An excellent Sermon, plainly proving that Rome is Babylon: and that Babylon is fallen.
by William Perkins
Revel 14. Verse 8,
She is fallen, she is fallen, even Babylon that great City: for the wine of the fury of her fornication she hath made all Nations to drink.
The holy Evangelist S. Luke in the fourth chapter of his Gospel recordeth, that on a time, when our Saviour came into the Synagogue at Nazareth, to read as his custom was, there was delivered to him a book containing the Prophecy of the Prophet Esay [Isaiah]. Which after he had opened, at the first he found the place where it was written in these words:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poor: He hath sent me that I should heal the broken in heart, that I should preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, that I should set at liberty them that are bruised, and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.[2]
Then after he had closed the book, and delivered it to the Minister, he sat down to preach, and the eyes of all them that were in the congregation were bent upon him, Then he opened his mouth, and spake unto them these words:
This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears, and they all gave him testimony that it was so.[3]
In like manner may I say, concerning this place of Scripture which I have read unto you: In your eyes and ears is this Scripture this day fulfilled. And I pray God you may all likewise bear witness with me, that it is so.
The last time that I spake in this auditorie, I entreated of the flourishing and prosperous estate of Jerusalem, which is the Church of God, set forth in the 122nd Psalm, and therefore good order now requireth, that I should speak of the decay and overthrow of the enemy of Jerusalem, which is Babylon, the See and Church of Antichrist:[4] and for that purpose principally, have I chosen this text of Scripture to speak of: that by the one we might be enflamed with love of the true Church of Christ, and by the other be moved to the hatred of that false Church of Antichrist.[5] Now this text of Scripture (She is fallen, she is fallen; even Babylon that great City, for the wine of the fury of her fornication she hath given all Nations to drink) offereth me three special things to be considered: first, what Babylon is: secondly, what is become of her: and thirdly, what is the cause of her heavy decay.
In the first part, by the assistance of God, I shall plainly shew and prove, that Babylon is Rome: In the second, that Babylon or Rome, by the just judgment of God is fallen, yea, she is fallen: In the last, the reason of this so sharp sentence of God against her, because she hath deceived all the world with drunkenness and whoredom. Within the compass of these three propositions I will keep myself in all my discourse: saving that by your favor, for as much as this is the middle voice of three Angels that speak in this Chapter, for a Preface, I will use the voice of the first Angel, of whose preaching this my text is a consequent: and in the stead of a conclusion I will touch the voice of the third Angel, which is a consequent of this the middle Angel's voice. Concerning the preface, it shall be this in few words.
After that S. John had described the preservation and unity of the Church of God in Christ their head, even in the midst of the fury of Antichrist, under the figure of the Lamb standing on mount Sion with 144,000 of his chaste worshippers: next he declareth that God would bring the same again into the sight of the world by preaching of the Gospel, and the overthrow of the kingdom of Antichrist. Wherefore he sendeth an Angel flying in the midst of heaven, or between heaven and earth, bringing with him an everlasting Gospel, and preaching that all men should fear God, and give glory to his name, for the time of his judgment was at hand, and that they should worship him that made heaven and earth, and all things that are in them. A very Angelical sermon indeed, and an everlasting Gospel is that, (howsoever the enemies charge it with novelty) that teacheth to fear God, to give glory to his name, and to worship him only that is the Creator of heaven and earth. And a consequent of that Gospel is this Sermon of the Angel.
She is fallen, she is fallen, even Babylon that great City.
For wheresoever men are taught to fear God aright, to give all glory to him alone, and to worship none other but him that made heaven and earth, and all things in them contained: there must needs follow a great fall and overthrow of Babylon, and Babylonical religion, which teacheth the contrary. Wherefore if we love the peace of Jerusalem, to the overthrow of this her great adversary, let us embrace this everlasting Gospel, that we fear God, glorify God, and worship God alone. Again, if we hate Babylon with a perfect hatred, as we ought to do, and therefore would seek her utter ruin and decay: let us procure that this Gospel may be preached, that men may learn to fear, honor, and serve God only, and then undoubtedly Babylon shall fall, she shall fall I say, she can stand no longer. Let this suffice therefore for a preface.
