they are still adorned with noble pictures and fair statues. The riches of her purple and silk and scarlet, and pearls and jewels', are still displayed in the splendid attire of her Pontiff and his hierarchy in their solemn conclaves. The cavalcades of horses and of chariots, with gorgeous trappings, and the long trains of her religious processions, still move along her streets; the 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 sorrow3. She wears the title of Divinity, and calls herself ETERNAL.

Here, therefore, we are brought to the same conclusion. The Babylon of the Apocalypse is Rome. This is agreed by all. Pagan Rome it cannot be. It is Papal Rome.

III. 1. But it may now be said: True, the Apocalyptic Prophecies have failed of their effect, if Babylon be interpreted as representing the Heathen City of Rome. 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

1 Cp. Rev. xvii. 4; xviii. 12—16. 3 Cp. Rev. xviii. 7.

2 Cp. Rev. xviii. 12.

may cease to be Papal, and that then it may be destroyed in the manner described in the Apocalypse.

This, as we have before said ', is the theory of some Romish Expositors, 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.

2. That Rome will again be heathen, and propagate heathenism with the sword, this is an alternative to which, we confidently affirm, no advocate of the Church of Rome could ever be driven, except by desperation. And, what is more, it is irreconcilable with the words of St. John.

3. For, as we shall show hereafter, Babylon is not a heathen, or infidel, power, but a religious one.

4. Next St. John speaks of Babylon as reigning over the Kings of the earth in his own day, he then reveals her future history. There is no break in the prophecy. But if Babylon be some Rome still future, there is a chasm of at least 1700 years!

5. The Beast, he says, on which the Woman sits is one of the Seven Kings, or forms of Roman Government; five of which had then fallen, the sixth then was, and the seventh was to continue but a short time; and then the Beast which is of, or from, the seven would arise, and be itself the eighth 3.

1 Above, p. 303.

2 Rev. xvii. 10.

3 Bp. Andrewes ctrà Bellarmin. cap. xii. p. 289. Plagam accepit caput septimum; plagâ curatâ revixit octavum, Romanus Pontifex, caput regno (i. e. tiarâ) redimitus.

Hence it appears that the Beast was to appear at no great distance of time from St. John's age.

All the five preceding powers, or forms of Government, had not occupied so long a period of time as eight centuries; Rome herself had not existed so long when the sixth or imperial power arose, which was in being when St. John wrote. And now the Apocalypse has been written for nearly eighteen centuries. And can any one imagine that the eighth head has not yet appeared?

6. More might be said against this hypothesis; but it does not seem to require further notice. Let us make one reflection, and dismiss it.

It has sometimes been alleged by Romish Divines, as an objection to the interpretation which recognizes the Church of Rome as Babylon, that they who agree in this opinion are not all of one mind in expounding other parts of the Apocalypse.

This is true. And may it not be said that their discrepancy in other respects gives additional force to their agreement in this respect? Does it not show that this agreement is not the result of collusion or coercion, but of conviction?

And what is the case with those who bring this charge? I mean, with the divines of Rome.

They agree with us that Babylon is the City of Rome; but they are not agreed among themselves whether Babylon is the Rome of 1400 years ago, or a Rome still future! And yet they say they have an unerring Guide at Rome 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 members of the Church of Rome in a state of uncertainty and of variance with regard to these awful prophecies of Scripture which regard the City of Rome? Is this Unity? is this Infallibility?

IV. We have seen that the Apocalyptic Babylon is not Pagan Rome. We pass now to the positive part of the argument, and proceed to show that it is a Church-and that it is the Church of Papal Rome.

1. The City seated on the Beast is called the Harlot; and this, we affirm, is the spiritual name for 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 endearing term of marriage. The Church is His Spouse'. I have espoused you as a chaste virgin to Christ, says St. Paul to the Corinthians 2. Hence spiritual unfaithfulness to Christ is represented in Scripture as adultery.

This idea runs through the Apocalypse. In the Church of Pergamos there are said to be some who hold the doctrines of Balaam, and cause others to commit fornication. At Thyatira there is a Jezebel,

1 John iii. 29. Eph. v. 23-32.

3 Rev. ii. 14.

2 2 Cor. xi. 2.

who, by her false teaching, seduces Christ's servants; and they who commit adultery with her are threatened with tribulation'. And, on the other hand, the faithful who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth, are said to be Virgins, and not to have been defiled with women 2; that is, not contaminated with the stain of spiritual adultery.

The name harlot, therefore, describes a Church which has fallen from her first love, and gone a whoring after other Lords, and given to them the honour due to Christ.

2. But here it is said by Romish Divines,-If a faithless Church had been intended by St. John,

(1) He would have called her, not a harlot, but an adulteress; and

(2) He would not have designated her by the name of a heathen city, Babylon, which never knew God, but by the name of some city, such as Samaria, which once knew Him, and fell away from Him.

Bossuet, who makes these two objections in his celebrated commentary on the Apocalypse, affirms them to be so strong, that they are fatal to the hypothesis which identifies the Harlot and Babylon of the Apocalypse with the Church of Rome.

3

But this assertion may be refuted briefly as follows:

1 Rev. ii. 20. 22.

2 Rev. xiv. 4.

3 Bossuet, Préface sur l'Apocalypse, vii.—ix. "Le système des Protestans (says he) est renversé de fond en comble" by these and similar objections. See Appendix F, pp. 146—151, to these Lectures.