CHAPTER II Whether Babylon In The Apocalypse Is The Church Of Rome.

We now advance a step further in the argument; and our present Enquiry is; Whether the Apocalyptic prophecies, which have been specified, refer to Rome in her spiritual as well as in her temporal character; that is, whether they concern her, not only as a City, but as a Church?

1. The Great City, the city on the Seven Hills, the City which in the age of St. John reigned over the Kings of the Earth, the mystical Babylon enthroned upon many waters, this, we have seen, is the City of Rome. And Rome it is acknowledged to be by the concurrent voice of the Christian Church in the age of St. John, and even to this day.

2. So strong, indeed, is the evidence of this identity, that the Divines of Papal Rome have not been able to resist it. It is enough to mention three most eminent among them, — Cardinal Bellarmine, Cardinal Baronius, and the famous French Bishop, Bossuet.

“St. John in the Apocalypse,” says Cardinal Bellarmine, “calls Rome Babylon; for no other city besides Rome reigned in his age over the Kings of the Earth, and it is well known that Rome was seated upon Seven Hills.”

“It is confessed by all,” says Cardinal Baronius, 3 “that Rome is signified in the Apocalypse by the name of Babylon.”

And the language of the celebrated French Prelate, Bossuet, in his Exposition of the Book of Revelation, is: “The features (in the Apocalypse) are so marked, that it is easy to decipher Rome under the figure of Babylon.”

Such is the avowal of the most learned Divines of papal Rome.

3. Here then, we see, the question is brought into a narrow compass. The Babylon of the Apocalypse, it is allowed by Romish as well as Protestant writers, is the City of Rome.

4. But, it may now be asked; Since such heavy judgments are denounced on Babylon in the Apocalypse, how could any persons acknowledge Rome to be the Apocalyptic Babylon, and yet regard her as the Mother and Mistress of Churches?

The answer is, the Divines of Rome affirm that what St. John predicted of Babylon, concerns Rome only as a City, but not as a Church. And, they add, that it concerned ancient heathen Rome, but does not refer to it as Christian.

In support of this opinion it is alleged by them, for instance by Bossuet, who has most laboured this point, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, that the Ancient Christian Fathers did indeed identify the Apocalyptic Babylon with the City of Rome; but he affirms, that they did not identify it with the Church of Rome; and he adds that every person of judgment will prefer the interpretation of the ancient Fathers to that of modern Expositors who identify Babylon with the City and Church of Rome.

5. But on this allegation it may be observed — The Fathers who lived in the first three centuries, that is, who flourished before Rome became Christian, recognized the City of Rome in the Apocalyptic Babylon; so did the Fathers who lived in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, when Rome was becoming, and in the end did become, Christian. And we follow the Fathers, as far as they go. We, with them, see the City of Rome in Babylon. But the question is — Must we not see something more?

And here we make a distinction. St. John was inspired by the Holy Ghost; he was a prophet, and was enabled to foresee and to foretell what the Church of Rome would become. But the Fathers were not Prophets; they knew Rome only as she was in their own age; and we do not pretend that the Church of Rome was then, what she is now.

The Fathers could not foresee that [in the sixteenth century after Christ], Rome, [at the Council of Trent] would add Twelve Articles to the Nicene Creed, and that she would impose those articles on all men, as terms of communion, and as necessary to salvation. The Fathers could not have presupposed this, [that in the nineteenth century after Christ the Church of Rome would add another new article to “the faith once delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3) by decreeing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempt from original sin.] They would have recoiled from such a notion, as incredible. Indeed one of our strongest objections to the Church of Rome is, that she enforces doctrines which the Ancient Fathers never knew, and which (as the Romish advocates of the Doctrine of Development allow) she herself did not explicitly profess for many centuries. And, if she had held these doctrines in the days of the ancient Fathers, then our argument against the novelty of these doctrines would fall to the ground.

