it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."* The " many antichrists" then, of whom the beloved disciple speaks, as having already appeared, instead of being avowed enemies of Christ, on the contrary, assumed his character, and laid claim to the honours which were due to him alone. Of course, when THE Antichrist should appear, he would appear in the same character; not as the professed enemy of Christ, but as "coming in his name.”+ Such is John's Antichrist. The Man of sin, the Adversary, in the passage before us, is exactly of the same description. He is an enemy indeed, but an enemy in disguise. The name of Judas Iscariot, "the Son of perdition," bestowed upon him, points him out as a disciple, but a traitorous one; and the position which we shall find him occupying" in the temple of God" cuts up by the roots the idea of an avowedly atheis

* Matthew xxiv. 5.

The early Christians understood this well. Lactantius, for instance, speaking of Antichrist, says, " He shall feign himself to be Christ, and shall fight against the truth." Lib. vii. sect. 19, p. 499, Lugd. Bat. 1652.

tic or infidel antichrist.* Now the Pope answers exactly to the character of the Adversary,—the enemy of God, in whatever light we view that system, which he controls and governs. The grand cardinal principles of Christianity, have been beautifully and comprehensively summed up by Merle D'Aubigné, under the three headsthe word of God alone-the grace of Christ alone -the work of the Spirit alone. To each and all of these, the Pope is diametrically "opposed."

I. He "opposes" the word of God. In all ages he has done what he could to keep it out of the hands of the people. For centuries he kept it locked up in a language which the laity could not understand. The Reformation has made it impossible for him to keep all translations of it out of the hands of his vassals as effectually as before; but his enmity against the circulation of the Scriptures has been only the more clearly developed thereby. Witness the Bible burning by his priests in Ireland, in Madeira, and in * See note D.

every place, where he has the power. Witness the bull of Pope Pius VII. issued in 1816, in which the Bible Society is denounced as "this pestilence," "this defilement of the faith so imminently dangerous to souls." But perhaps this enmity was excited only by the false and corrupt translations of the heretics? No. Bibles printed in Italy, even from Popish versions, but without note or comment, are equally prohibited under the severest penalties. And even as to Bibles, well fortified with notes, their general circulation is absolutely forbidden. In accordance with the regulations of the Council of Trent, the fourth rule of the Congregation of the Index prohibits the reading of the Bible in any case without an express licence from the bishop with the advice of the priest or confessor; and provides that "if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess it, without written permission, he shall not receive absolution, until he shall have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary."* This rule is binding at this hour. * De Libris Prohibitis, Concil. Trid. p. 231, Lipsiæ, 1842.

In the Encyclical letter of Pope Gregory, published in 1844, that Pontiff, after referring to this and many other prohibitory enactments of the church on the subject, expressly ratifies them in the following terms: "Moreover we confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." His Holiness treats the opinion of the Jansenists as to "the holy books being useful at all times, and for all the faithful" as an

exploded" heresy; and calls upon the bishops to take care that the reading of them be permitted to none," but "such as it might be deemed necessary to confirm in faith and piety." To the

* There are few indeed whom Popish priests would hope to confirm in the faith" by the reading of the Bible. Almost all the priests we ever heard of seem to be exactly of the mind of Richard du Mans, who at Trent gave it as his opinion that the reading of the Scriptures ought not to be encouraged, "as the Lutherans only gained those that read them." In this country the laws of Trent are not so strictly enforced on this subject as elsewhere; but this is merely from motives of expediency, not because the priests in this country disapprove them. Every Popish priest

vast mass of the people this amounts to neither more nor less than an absolute prohibition. In making such prohibitions the Pope and his prelates sometimes affect great respect and reverence for the word of God. When Archbishops Troy and Murray, for instance, and the Popish clergy of Dublin, found, in 1820, that "the Scriptures, with or without note or comment, were unfit to be used as a school-book," their champion* in the Kildare Place Society defended them on the ground that it was intolerable that so holy a book should be "thumbed by every child in the school!" When it suits his purpose Antichrist can speak with great veneration of the Bible. But the general language of the Pope's most famous doctors runs in a very different style. In the Council of Trent the prelates spoke of the Bible as "dead ink," an inanimate dumb thing, and the "black gospel." When they speak honestly, the traditions of

is SWORN to uphold ALL the decrees and decisions of Trent, which are of unquestionable authority throughout the whole Roman Catholic church.

Mr O'Connell,