Now have we to consider, what Babylon is. I have undertaken to prove, that Babylon here spoken of, is Rome. But first I must admonish you, how I understand Rome. And that is not only for a certain place in Italy, compassed about with walls, and furnished with buildings, as other cities are: but for that authority, government, and preeminence which is challenged by means of that city, or for the Roman Empire, which is claimed by prerogative of the same cities: and so is Babylon taken in Scripture, and namely in this Prophecy. For in the eleventh Chapter of this Revelation, the same great City is called also Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified: Sodom, for the great abomination and filthiness therein maintained, and Egypt, because it keepeth the people of God in miserable bondage and slavery, as Egypt under Pharaoh did of old. Whereby it is manifest that the great city is to be taken for that tyranny, government, and preeminence, as I said, which is challenged in the sight of that great City: and so is the regiment and governance of the Roman Antichrist, depending upon the prerogative of his See which is Rome.
Literal Babylon is not signified in Rev. 17, but spiritual Babylon |
Now if any will contend, that Babylon must be taken in the proper sense, for a city in Chaldea only, as though we should look for the See of Antichrist out of the East (as the Papists for thirty or forty years ago devised a fable, that was renewed also in Queen Mary's days, of a monstrous child which should be born at Babylon, which they would have men suppose to be Antichrist) he may be flatly convicted of great ignorance, when the Angel in the seventeenth Chapter of this Prophecy testifieth, that her name is Babylon in a mystery, as in the eleventh Chapter that she is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, not in respect of situation of the place, but in similitude and likeness of conditions.
Wherefore it remaineth, that (according to my promise) I prove Babylon here mentioned, to be Rome. The greatest controversy that this day troubleth the world, is, where the true Church of God should be: the Papists making great brags, that it is on their side, and we [Protestants] affirming that it is on our side. This controversy will soon be cut off, and brought to an end, if it may be shewed that Babylon is Rome: for then cannot Rome be the Church of Christ, but the Church of Antichrist. And therefore it standeth me upon, to bring very good and substantial proofs, to maintain this my assertion, that Babylon is Rome. But what proofs may be counted sufficient? Is not the authority of holy Scriptures, and the testimony of ancient Doctors of the Church good and substantial proofs? Therefore if authority of Scriptures be a good and substantial proof, ye shall have Scriptures: if consent of ancient Writers in the same sentence be of any value, you shall have plenty.
And first beginning with Scriptures, I will not allege such places as be hard and dark to understand, but such as be plain, evident, and manifest, and can receive no other interpretation, to satisfy the judgment of any reasonable man. I omit therefore so many figures as in this Revelation do not very obscurely signify, but even directly point at and paint out that Antichristian Church. For although they do so aptly and fitly agree thereto, as a man might easily judge they were made even for the same purpose: yet because they might be wrested to some other meaning, if manifest places did not withstand, I will leave all advantage that I might take of them, and hold me only at this time to those plain and evident demonstrations, which with no equity nor conscience can admit any other interpretation. Only I will here note, that for as much as all figures, types, and colors contained in this book may so conveniently be applied to Rome, as thought they had been properly appointed to describe her, (as they were indeed) it is great prejudice against Rome, although no plainer proofs might be brought. But when so plain arguments are brought forth, that without too much impudence cannot be avoided, and all other figures and dark speeches agree accordingly, it is a manifest conjunction that Rome is none other but this Babylon.