Our answer therefore is: — We do not pretend, that, in the age of the Fathers, the Church of Rome was Babylon; but the question to be considered is, whether she did not become Babylon, by adopting and enforcing doctrines which neither nor she held or dreamt of in their age; and whether, by now holding those doctrines, and by anathematizing all who do not receive them, she does not identify herself with the Apocalyptic Babylon, who requires all men to drink of her cup (Rev.xiv.8; xvii.3). And we think that if the Fathers were alive, they would join with us in the inquiry, whether she is [not] Babylon?

6. The truth also is, that Bossuet misrepresents the interpretation which identifies the Church of Rome with Babylon. He calls it “a Protestant interpretation”; by which he means that it is a modern interpretation, contemporary with, or subsequent to, the Reformation [in the sixteenth century].

But this is an oversight. For no sooner did the Church of Rome begin to put forth her present claims, and enforce her modern creed, than it was proclaimed by many witnesses, that by so doing she was identifying herself with the Babylon of the Apocalypse.

Dating from Pope Gregory the First, who made a prophetic protest against the title of Universal Bishop at the close of the sixth century, we can trace a succession of such witnesses to this day. In that series we may enumerate the celebrated Peter of Blois, the Waldenses, and Joachim of Calabria, Ubertinus de Casali, Peter Olivi 3, Marsilius of Padua, and the illustrious names of Dante and Petrarch.

So far from it being the case that the interpretation, which identifies the Church of Rome with the Apocalyptic Babylon, dates from the Reformation, the truth is rather, that it did much to produce the Reformation. [The interpretation, which identifies the Church of Rome with the Apocalyptic Babylon, does not date from the Reformation; the truth is, that it was prior to the Reformation, and did much to produce the Reformation.]

The fact undoubtedly is, that, in the seventh and following centuries, the Church of Rome was united with the City of Rome by the junction of the temporal and spiritual Powers in the Person of the Roman Pontiff; and when the Church of Rome began to put forth her new doctrines, and to enforce them as necessary to salvation, then it was publicly affirmed by many, (although she burnt some who affirmed it), that she was fulfilling the Apocalyptic prophecies concerning Babylon. And though the destruction of heathen Rome by the Goths in the fifth century was a most striking event, yet not a single 1 witness of any antiquity can be cited in favor of the Exposition of Bossuet and his co-religionists, who see a complete fulfillment of the predictions of the Apocalypse concerning the destruction of Babylon, in the fall of heathen Rome by the sword of Alaric.

Indeed, that exposition is a modern one; it is an afterthought; and has been devised by Bossuet and others to meet the other, which they call the Protestant, interpretation. The identification of the Apocalyptic Babylon with ancient Heathen Rome, as its adequate antitype, is an invention of modern Papal Rome.

7. Let us now suppose, for argument’s sake, with Bossuet and the great body of Romish Interpreters, that the predictions [prophecies] of the Apocalypse concerned Rome only as a City, a pagan City, and do not concern her now both as a City and a Church. And let us also suppose with them, that Rome is what they affirm her to be, the “Mother and Mistress of all Churches”; and that there is one thing needful for all men — as all Romish Divines assert — namely, to be in communion with Rome.

What then is the state of the case?

1) Here is the Apocalypse, a prophetical Book, as they allow, dictated by the Holy Ghost, revealing the History of Christianity from the Apostolic age to Christ’s Second Advent, and designed for the edification and comfort of the faithful members of the Church in the dangers, trials, difficulties, and perplexities which awaited them. Under such circumstances as these, nothing would have been more natural, nothing, we may almost add, more necessary, than that St. John should have said to the followers of Christ, — You will, I foresee, be assailed by violence from without, and by heresies and schisms from within; you will be tempted to swerve from the faith. But be of good cheer, you need not be distressed, you need not be perplexed. There is one Church, which cannot err, and will never fail, — the Church of Rome. Rome is now a Heathen City, the Queen of the Gentile World; but Rome will, ere long, become the Capital of Christendom. And the Church of Rome is, by Christ’s appointment, the Mother and Mistress of Churches. He, who now rules at Rome, is a Pagan Prince; but when a few years have elapsed, the sovereignty of Rome will pass into other hands: it will be swayed for more than a thousand years by the Bishop of Rome. He is Infallible; he is the Arbiter of the Faith; his chair is the Center of Unity; he is the Vicar of Christ. One thing is indispensable: remain in communion with him. Obey him; then nothing can harm you, nothing can disturb you. You will be safe, you will be blessed, for ever.

