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, "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 as a City, but not as a Church. And, some of them 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 those modern Expositors who identify Babylon with the 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, the Church of 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 foresee, 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 notions, 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, 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, Marsilius of Padua, and the illustrious names of Dante and Petrarch.

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.

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 dogmas, 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 witness of any antiquity can be cited in favor of the Exposition of Bossuet and his co-religionists, who see a 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 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, as 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?

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." 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 is indispensable, and that subjection to her laws in necessary to salvation! How incredible!

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.i.3; xxii.19, 20); and yet they can afford warning and comfort only to a few, for a short period after they were published. Pagan Rome was sacked by Alaric and the Goths in the year of the Lord 410, little more than three hundred years after the Apocalypse was written; and then, we are told by Bossuet and other Romish Divines, 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.

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 sitting in the Church, and teaching error disguised as Truth; and Antichrist 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 the City of Rome, as all allow, 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.

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 prophecies," and denounces a malediction on all who take away from them; or else draw these prophecies aside from their aim, and are impatient with 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 Antichrist 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 xvi.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.xi.14).

And even because Infidelity its 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. Thus Superstition drives them into Unbelief. 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 Antichristianism contemplated by them is not a heathen, or infidel, but a religious, one.

http://www.ianpaisley.org
Email: eips_info@yahoo.co.uk