First Argument: REVELATION 11 The two witnesses not limited to two in number When Antichrist kills them, they are revived in spirit as others are raised up The earth is never without the Lord's witnesses |
But to begin with these plain places (as I have promised,) the first shall be out of the eleventh Chapter of this Revelation, the place before alleged: where it is declared, that God in all times, yea in the greatest persecution, would maintain his Church, and reserve at the least two witnesses which should testify of his truth, in spite of Antichrist and his adherents. Which although the monstrous beast that ariseth out of the bottomless pit should murder and slay, yet God should restore them to life again, continually stirring up a sufficient number to bear witness of his name and doctrine.[6]
"...where our Lord was crucified" is not a reference to Jerusalem, but to Rome Rome tortured and murdered the Head; Rome tortures and murders the members |
In that Chapter I say is contained, that when the beast had murdered them, he should envie them the honor of burial, and so their bodies should lie in the street or market place of that great city, which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where out Lord was crucified. Declaring thereby, that as Rome had slain and crucified the head, so should Rome persecute the members. And in the same City where their Lord was murdered, the servants should be persecuted.
But here a man would think that I were impudent to affirm that our Saviour Christ was crucified at Rome, whom all the world knoweth to have suffered death at Jerusalem. But you must call to remembrance, that at the first I gave warning, that I did not understand Rome for the topography of Rome, that is, so much ground only as is compassed within the walls of that City, but for the regiment, governance and prerogative that is claimed, by reason of that City or Monarchy, whereof Rome is the head: and then I shall easily prove that Christ was crucified at Rome.
For by whom was he condemned? was it not by Pilate the Deputy or Lieutenant of the Roman Empire? For what causer or crime was he adjudged to die? was it not for treason pretended to be committed against the Roman Empire? With what kind of execution was he put to death? was it not such as was usual by the laws of the Romans, for such heinous offences as were unjustly laid to his charge? Finally, was not the place wherein he suffered, within the circuit of the Roman Empire? May I not then justly affirm that he was crucified at Rome, when by the Roman judge he was condemned for a crime against the Roman state, and executed by a kind of death appointed by the Roman laws, and in a place of the Roman dominion? As for the Jews, they had at that time no authority to put any man to death, as they confess themselves, when Pilate bade them take him, and judge him according to their own law, meaning they should decree some light punishment against him. They answered: It is not lawful for us to judge him to die.[7]
As touching the cause, although they accused him of blasphemy, in that he made himself the Son of God: yet could he not be condemned for that, because Pilate would admit no accusation, but such as contained a crime against the Roman laws.
As for the death of the cross, it is manifest to be proper to the Romans: for the Jews would have stoned him, if they might have condemned him for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses.[8] And that the Angel in that place by no means can understand Jerusalem, it is manifest by these reasons: first, that he calleth it that great city; which term could never be spoken of Jerusalem.[9]
Also, he calleth it Sodom and Egypt, which was the sea of the monstrous beast Antichrist, which in other places is often called Babylon. Whereas no man ever did imagine that Jerusalem should be called Sodom, Egypt, or Babylon. Add hereunto, that Jerusalem, the place where Christ suffered, was utterly destroyed in S. John's time, whereby it is evident, that by this great city, spiritually called Babylon, Sodom, and Egypt, is meant none other but the Roman Empire, which crucified the head, and should also bring forth to put any man to death: and he hath deserved the monstrous beast Antichrist, which should torment and afflict the members, which began with the murder of the Lord, and should continue, till it were destroyed, in murdering of the servants. And by this plain text, which cannot be wrested to any other sense, this great city of Babylon, where Christ was crucified, is proved to be Rome, and the authority, rule, and power of the Roman City.
Second Argument: REVELATION 13 Daniel's 4th beast had 10 horns John's 1st beast has 10 horns If the former be the Roman Empire, so be the latter |
The second plain and evident proof which I will use at this time, shall be taken out of the thirteenth Chapter of this Revelation, where that evil shapen beast is described, which is the head of the persecuting malignant Church, having seven heads and ten horns: and is the same which afterward in the seventeenth Chapter beareth the great whore Babylon, the mother of all abominations of the earth. Whoso therefore will compare these things that are written in this book, concerning the description of that monstrous beast, with those things that the Prophet Daniel in the seventh Chapter of his Prophecy describeth of the four beasts, and specially of the fourth, which all men confess to be the Roman Empire: except he be too much blinded with frowardness and perverse affection, he must needs acknowledge, that this Beast which John painteth out, is the same that Daniel setteth out: which containing in it the cruelty of the Leopard, the Bear and the Lion, which were the former Monarchies, is unlike to them all, and therefore is the fourth Empire, which all the world acknowledgeth to be the Monarchy of Rome.