What a simple rule! How easy of application! Can it be imagined, that the Author of the Apocalypse would not have commended it? Can it be imagined that St. John — or, rather, the Spirit of God [Who wrote by him], — would have been silent on this most momentous matter? That He, when writing a prophetic history of the Church, would not have breathed a syllable about it? And yet, if the Church of Rome is not the Harlot City, if she is not Babylon, then she is not even once mentioned in the Apocalypse! Indeed it is affirmed by Bossuet, that there “is not a single trace of the Church of Rome in this whole book 1.” Her very existence is ignored. And yet we are assured by all Romish Divines and Roman Pontiffs, that Rome is “the Mother and Mistress of Churches,” and that communion with the see of Rome, and subjection to her laws is necessary to salvation! … How incredible!

2) Let us again put the same case. Let these prophecies of the Apocalypse be imagined to concern Rome only as a City, a pagan City, and not as the Papal Church.

What then? Here are divine prophecies — prophecies large and full — commended in solemn terms to the pious meditation of the Church, even till Christ comes (Rev. 1:3; 17:19-20); and yet they can afford warning and comfort only to a few, for a short period after they were published. For Pagan Rome was sacked by Alaric and the Goths in the year of our Lord 410, little more than three hundred years after the Apocalypse was written; and then, we are told by Bossuet and other Romish Divines, [that] Babylon fell!

What a lame fulfillment of these predictions! Give every advantage to the supposition. Allow that they were believed by the early Christians to be consummated in Heathen Rome; — which is not the case; — then what follows? Some ancient Christians were instructed by them; and, instructed to do what? To shun the idolatry of Heathen Rome. Not to sacrifice to Jupiter! Not to burn incense to the statue of the roman Emperor! Did they need a new, large, and elaborate prophecy to teach then that? St. Peter and St. Paul and all the Apostolic martyrs had done this. The Apocalypse was not necessary to save them from Apostasy. No; with reverence be it said, here was no worthy crisis for the intervention of the Holy Spirit of God.

3) But now change the hypothesis. Suppose Babylon to be, not a pagan City, but a corrupt Church, putting forth her claims, and veiling her corruptions, under the most specious and alluring colors: hiding them under the fair forms of Antiquity, Sanctity, Unity, and Universality. Then the case is different. Here is a new form of evil requiring a new remedy. Here is an Antichrist 1 sitting in the Church, and teaching error disguised as Truth; and Anti-Christ speaking in the name of Christ. Here is a strong delusion, one that may ensnare the world. Here is a critical occasion, and urgent exigency, for the intervention of the Holy Ghost. Here is a profitable exercise of His Divine Office of prophecy, guidance and warning to the Church. Here is a fit Mission for the Comforter.

And, if such a Church as we have now described has existed, and if it has continued to exist for many centuries, and does now exist in the world; if it has so existed, and does still exist, at Rome; and if, by the union of the secular power with the spiritual, the Roman Church is, and has long been, identified with the Roman City; and if the Apocalyptic Babylon is allowed on all hands to be the City of Rome, then we here see a proof, that the Babylon of the Apocalypse, which is confessed by Romish Divines to be the Roman City, is not only the Roman City, but is [also] the Roman Church.

