These, it may be said, are strong assertions; but can it be proved that these predictions concern the Church of Rome?

Some reply negatively to this question. They allege, that since Prophecy is 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 herself denies that they have been so fulfilled, therefore they ought not to be so interpreted.

A little reflection 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 enquirers, that these Prophecies have been partly fulfilled in the Church of Rome, then assuredly there is a very strong presumption that they have not been so fulfilled.

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

Many persons pay little attention to the history of past ages and their own. They do not consider, and will not discern the signs of the times*. Many are not qualified, by capacity or attainments, to appreciate evidence. Many, again, are blinded by passion, prejudice, or self-interest. None of these

* Matth. xvi. 3.

parties are competent judges of the fulfilment of prophecy.

We have before our eyes a wonderful example of this.

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 Jews, who were the most concerned in their accomplishment, and had the best opportunities of judging of it, do not acknowledge their fulfilment.

Does this their denial of that accomplishment in any degree invalidate the truth of those prophecies, or render their fulfilment less certain? Certainly not. Nay, it confirms it. For, observe, this very incredulity of the Jews was predicted in those prophecies: Lord, who hath believed our report* ?

Therefore, 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 fulfilment, 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, but will be stricken

* Isaiah liii. 1. John xii. 37.

Rev. ix. 20. xvi. 9-11.

with judicial blindness, and be hardened by God's judgments; in a word, that Babylon will be Babylon to the end.

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

Observe here the mysterious dealings of God. The Jews hold in their hands, and revere as divine, the Old Testament, which proves Christianity, and convicts them. The Church of Rome holds in her hands the Apocalypse; she acknowledges it to be the work of St. John, and receives it as divinely inspired*. And from it the Church of Christ proves her cause against Rome.

Would to heaven, my brethren, that the veil were taken away from the hearts of both Jews and Romanists; and that they would read and understand what they hold in their hands and acknowledge to be the Word of God!

The true question therefore, you see, is-not whether the Church of Rome acknowledges, no, nor whether all 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 suffi

* See Concil. Tridentin. Sess. iv. where " Apocalypsis Joannis Apostoli" is specified in her Canon of Scripture. +2 Cor. iii. 15.

cient evidence to convince an unprejudiced, reasonable, and reflecting mind, that such is the case.

This is the subject before us; and a most solemn one it is.

Let us now examine it.

It divides itself into two parts.

First; Do these Apocalyptic prophecies concern that CITY in which the Bishop of Rome holds his See?

Secondly, Do they also concern that City in her spiritual as well as her temporal character; that is, do they regard her as a CHURCH, as well as a City? and so as exercising power, not merely at Rome and in Italy, but in many other regions, and over many other nations, of the world?

On the present occasion we shall limit ourselves to the former of these two questions.

Do these prophecies concern the CITY OF ROME? Here let me premise, that the Authorities to which we shall refer on this subject will be derived from Scripture, Christian Antiquity, and Pagan and Jewish writers; and that we shall carefully abstain from adopting any thing from any quarter, that can, in any way, be suspected of any undue bias against the present Church of Rome.

This being borne in mind, our present proposition is

That in these Apocalyptic prophecies, the Woman, who is called Babylon, and is seated on the Beast with seven heads and ten horns, is no other than the CITY OF ROME.

They certainly do not prefigure the older, literal, Babylon. The inscription on the Woman's forehead is Mystery*; indicating a spiritual meaning. This word had been used by St. John's brother Apostle St. Paul, in his striking description of the Mystery of Iniquity, opposed to the Mystery of Godliness: and St. John adopts the word from St. Paul, and appears to apply it to the same object as that which had been pourtrayed in such dark colours by that Apostle ‡.

Again, the literal, Assyrian, Babylon had long ceased to be a reigning city when St. John wrote: and the word Mystery plainly intimates, that as the real Babylon, that mighty city, was overthrown, according to the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Zechariah in the Old Testament, so the mystical Babylon would be reduced to ruins, according to the predictions of St. John in the New.

Next, we affirm, they do prefigure Rome. This we prove, first, from the following consideration.

I. The City of which St. John speaks is called by him a GREAT CITY §, and one which existed || in his age; and it is one which would continue to exist for many centuries, certainly to our own times; for its destruction, as described in the Apocalypse, is immediately followed, indeed is accompanied by,

* i. e. Something which is designed to convey to the mind. more than meets the ear; see Casaubon, Exerc. Baron. 16 ad A. D. 43; and cf. Heidegger. Myst. Bab. ii. p. 79, 80.

1 Tim. iii. 16.

§ Rev. xvii. 18.

2 Thess. ii. 7.

Rev. xvii. 18, "that great City which reigneth."