What should I speak of the number of the horns, equal in both, and generally of all other parts of their description, which is set forth so like, and almost with the same words, both of the one and of the other, that it were mere madness to imagine that this beast which John describeth, should be any other, then that Daniel had so long before portraited. Then if the Beast in Daniel's description doth signify the fourth kingdom, as the Angel expoundeth it, which no man will deny to be the Roman Monarchy: the same monstrous Beast, being here painted out in this Revelation, with the same shape, colors and conditions, must needs signify the Roman Empire, and so Babylon by this reason also is proved to be Rome.
Third Argument: REVELATION 17 Rome has always been recognized as the City on Seven Hills "Hills" are to be taken in their proper sense, or the Angel has expounded nothing |
The third argument or proof is taken out of the seventeenth Chapter of this Revelation, and the ninth verse: where the Angel expounding to Saint John the mystery of the Beast with the seven heads, declareth in very plain words, that the seven heads do signify seven hills, whereon the woman sitteth. Now seeing it is evident, that the woman signifieth a great City, we must see where we can find a great City builded upon seven hills, and that by the interpretation of the Angel is Babylon, the See of Antichrist. And if we seek throughout the whole world, where shall we find a great City builded upon seven hills, but that great City in Italy? which all Writers, Poets, Historians, Cosmographers, with one consent do confess to be Rome, which is builded upon seven hills, whose names are these: Palatinus, Capitolinus, Aventinus, Exquilinus, Viminalis, Quirinalis, and Calius. This is so plain a notation of Rome to be Babylon, builded on seven hills, that the Angel could not more plainly have expressed Rome, though he had named her.
Nay, this is a more evident and certain description of Rome to be the See of Antichrist, than if in plain words he had said, Babylon is Rome. For it might be, that some other city than that here was meant, might have the name of Rome, but no other city could have this notation, to be builded on seven hills. For Constantinople was afterward called new Rome, but Constantinople was not builded upon seven hills like unto old Rome. Therefore this is a plain and manifest circumlocution of Rome, which with no reason can receive any other exposition.
For what boy going to the Grammar school, and reading in Virgil's Georgickes this verse: Septem qua una sibi muro circundedit arces: That city (saith Virgil) which hath compassed seven hills within her walls. What boy, I say, in the Grammar school doth not understand this to be meant of the city of Rome, although the Poet in that place doth not once name Rome? With what face therefore will any man deny, that the Angel hear meaneth any other city by this Periphrasis and circumlocution, then Rome? For if any will be so froward to except, that the word of hills is not taken in the proper sense, but figuratively and metaphorically for some other thing, as some would seem to interpret seven hills in this place for seven kingdoms, he shall plainly be convinced by these reasons:
First, it were absurd that the Angel should repeat one thing twice; for in the next clause he sheweth that the seven heads do signify kingdoms also:
But specially we must remember, that this is an interpretation of the Angel, which must either be plain and easy to be understood, or it deserveth not the name of an interpretation.
Therefore if the Angel, offering to expound the mystery of the seven heads, giveth this exposition, that they signify seven hills: if hills be not taken in their proper sense, to what purpose serveth this exposition? For if the name of hills hath need of another exposition, he had been as good to have left the name of heads unexpounded. And as for the interpretation of hills to signify Kings, is more obscure, dark, and farfetched, then that heads should represent Kings; for it is more apt by metaphor to call a King an head, then to call him an hill. Therefore except we will say, that the interpretation of the Angel is vain, yea more dark then the thing that is expounded by him, we must needs confess that hills are taken in their proper sense for hills, and then the city builded upon seven hills without all controversy is the city of Rome.