4) At this point, a few words may be addressed to some persons, who affirm that the real conflict of our own times is not between one form of Christianity and another, but between Christianity and Infidelity; and who either overlook these prophecies of the Apocalypse altogether, and seem to forget that they exist in the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit pronounces those “blessed, who read and keep the words of this prophecy,” and denounces a malediction on all who take away from them; or else draw these prophecies aside from their aim, and are impatient with us [those] who retain them in that direction which they believe, and think they can prove, to be the true one.

It cannot be defined, that we have much to dread from Infidelity; their fears in this respect are ours.

We allow also that the Anti-Christ briefly noticed by St. John in two of his Epistles is an Infidel Power.

But it is not the main end and aim of Prophecy, to warn men now against Infidelity, any more than it was formerly against Paganism. The Power described by St. Paul and St. John in the Apocalypse is expressly called a Mystery. But Infidelity proclaims itself: it is no “Mystery.” And Christ has pronounced His sentence, once for all, against Unbelief: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). No subsequent voice could add force or clearness to this divine Verdict.

But it is the legitimate aim and end of Christian Prophecy, to warn the world against the insidious designs and mysterious workings of deadly error, masked in the garb of Religion; for Satan is never so much to be feared as when he is “transformed into an Angel of Light” (2Cor. 11:14).

And even because Infidelity is be dreaded, this warning against corrupt Religion was necessary to be given; for the state of those who use Religion as a cloak for sin and error is worse than that of Heathens. Superstition is the most prolific source of Atheism. When a People sees Religion allying itself with imposture, they soon regard Religion as a fraud, and become eager to destroy it as an insult to themselves. Thus Superstition drives them on to Irreligion [Unbelief], and tempt them to blaspheme Christianity. [This, as the Author of this Essay knows too well from personal observation, is the danger of Italy and France at this time.]

Looking, then, at the declarations of Scripture concerning Infidelity, and at the true ends of Christian Prophecy, and at the perils of the World from Infidelity, and at the language and spirit of these Apocalyptic prophecies, we see reason to believe, even on this account, that the form of Anti-Christianism contemplated by them is not a heathen, or infidel, but a religious, one.

5) Another objection may be considered here. Some persons have alleged, that since Prophecy is best interpreted by its fulfilment, and since all do not agree in interpreting these Apocalyptic prophecies in such a manner as to apply them to Rome, and since Rome denies that they are applicable to herself, therefore they ought not be so interpreted.

But a little consideration will show the fallacy of this allegation.

It is indeed true, that Prophecy is best interpreted by its fulfilment; and, if it cannot be proved to the satisfaction of candid, intelligent, and attentive inquirers, that these Prophecies have been partly fulfilled in the Church of Rome, then assuredly there is a strong presumption that they have not been so fulfilled.

But,–because the fulfilment is not universally acknowledged, and, particularly, not acknowledged by the Church of Rome,–it is therefore not true, that they have not been fulfilled.

All Christians agree, that the Prophecies of the Old Testament, concerning the Messiah, have now been fulfilled for near two thousand years in the person of Jesus Christ. And yet, up to this hour, the heathens do not believe this; and, what is more, the Jews, [who held those prophecies in their hands], and were the most concerned in the accomplishment of those prophecies, and had, in some respects, the best opportunities of judging of it, do not acknowledge their fulfilment, but obstinately deny it.

But, let us ask,–Does this denial of that accomplishment in any degree invalidate the truth of those prophecies, or render their fulfilment less certain? Assuredly not. Nay, it confirms it. For, this incredulity of the Jews was predicted in those prophecies: Lord, who hath believed our report? (Isa. 53:1; John 12;38).

In like manner, it is futile to allege, that these prophecies of the Apocalypse do not point at the Church of Rome, because the Church of Rome does not acknowledge that they concern her. Indeed this her scepticism concerning them is a corroboration of the proof of their fulfilment. Just as it was foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament, that the Jews would not believe their fulfil ment, so in like manner it is foretold in those of the Apocalypse, that she whom they do concern will not believe them, and will not repent (Rev. 9:20; 16:9-11) but will be stricken with judicial blindness, and be hardened by God’s judgments; in a word, that Babylon will be Babylon to the end.

