This was their hypothesis. But it is worthy of remark, that this solution did not satisfy other Romish Theologians. Indeed the Apocalyptic prophecies concerning the seven-hilled Babylon are, and ever will be, a problem which cannot be solved in an uniform and satisfactory manner by those who remain under her sway. Another theory, then, has been resorted to; 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.

1

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 Chris

1 E. g. Cornelius à Lapide, Ribera, Viegas, Lessius, Menochius, and others.

tian, discerned the City of Rome in the Apocalyptic 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 We, with them, see the City of Rome in

they go.

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. Heaven 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

1 As is exemplified, in a most striking manner, by the present Pope's Encyclic of Feb. 2, 1849, putting it to the suffrages of the Romish hierarchy whether" the Immaculate Conception" should now be made an article of Faith.

For the history of this doctrine and the principles it involves, see the Author's "SEQUEL of Letters to M. Gondon." Lett. x. (of Sequel). The Bishops of France are said to have already pronounced in favour

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 many 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 alive, they would join with us in affirming her to be 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.

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

of the Pope's proposition, and, whatever the result of the votes may be, and the Pope's judgment upon them, the putting of the question by the Pope is an assertion of power in the present Church of Rome to create articles of Faith.

See the authorities in Wolfii Lectiones Memorabiles, ii. p. 839

that series we may enumerate the celebrated Peter of Blois, the Waldenses, and Joachim of Calabria', Ubertinus de Casali, Peter Olivi 2, Marsilius of Padua, and the illustrious names of Dante and Petrarch.

3

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 undoubtedly is, 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,

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 also Abp. Usher de Christ. Eccl. Success. c. ii. p. 36. c. v. p. 109. c. vii. p. 196. Illyric. Catal. Test. p. 1558. Grosstête, Bp. of Lincoln, ap. M. Paris, ad A.D. 1253. The Bishop's dying words on this subject are very striking. See also Allix, Hist. of the Churches of Piedmont, p. 207.

1 Sec Appendix C.

2 See Appendix D and E. It must be remembered, also, that only they who were ready to incur great perils for the truth 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 Appendix D, p. 143, and Appendix E, p. 144, 145.

3 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. Lond. 1832.

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 predictions 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 by Bossuet and others to meet the other, which they call 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 men,-namely, 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

1 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.