Fourth Argument: REVELATION 17 cont... Rome is the "great City" that ruled over the kings of the earth in John's day Christ wills His elect Church to know the location of the seat of Antichrist
The identity of Mystery Babylon, therefore, is plainly expounded by the Angel, that the elect may know her and flee |
The fourth and last proof that I will take out of the holy scripture, is the last verse of the same seventeenth chapter, which is yet a more plain description of Rome, if anything can be more plain then that hath been already spoken: for there the Angel in plain words expoundeth, that the woman which S. John saw, which was the great whore Babylon, is that great City which hath dominion over the Kings of the earth. What brazen face is so impudent, to deny that Rome was that great city which had dominion over the Kings of the earth at that time when this was spoken? Or what other city had dominion over the Kings of the earth in S. John's time, but Rome?
Who is therefore so froward and untoward, that he will not acknowledge Babylon here to be plainly called Rome? If I should name the chief city of England, who would not understand London? If I should speak of the chiefest city of France, who would not conceive Paris? And when the Angel named the chief city of the world, who could be ignorant, living in that time, or knowing the history of that time, that he understood it of the city of Rome, which was the sea of the Empire, and from whence we should look that Antichrist should come, according to the former prophecies? For it is a shame in this place to fly unto allegories, and further expositions of this Angelical interpretation, which as I said before, if it be not clear, plain, and easy to be understood, deserveth not the name of an exposition: as when one knoweth one unknown thing is expounded by another as much or more unknown, it is vain, superfluous, and ridiculous.
Wherefore, whom any bonds of reason will hold in, they must be satisfied with the exposition of the Angel, that Babylon is Rome. For seeing it was necessary for the Church of God, to know as well the place where Antichrist should sit, as to be instructed of his craft and cruelty: our Saviour Christ, the author of the Revelation, would not suffer his congregation to be ignorant thereof, but sent his Angel plainly to interpret and expound the vision of the great whore, that the Church being throughly admonished of her wickedness, and instructed perfectly to know her, might more easily take heed of her, flee from her, and abhor her: so that according to my promise I have sufficiently proved by authority of holy Scriptures, this first proposition which I took in hand, that Babylon is Rome.
Now that I have proved Babylon to be Rome by authority of Scripture, it followeth that I must shew for the same the consent of ancient Doctors. And as in my former probation I touched only such places as did plainly, directly, and manifestly set forth my purpose, so in this behalf I will deal with the Doctors. Not such as they are wont to allege against us, names indeed of great and reverent antiquity, but works of mere falsehood and forgery, bewraying their authors not to be such as they are fathered upon, but such as out of the body of blindness and superstition of much later time have begotten them.
Such are the decretal Epistles of the old Bishops of Rome, Linus, Clement, Anacletus, &c. Of which, Clement writing to S. James forsooth in his second Epistle chargeth him very earnestly that the Pix [11] be cleanly kept, so that there appear no mice dung [10], or any other filthiness among the fragments of the body of Christ, with many other like Apostolical commandments. The impudency of whose authors appear notably in this, that whereas they were ignorant buzzards that could not write true Latin, they would ascribe their counterfeit Epistles to so learned fathers, as though at that time when women and children spake Latin naturally as their mother tongue, the Bishops were so unlearned, that they did write so barbarously, and were not able to utter their mind in true Latin.
But leaving those delicates for such as long after them, I will use no authority for this purpose, but such as they cannot refuse, but that which is ancient, catholic, and authentic.
First Witness: Irenaeus |
I will begin therefore with Irenaeus, one of the most ancient and authentic writers that the Church hath: who in the fifth book of his treatise against all heresies, speaking of the sea of Antichrist, upon the last verse of the 13th chapter of this Revelation, where it is said, that the number of the beast's name is six hundred, sixty and six, sheweth that the opinion of many in his time was, that seeing this name lateinoV, which is in English, the Latin man, or Roman, in the numerical Greek letters containeth this number, that Antichrist must be sought at Rome. His words are these:
"Also, (saith he) this name L A T E I N O S, containing the number of 666 is thought to be the name of Antichrist: and it is very like so to be, for that which most undoubtedly is a kingdom hath that name: for they be Latins which now do reign."