Therefore, if the Church of Rome is Babylon, we have no reason to be surprised that she does not acknowledge, and have no reason to expect that she will acknowledge, that she herself is the subject of these prophecies, and is there portrayed as Babylon.

Let us observe here the mysterious dealings of God. The Jews hold in their hands, and revere as divine, the Old Testament. And from the Old Testament the Church of Christ proves her own cause against the Jews. And so the Church of Rome holds in her hands the Apocalypse; she acknowledges it to be the work of St. John, and requires all men to receive it as divinely inspired 1. And may not perhaps the Church of Christ prove from it her own cause against Rome?

The true question therefore, we see, is –not whether the Church of Rome acknowledges,–no, nor whether persons of our own Communion acknowledge, that these prophecies have been already fulfilled, or are being fulfilled, and will be completely fulfilled, in the Church of Rome, –but, whether there is evidence to convince an unprejudiced mind that such is the case.

This is the question before us.

6) Let us pass to another point. [Let us therefore proceed with our argument]. The Woman, called the “Harlot 2,” and “Babylon,” or “the Great City,” the “City on Seven Hills,” the City of Rome, sits on the Beast as on a throne, that is, governs it, and is supported by it. The Beast is represented as having ten Horns 3 bearing Crowns 4, which, we are taught, are ten Kings, or Kingdoms; and these, it is added, had not received power in St. John’s age, but were afterwards to receive it with the Beast.

Now, if, with Bossuet and his co-religionists, we imagine the Woman on the Beast to be Heathen, and not Christian, Rome, then let us ask, Where, in that case, were these Ten Kingdoms, which did not exist in St. John’s age, and which were to arise and receive power together with Rome? Heathen Rome reigned alone, and was destroyed, before any such kingdoms arose. None can be found to correspond to St. John’s description.

But now adopt, again, the other supposition. Let the Beast, with the Woman enthroned upon it, represent the City and Church planted on the Seven Hills on which the Woman sits. Let it represent the Church of Rome. Then all is plain. When the heathen Empire of Rome fell, new Kingdoms arose from its ruins. These were the horns of the Beast which then sprouted up; then the Church of Rome increased in strength; and these Kingdoms received power with her.

Look again at the prophecy. These kings, we read, give their power and strength to the Beast. They reign, as kings, at the same time with the Beast. As kings–that is, they are called kings–but the Beast is the real Sovereign of their subjects. And what is the fact? The European Kingdoms, which arose at the dissolution of the Roman Empire, did surrender themselves to the dominion of the Church of Rome, and were, for many centuries, subject to the Papacy. The Woman, who sat upon the Beast, had her hand upon the Horns, and held them firmly in her grasp. She still treats them as her subjects. The Papal Coins proclaim this. “Omnes Reges servient ei.” “Gens et Regnum, quod tibi non servierit, peribit.” Such are her claims; declared at the Coronation of every Pontiff: “Know thyself to be the Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World.” These are the words which he assumes to himself, when the papal Tiara is placed on his brow. Thus in the claim of the Church of Rome to exercise sway over the Kings of the earth, and in that amplitude of dominion and plenitude of felicity, to which she has appealed for so many generations as a proof that she is favoured by Heaven, we recognize another proof that the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the Woman on the Beast, to whom Kings were to give their power and strength, is no other than the Church of Rome.

Still further: It is prophesied in the Apocalypse that some of the Horns, of kingdoms, which were to receive power together with the Beast, will one day rise against her, and eat the flesh of the Harlot, and burn her with fire (Rev. 17:16).

Now, again suppose, for argument’s sake, that the Woman on the Beast was Heathen Rome. Then, we readily allow, that Alaric with his Goths, Attila with his Huns, Genseric with his Vandals, Odoacer with his Heruli, did indeed sack the City of Rome 1. But when did they ever receive power together with Rome? [Or even before?] when did they give their power and their strength to Heathen Rome? Never. If, therefore, the Woman upon the Beast is only the City of Pagan Rome, then the Prophecy of St. John has failed; which, since it is from God, is impossible.

