under foot by the Gentiles, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Revelations, is the church of St. Sophia, invaded by the Turks. Was he really serious? Is this a worthy mode of treating the Scripture? Is it proper, by such a narrow-minded private interpretation to attempt to escape from the inevitable conclusion that forces itself upon the reason? It is plain that the temple of God here means the whole church,-that which the Apostle was giving the prophetical history of, and which it concerned the Christian world to be informed about. This was the grand subject which, through the Spirit, occupied the mind of the Apostle. This was something worthy of the attention of the Christian world. But no," says my reverend opponent, he is not giving us a prophecy about the Church of Christ, but about the church of St. Sophia-a cathedral in Constantinople. Is there such babyism about his mind? Alas it springs from Popery. -Popery is pure babyisın. Look at their blessed beads-holy heads! toys which we give to children to amuse them. The poor people are taught to use blessed beads to assist them at their prayers, instead of looking for the internal inspiration of the Spirit of God. I say it is childish of the reverend gentleman to interpret a vision of the temple of God as referring to the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, It would not be absurd, at least when we consider the very amazing extent of the Popish dominion, of Popery-that tyrannic system which lorded it over the whole earth,—it would not be altogether absurd to speak of that as an adequate resemblance of the kingdom of God-that kingdom which shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the great deep, whose capitol is the new Jerusalem, placed on the spiritual Mount Zion-I say there would be a sort of propriety in establishing an identity between the extension of Rome and the extension of the glorious kingdom of Christ, but that the temple of God, which represents the whole church of God, should be at all compared with the parish church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, marks the mind which would be capable of making such an analogy as in a state of ignorance truly deplorable.

The reverend gentleman has brought forward a vast number of different interpretations from Protestant commentators. He takes these differences as a ground for rejecting the subject in toto. Now, do not be startled when I say that these variations afford a reason for thinking that we are right. That would be absurd; and let not Mr. Maguire come forward with a piece of wit to allege that I utter this absurdity, and thus turn my statement into jest, as he is too much in the habit of doing. I admit his power in that respect, but it is a dangerous one. Now, hear the words of the Holy Ghost in the prophet Daniel; and let Mr. Maguire find the chapter and verse, for I will not tell him, I shall be even with him: "shut up the words, and seal the even to the time of the end: (namely this very time) many shall run to and fro,

book,