wherein stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin of whom the apostle speaks, than I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible church of Jerusalem. Yea, I offer myself, by word or writing, to prove the Roman church this day farther degenerate from the purity which was in the days of the apostles, than were the church of the Jews from the ordinances given by Moses, when they consented to the innocent death of Jesus Christ.” This was a bold charge; but the minds of the people were prepared to listen to the proof. They exclaimed, that, if this was true, they had been miserably deceived, and insisted that, as they could not all read his writings, he should ascend the pulpit, and give them an opportunity of hearing the {60} probation of what he had so confidently affirmed. The request was reasonable, and the challenge was not to be retracted. The following Sabbath was accordingly fixed for making good his promise. On the day appointed, he appeared in the pulpit of the parish church, and gave out the twenty‑fourth and twenty‑fifth verses of the seventh chapter of Daniel, as his text. After an introduction, in which he explained the vision, and showed that the four animals hieroglyphically represented four empires――the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, out of the ruins of the last of which rose the empire described in his text, he proceeded to show that this was applicable to no power but the papal. He compared the parallel passages in the New Testament, and showed that the king mentioned in his text was the same elsewhere called the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, the Babylonian harlot; and that, in prophetical style, these expressions did not describe a single person, but a body or multitude of people under a wicked head, including a succession of persons occupying the same place. In support of his assertion, that the papal power was antichristian, he described it under the three heads of life, doctrine, and laws. He depicted the scandalous lives of the popes from records published by Roman catholic writers, and contrasted their doctrine and laws with those of the New Testament, particularly on the heads of justification, holidays, and abstinence from meats and from marriage. He quoted from the canon law the blasphemous titles and prerogatives ascribed to the pope, as an additional proof {61} that he was described in his text.[84] In conclusion, he signified that, if any of his hearers thought that he had misquoted or misinterpreted the testimonies which he had produced from the scriptures, ecclesiastical history, or the writings of the fathers, he was ready, upon their coming to him, in the presence of witnesses, to give them satisfaction. Among the audience were his former preceptor, Major, and the other members of the university, the sub‑prior of the abbey, and a great number of canons and friars of different orders.