Joseph Acosta observes, (1. 2. de temp. Noviss. cap. 17.) are marks of the Episcopal dignity; that is, of the Mitre or Episcopal Crown. The false Prophet, therefore, does seem to be some Apostate Bishop and pretender to religion. It is not, therefore, the Mitre, but some Mitred Apostate that is here taxed, who shall treacherously abuse these Horns of (the Lamb) Christ, to propagate the Sect of Antichrist." (Dr. Cressener Demonst. p. 184.)

Now, it will be seen, that this is in principle the very interpretation of the Protestant writers, who are generally agreed that the second Beast is the Pope. Mr. Burgh does not himself, so far as I have been enabled to discover, offer any solution whatever of the meaning of the second Beast or False Prophet, but he does mention the above Protestant application of it to the Pope for the purpose of casting ridicule upon it. (Lect. p. 117-119.)

With respect to the Temple in which Antichrist is to sit, Malvenda contends, as Mr. Burgh does, that it is the Temple of Jerusalem. "But Pererius, the Jesuit, upon the seventh of Daniel, quotes Theodoret, Damascene, and others of the Fathers, interpreting

it of the Christian Church, for that, says he, is the only true Temple of God."*

In all these particulars, it is therefore plain that Mr. Burgh is sitting in a darkness much more profound than the more enlightened Doctors of the Romish Church.

* Dr. Cressener Demonst. p. 299. Pererius was a Spanish Jesuit, born in 1535. He died at Rome in 1610.

ANTICHRIST:

A SERMON

PREACHED IN ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH, LIVERPOOL, ON 15TH FEBRUARY, 1839.

BY THE

REV. HUGH M'NEILE, M. A.

24

76

PREFACE.

Not

On the subject of the following discourse, the introduction of novelty could scarcely fail to be the introduction of error. only have celebrated writers of comparatively modern times, including Pyle, Vitringa, Jurieu, Daubez, Dr. H. More, W. Louth, Bishops Newton and Hurd, Sir Isaac Newton, Whiston, Cressener, Brightman, Mede, Owen, declared their convictions, and assigned their reasons for believing, that the Papal power is the predicted Antichrist; not only have the Fathers of the Reformation, both in England and on the Continent, given their unanimous testimony to the same truth: But also, writers of an earlier date, compelled, as it would seem, by the likeness between the predictions of the Prophets, and the proceedings of the Papacy, did not scruple to identify Rome with the seat of the Apocalyptic Beast, and the Pope with Antichrist. Among these we find Dante and Petrarch, Grostête Bishop of Lincoln, the Abbot Joachim of Calabria, St. Bernard, Fluentius Bishop of Florence, Berengarius, Everhard Bishop of Saltzbourg, and Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans.

The following extracts from a speech of the Bishop of Saltzbourg at the assembly of