You see by this testimony of Irenaeus, that this prophecy of old time was understood of Rome, and that the number of the beast's name is to be found in one that beareth rule in Rome. If this exposition or explication of the beast's name had been devised by Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin, it might have been suspected as a thing imagined of spite and envy against the Church of Rome, but when it is brought forth by so ancient a Doctor, which lived not many years after this Revelation was given, as he himself saith, that it was but a little before his time, under Domitian the Emperor, which died thirteen hundred years before Luther was born: we must needs judge it both to be very ancient, and void of all partiality. Wherefore I will pass over diverse other applications of that number to other names, which nevertheless hit Babylon home, because they have been sought out of late by such as bear ill will unto Rome. For I think this is sufficient with all reasonable men of equal judgment, to prove that this is no new opinion, to seek the sea of Antichrist. They themselves to prove their doctrine catholic, allege authority of eleven or twelve hundred years antiquity: behold, this opinion is thirteen or fourteen hundred years old, that Antichrist should be a Roman, and that the sea of his tyranny should be at Rome.
Second Witness: Tertullian |
The second witness of this assertion that Babylon is Rome, is Tertullian, a very ancient writer also, who in plain words affirmeth, that Babylon signifieth Rome, in the third book against Marcion, which denied that Christ had a true body. Wherefore Tertullian useth this reason against him: That thing which hath a figure of it, must be a thing of truth: and so discoursing of many things figured, and the figures of them, cometh to these words:
"Even so doth Babylon (in the Apocalypse of our S. John) bear the figure of the city of Rome, which is altogether as great, and as proud in reign, and as great a persecutor of the Saints, as Babylon was."[12]
You see therefore most clearly and plainly, that Tertullian with all his learning could not interpret these things that be written in this Revelation concerning Babylon, to be applied to any other city than Rome: and he is also a witness void of all partiality or affection to either part of them that strive in our days; for he departed near about fourteen hundred years before our time: why should he not then be credited in this case?
Third Witness: Chrysostom |
Well, next unto him I will join Chrysostom, in his Commentary upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, the second chapter, in his fourth Homily: where as S. Paul speaking of the manifestation of Antichrist, saith, they knew what was the stay, that he was not presently revealed. But when that stay is taken away, he should be revealed in his due time. Chrysostom expoundeth this stay to be the Roman Empire, which must give place unto Antichrist: that like as the Persians came in place of the Chaldeans, the Grecians in place of the Persians, and the Romans in place of the Grecians: even so Antichrist should invade the Empire of the Romans.
"Antichrist (saith he) shall invade the vacant principality of the Empire, and shall assay to draw unto himself the Empires both of God and men."
And is it not manifest that the Papacy grew and took increase by the decay of the Empire, and at the fall of the Monarchy, challenged full possession of all dominion, both spiritual and temporal?
Fourth Witness: Jerome |
Of the same judgment is S. Jerome writing upon the same place of Paul, unto Algasia, in the eleventh question, whose words are these:
"Neither will he openly say, that the Roman Empire should be destroyed, which they that govern it think to be everlasting: wherefore according to the Revelation of Saint John, in the forehead of the purple whore there is written a name of blasphemy, which is, Rome everlasting."
Lo, here another witness of good antiquity and sufficient credit, which not only agreeth plainly with Chrysostom, that Antichrist should take possession of the Roman Empire when it should be decayed in the Emperors: but also most plainly agreeing with Tertullian, calleth that Babylonical strumpet, which is described in the seventeenth chapter of this Apocalypse, that purple whore of Rome, and the name of blasphemy, to be Rome everlasting: as though he had heard the Pope brag to the eternity of his sea, which he saith is the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. But he is foully beguiled, for Rome the sea of his Popedom is by Saint Jerome's judgment that Babylon of whom the Angel preached, that howsoever she boasts of her eternity, She is fallen, she is fallen, even Babylon that great city, and never shall arise again.