[But Pagan Rome has long since ceased to be. Therefore, these predictions cannot concern Pagan Rome. But they do concern the Seven-hilled City, Rome; and, therefore, they point at that City in which the Bishop of Rome now rules.] And the marvel predicted by the Apocalypse is this–and a stupendous mystery it is– that some of the Powers of the Earth, which received strength with the Beast, and [at one time] gave up their might to it, will [would], under the overruling sway of God’s retributive justice, one day arise against the Woman seated on the Beast, and “tear her flesh,” and burn her with fire (Rev. 17:16). And, what is still more marvellous, they will do this, although, in the first instance, they have been leagued with the Beast and with the False Prophet (Rev. 17:13-14; 19:19), or False Teacher, [who is] the Ally of the Beast, on whom the Woman sits as a Queen, in opposition to Christ: and they will destroy Rome in a mysterious transport of indignation, and in a wild ecstasy of revenge.

Such is the prophecy of St. John. This latter portion of it remains to be fulfilled. But Pagan Rome has long since ceased to be. Therefore there predictions cannot concern Pagan Rome. But they do concern the Seven-hilled City, Rome; and, therefore, they point at the City wherein the Bishop of Rome now rules: and the Woman upon the Beast is the City and Church of Papal Rome.

7) Besides, the destruction of the Great City, the Mystical Babylon, is represented in the Apocalypse as a punishment for her sins, when brought to a head. Now be it observed that Rome when taken by Alaric had given great encouragement to Christianity: so much so, that the invasion of the Goths was represented by her heathen writers 1 as a consequence of the anger of the heathen deities against the city for its neglect of the old religion, and for the favour shown by it to the Gospel. Rome as compared with herself any former period of her history was then not remarkable for her sins, but for her piety.

Therefore, again, the capture of Rome by Alaric cannot have been the destruction foretold in the Apocalypse.

[Edited: And let us ask the candid reader,–Is not this prophecy even now in course of fulfillment, in the eyes of the World?

Of all the princely houses of Europe that were once devoted to the Roman Papacy, none was a more abject vassal of it, than the house of Savoy. In the seventeenth century, A.D. 1655, it executed with ruthless obsequiousness the sanguinary mandates of Rome, exhorting it to exterminate the Vaudois–the Protestant communities of the Alps–with fire and sword. Such was its eagerness in the work of destruction, that Oliver Cromwell wrote a letter of expostulation to the Duke of Savoy, and sent an ambassador from England to deprecate this crusade of desolation; and Milton then wrote his famous sonnet, which has proved almost prophetic, “On the late Massacre in Piedmont, “Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughter’d saints, whose bones Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains cold.”

And what is now the case, at the present time?

A Prince of that same house, the house of Savoy, has now been raised up to the Throne of Italy, Victor Emmanuel; and he has “torn the flesh” of Rome, he has despoiled her of the greater part of her temporal dominions; France (which is now virtually mistress of Rome), Spain, and Portugal, have recognized him as King of Italy; he has suppressed her Monasteries, and has thus deprived Rome of her most powerful spiritual Army; and it is not improbable, that either his dynasty or that of some other secular Potentates formerly devoted to the Papacy, may be employed as an instrument for inflicting more chastisements on Papal Rome.]

8) Further, let us look forward, and examine the Apocalyptic Prophecy, which describes what the state of the mystical Babylon will be after her fall.

Her condition, we are taught in the Apocalypse, will then be like that of the literal, the Assyrian Babylon, after its destruction. Concerning the literal Babylon, Isaiah prophesied thus: Wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there (Isa. 13:21). And Jeremiah predicted that Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for dragons, an astonishment, and a hissing (Jer. 51:37).

