Theologians. Indeed the Apocalyptic prophecies concerning the seven-hilled Babylon are, and ever will be, a problem which cannot be solved in a uniform and satisfactory manner by those who remain under her sway. Another theory, then, has been resorted to; and it is alleged by some* Romish Divines that these Prophecies have not been fulfilled in pagan, any more than in Christian, Rome; and that they wait for their accomplishment till the last days, when an Anti-Christian Power, they say, will arise in Rome, and persecute the Church. On all hands, however, one point is clear, namely, that these prophecies do concern the City of Rome. Do they also regard the Church of Rome? This is our present question. It is answered in the negative by Romish Divines. It is alleged by them, for instance by Bossuet, that the ancient Christian Fathers did indeed identify the Apocalyptic Babylon with the City of Rome, but not with the Church of Rome: and he adds that there is no person of judgment who will not prefer the interpretation of the ancient Fathers to that of modern, and especially Protestant, Expositors. To this we reply The Fathers who lived in the first three centuries, that is, who flourished before Rome became Christian, discerned the City of Rome in the Apocalyptic * E. g. Cornelius à Lapide, Ribera, Viegas, Lessius, and others. Babylon; so did the Fathers who lived in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, when Rome had become Christian. And we follow the Fathers as far as they go. We, with them, see the City of Rome in Babylon. But 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 her only as she was in their own age; and we do not pretend that the Church of Rome was then, what, alas! she is now. The Fathers, for instance, could not foresee that Rome would add Twelve New Articles to the Nicene Creed, and that she would impose them as terms of communion, and as necessary to salvation. God forbid that they should have supposed this to be probable! 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" now allow) she herself knew not 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 we affirm that she became Babylon by adopting and enforcing doctrines which neither they nor she held or dreamt of in their age; and that by now holding these strange and corrupt doctrines, and by anathematizing all who will not receive them, she proves herself to be Babylon. And we hesitate not to add, that if the Fathers were now alive, they would join with us, and recognize her as Babylon. Bossuet misrepresents the interpretation which identifies the Church of Rome with Babylon. He calls it the Protestant interpretation; by which he means that it is a modern interpretation, contemporary with, or subsequent to, the Reformation. This is a great mistake. No sooner did the Church of Rome begin to fulfil the Apocalypse, than that fulfilment was proclaimed by some. * 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‡, Marsilius of * See the authorities in Wolfii Lectiones Memorabiles, ii. p. 839-841; also in i. 376. 384. 408. 418. 429. 438. 443. 488. 597. 600. 610; and in Gerhard, Confessio Catholica, p. 583, sqq. ed. Francofurti, 1679. † See Appendix C. See Appendix D and E. It must be remembered, also, that only they who were ready to incur great perils for the truth Padua, and the illustrious names of Dante * and Petrarch. So far from it being the case that this interpretation dates from the Reformation, the truth rather is, that it produced the Reformation. The fact is, my brethren, and it is a very remarkable one, that, on the one hand, no sooner did the Church of Rome begin to fulfil the Apocalypse, than that fulfilment, as we have said, was recognized and proclaimed by some Expositors; and so we could now cite a series of witnesses in favour of what Bossuet calls the Protestant Exposition, from the seventh century to the present day; and, on the other hand, all the ancient Expositors agree in identifying these prophecies with some heretical Church. And though the destruction of heathen Rome was a most striking event, yet not a single † witness of any antiquity can be cited in favour of the Exposition of Bossuet and his co-religionists, which sees a fulfilment of the pre would venture to promulgate this Exposition. Peter Olivi was condemned as a heretic, and the Sarabaites were burnt for teaching "Ecclesiam Romanam magnam esse meretricem." See Baluz. Miscellan. i. p. 295; and Appendix D. * See the numerous passages collected from Dante by Wolf, p. 610-613; from Petrarcha, ibid. p. 677-684; and from both in Signor Rossetti's Spirito Antipapale. Primasius, Bede, Haymo, Aquinas, and Ambrosius Ansbertus, who lived either before the corruptions of Rome became flagrant, or wrote under her influence, generalize some of these predictions into denunciations against Heresy; but not one of them supposed them to have been fulfilled in Heathen Rome. dictions of the Apocalypse concerning the destruction of Babylon in the fall of Heathen Rome. Indeed, that exposition is a very modern one; it is an afterthought; and has been devised to meet the other, which Bossuet calls the Protestant interpretation. In a word, the identification of the Apocalyptic Babylon with ancient Heathen Rome is an invention of modern Papal Rome. Let us now suppose, for argument's sake, with Bossuet and the great body of Romish Interpreters, that the predictions of the Apocalypse do not concern Rome as a Church; and that Rome is what they affirm her to be, a pure Church, the "Mother and Mistress of all Churches;" and that there is one thing needful for all,-to be in communion with Rome. What then is the state of the case? I. Here is the Apocalypse, a Book revealing the History of Christianity from the Apostolic age to the day of doom, and specially designed for the edification and comfort of the faithful in the dangers and difficulties 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 from within; you will be tempted to swerve from the faith. But be of good cheer, you have an Infallible Guide. There is one Church which cannot err, and will never fail, |