They cry out against us, that we rail and speak contumeliously of the holy sea of the Pope, when we call Rome the whore of Babylon: but when the old Doctors (to whose judgment they themselves appeal from the authority of the Scriptures) fear not so plainly in their writings to paint out the Babylonical Strumpet in her right colors, and in flat words to say she is Rome, the mother of all abomination, and the sea of Antichrist: why should we be blamed for saying as we are taught by them? And especially of those men that make so great vaunts that the judgment of the Fathers is altogether on their side, by whom they they offer to be tried, when they dare not abide the judgment of Scripture?
Again, consider I pray you; if the old Doctors before Antichrist were openly revealed, did understand by the Scriptures that he should sit at Rome: what think you would they have said and written if they had lived in these days, and known and seen all that was prophesied to be fulfilled in him? With what confidence suppose ye, would they have inveighed against him? With how open mouths would they have cried out upon him? At least wise do you not think in your conscience, that when they had considered the authority of the Pope, and his wholesome doctrine, they would have changed their minds, and recanted their writings against Rome, and repented that ever they had called her the purple whore of Babylon, seeing she is the holy mother Church of Rome, the sea of the most holy father the Pope the head of the same Church?
I must needs say thus much in your behalf (o ye Papists) as ill as I love you, that if Jerome, Tertullian, and the rest of the Doctors did so account of Rome as you affirm of them, they were much too blame to defame her with such odious names, as to call her the whore of Babylon, which must needs make her vehemently suspected to be the Church of Antichrist, and not of Christ: for what Papist in these days dare say, that which Jerome said, that Rome is that purple Harlot Babylon, which S. John speaketh of in the Apocalypse? The same Jerome in his 13th Book of Commentaries on the Prophecy of Isaiah, upon the 47th chapter writeth in this manner:
For as much as the seventy Interpreters write, not the daughter Babylon, but the daughter of Babylon, some do interpret thereof, not Babylon in Chaldea, but the City of Rome, which in the Revelation of S. John, and the Epistle of Peter, is specially called Babylon.
Note that Jerome in this place accounted Rome to be Babylon the younger, daughter of Babylon the elder. And secondly, that this was not his opinion only, but the consent of many others in his time, and namely, of such as used to interpret the Prophet Isaiah. Thirdly and especially consider, that he affirmeth Rome in the Apocalypse to be especially called Babylon. So that Babylon in the Apocalypse, by his judgment, can be understood of nothing else but Rome, because Rome is there specially figured by Babylon. What meaneth Jerome so often to beat in this nail, that Babylon is Rome? If it had slipped out of his pen but once, he might have been pardoned for his oversight: but when he hath never done writing, that Rome is Babylon, why should we account him any longer for a Catholic?
For in his Preface unto the Book of Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, which he translated out of Greek into Latin, writing to Paulinianus, he uttereth these words:
Of late (saith he) when I was in Babylon, and was an inhabitant of the purple Harlot, and lived after the laws of the Romaines, I thought to intreat somewhat of the Holy Ghost.
What needed Jerome in this place so odiously and contumeliously to call Rome by the name of Babylon, but that he could never consider Rome otherwise, but to be the See appointed for Antichrist? For in other places where he interpreteth the Scriptures and Prophecies, concerning Antichrist, we may less marvel if he interpret Babylon for Rome, because no reason could lead him to expound it otherwise. But here talking pleasantly with his friend, what necessity compelled him to use such descriptions of Rome, but that this persuasion was so deeply graven in his mind, that Babylon is Rome, that neither in earnest nor jest could he forget it, but is always harping upon it, as though he thought it scorn to call Rome by any other name, then that he had learned in the Scriptures to be Babylon, and the purple Harlot? For in like manner writing to Marcella, a virtuous Gentlewoman of Rome, whom he allured to forsake Rome, and to dwell near unto him in Bethlehem, one special reason that he useth to persuade her, is this: That as Bethlehem whither he would have her repair, is situate in the holy Land, and the place consecrated to the birth of C H R I S T: so Rome where she desired to remain, was the Babylonical harlot, according to the Revelation of S. John, appointed for the birth of Antichrist, which there should arise, and exercise his tyranny, and from thence should deceive the whole world with his wicked wiles.