So St. John in the Apocalypse prophesies of the mystical Babylon: Babylon the great (he says) is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird. (Rev. 18:2). For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; for her sins have reached to heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.(Rev. 18:3,5)

Now, take, again, the supposition of Bossuet, and other Romish Theologians, and let it be imagined, for argument’s sake, that Babylon is only the Heathen City of Rome. Rome was taken, at several times, by the Goths and the Vandals; let its capture be, as is alleged by those Romish Divines, the fulfilment of St. John’s Prophecy, Babylon is fallen. Rome having been Pagan, became Papal. What then is the consequence? Rome–Papal Rome–is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit!….Will this be allowed by Romish Divines? Rome the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, the cage of every unclean and hateful bird!

No: we do not say this; and in their language Rome is ” the Capital of Christendom,” “the Holy City,” the “spiritual Sion.” They call her Sovereign ” the Supreme Pontiff,” “Holy Father”; his States are ” the States of the Church”; and his throne, “the Holy See.”

Therefore these Apocalyptic prophecies were not fulfilled in Pagan Rome.

But it is allowed by Romish Divines that they concern Rome. Therefore they do not concern Rome as Pagan, but as Papal.

9. Again; it is prophesied in the Apocalypse that Babylon will be burnt with fire, and become utterly desolate. Now, let Babylon be imagined to be only the heathen City of Rome. How then, let us ask, can the prediction be reconciled with the fact? How can it be said, the Rome has been burnt with fire, and that the smoke of the burning ascends to heaven? (Rev. 18:8,9). Has the voice of harpers and musicians ceased within her? has she been taken up, like a great millstone, and plunged in the sea? (Rev. 18:21). No: the voice of melody is still heard in her princely palaces; they are still adorned with noble pictures and fair statues. The riches of her purple and silk and scarlet, and pearls and jewels (Rev 17:4; 18:12-16), are still displayed in the splendid attire of her Pontiff and his Cardinals in their solemn conclaves. Cavalcades of horses and chariots, (Rev. 18:13) with gorgeous trappings, and long trains of religious processions, still move along her streets; clouds of frankincense still float in her Temples, which on high festivals are hung with tapestry and brocade and gay embroidery; her precious vessels still glitter on her Altars; her rich merchandise of gold and silver is still purchased; her dainty and goodly things are not yet departed from her. She still sits as a Queen, and glorifies herself, and says, I am no Widow, and shall see no sorrow.(Rev. 18:7). She still claims the title of Divinity, and calls herself ETERNAL.

[Let any one refer to the confident language she used, and to the gorgeous splendour in which she displayed herself on December 8, 1854, when she promulgated, in St. Peter’s Church, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and on Whitsunday, June 8, 1862, when she canonized the Japanese Martyrs,–a ceremonial associated with her own claims to Supremacy, spiritual and temporal, and he will admit these statements as unquestionable.]

Here, therefore, we are brought to the same conclusion. The Babylon of the Apocalypse is [allowed on all hands to be] Rome. Pagan Rome it cannot be. It is therefore Papal Rome.

10) But it may here be said: True, the Apocalyptic Prophecies have failed of their effect, if Babylon be interpreted as representing only the City of Rome as Heathen. Still, it may be alleged, it does not necessarily follow, that they concern Papal Rome, inasmuch as it is possible that the City of Rome may cease to be Papal, and that it may, at some future time, become infidel, and then be destroyed in the manner described in the Apocalypse.

This is the theory of some Romish Expositors 1, who perceive the insurmountable difficulties embarrassing the hypothesis, which has now been examined; and which has been, and still is, maintained by their most eminent Divines.

Here then we may observe–

Romish Divines agree with us, that Babylon is the city of Rome. But they are not agreed among themselves, whether Babylon is the Rome of 1500 years ago, or a Rome still future! And yet they say that they have, in the Roman Pontiff, an infallible Guide for the exposition of Holy Scripture! How is it, that this unerring Guide has not yet settled for them the meaning of the prophecies concerning his own City? Here was a worthy occasion for the exercise of his powers. How is it, that the Bishop of Rome has left the Church of Rome in a state of uncertainty and of variance with regard to these awful prophecies which refer to the City of Rome? Is this unity? Is this infallibility? Is it not evident that by claiming for himself Infallibility (which is an attribute of God) he is rebuked and condemned by these Prophesies, which, his own Divines allow, concern his own City?

[How is it, that he allows some Romish Divines to say that these prophecies refer to a Rome of more than a thousand years ago, and permits others to say that they relate to a Rome still future? Is this Unity? Is this Infallibility?]

Let us now examine the hypothesis of these Roman Divines, who say that the Apocalyptic Babylon is Rome future; Rome becoming hereafter heathen and infidel.

A) Rome heathen and infidel! What then becomes of their assertion, that no Heresy has ever infected the Church of Rome, and that every Church must conform to her?

B) Babylon is described in the Apocalypse, as persecuting the saints, as drunk with the blood of the saints, and as making all to drink of her cup (Rev. 17:6,2).

Now, that Rome will again become heathen, and that she will propagate heathenism with the sword; this assuredly is an alternative to which no advocate of the Church of Rome could be driven, except by desperation. But, however this may be, this Exposition is irreconcileable with the words of St. John, and cannot therefore be sound. [And why? Because, as we have seen, St. John refers to Rome reigning over the Kings of the Earth in his own day. He then proceeds to reveal her future History. No intimation is given of any break in the thread of his prophecy. But if Babylon is some future Rome, as well as the Rome of St. John’s age, there must be a chasm in that history of nearly two thousand years!

C) For, as we have seen, St. John refers to Rome reigning over the Kings of the Earth in his own day. He the proceeds to reveal her future History. No intimation is given of any break in the thread of his Prophesy. But if Babylon is some future Rome, as well as the Rome of St. John’s age, there must be a chasm in that history of nearly two thousand years!

D) Let us refer again to the Apocalypse. There it is said that the Beast on which the Woman sitteth, is the eighth head or king (Rev 17:10-11); and that five heads had already fallen in St. John’s age, that the sixth was then in being, that the seventh would continue only for a short time, and then the eighth would appear; and that the eighth head is the Beast on which the Woman sits.

If Kings are here used to signify individuals, then the eight head, i.e. the Beast and the Woman on it, must have arisen soon after St. John’s age. But let us allow, that kings are here used for forms of government, as is common in Scripture Prophecy (Dan. 7:17,23,24; Hos. 3:3). Then the eight heads are the eight successive forms of Government in the City of Rome. Five of these had followed one another, and had passed away, in St. John’s age. Therefore five heads are said to have fallen. The sixth or imperial head was then in being. But the imperial head also fell. It perished with Romulus Augustulus, A.D. 476. It was to be followed by the seventh. And the seventh was to be of brief duration, it was only to continue for a short space (Rev. 17:10). The eight was to arise from the seven (Rev. 17:11); that is, without interruption, after the seventh; and the eighth is the Beast on which the Woman sitteth (Rev. 17:3,8,11).

Therefore the Beast with the Woman sitting upon it has appeared long ago.

These Prophecies concern that Woman: this Woman is the City Rome: and they therefore concern Rome, not future, but such as she has long been, and now is.

We have seen that the Apocalyptic Babylon is not Pagan Rome. We now pass on to the positive part of our argument, and let us inquire more particularly, whether the Babylon of the Apocalypse is or is not Christian Rome, under the dominion of Popes; and whether it is Rome, as Rome is now?

Here we may observe first, the City seated on the Beast is called a Harlot. This is the scriptural name of a faithless Church.

Such is Christ’s love for His faithful people, that He is pleased to speak of His own relation to them under the term of marriage. The Church is His Spouse (John 3:29; Eph. 5:23-32). I have espoused you as a chaste virgin to Christ, says St. Paul to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:2) Hence spiritual unfaithfulness to Christ is represented in Scripture as adultery.