But whoso will read the works of Jerome, may find yet more places, in which he is bold to call Rome Babylon, the very See of Antichrist. Whereby it is apparent, that it is no new or strange matter to seek Antichrist at Rome, when such old Doctors of the Church, so commonly in Commentaries, Epistles, and other writings, do teach us that Rome is Babylon: and the Scripture affirmeth that Babylon is the See of Antichrist. But let us leave S. Jerome, and see what others say of the same matter.
Fifth Witness: Ambrose |
S. Ambrose, writing a Commentary upon the Revelation of S. John, is of the same judgment. Of the authority of the work I will move no question at this time, seeing it is commended to us by Cuthbert Tonstall, a late bishop of Duresme, who found it in an old Library, and first set it in print, under the name of that great S. Ambrose, and is willing that men should so think of it. It is good authority I say, against the Papists, being commended by so Catholic a Prelate, and because they are wont to receive whatsoever cometh under the name of an old Doctor, though it be never so unlike his writing, and cry out upon us for rejecting at our pleasure the works of ancient Doctors, that make against our doctrine: as though we rejected any without cause, or they refused none for any cause: whereas Pigius their great Patron, blushed not to reject the report of two general Councils, the fifth and sixth of Constantinople, which are commended to us by public faith of the Church of Constantinople, because in the one Pope Honorius is condemned and accursed for an heretic, and in neither of both the Popes Legates could have the highest place, according to the request of their ambitious Master. But as for this Ambrose, if he were not Ambrose of Milan, yet it is apparent by the style, that he was some ancient Writer of the Latin Church, and he throughout this Prophecy interpreteth Babylon to be Rome, and Antichrist to be sought nowhere but at Rome.
Sixth Witness: Primasius |
Primasius also a very ancient Writer, who likewise commenteth upon the Apocalypse, expoundeth these Prophecies of Antichrist to be fulfilled in the Roman Empire, and of the city of Rome.
Seventh Witness: Augustine |
S. Augustine in his learned work De Civitate Dei, not once or twice, but oftentimes is bold to call Rome Babylon, and Babylon Rome, as in his sixteenth book and seventh[13] chapter, he calleth Rome another Babylon in the West.[14] And in his eighth[15] book and second chapter, he calleth Babylon of Chaldea the first Rome; and Rome of Italy the second Babylon:[16] willing men to consider, that in the beginning of the city of God, which was the Church in Abraham's time, the first Rome, that was Eastern Babylon her enemy, was builded in Chaldea, and about the same time that the first Babylon was destroyed, lest the city of God should lack her enemy, the second Babylon, which is Rome in Italy was erected. It is a strange matter, that the same city which is the professed enemy of the city of God, should be the mother of all religion, and the very city of God itself. O Augustine, thou wast not well advised to make the City of Rome enemy to the City of God, that Rome should be the same to the Church of God, that Babylon of old was to Jerusalem! The same Augustine in the 22nd Chapter of the 18th book, calleth Rome another Babylon, and daughter of the first Babylon.[17] And in the 27th Chapter he calleth Rome Western Babylon.[18]
By these and other testimonies of old Writers that might be brought but for tediousness, I suppose it is sufficiently proved, that Babylon in this my text spoken of, is Rome, and that we should not seek Antichrist to proceed from any other place than from Rome. But what need I trouble myself to seek further testimonial for confirmation of this matter, that Babylon is Rome, then of the Papists themselves, which affirm that S. Peter in his Epistle, where he sendeth salutations from the Church gathered in Babylon, by Babylon understandeth Rome? And they learn it of Jeronime[19], which in the life of S. Mark doth so expound it. So greedy they are to find a place in Scripture, where Peter should be said to have been at Rome, that they are content to acknowledge Babylon in the Scripture to be understood of Rome.
And thus I have performed, I trust sufficiently, that which I took in hand to prove, both by the authority of holy Scripture in plain and manifest texts, and by consent of many ancient writers, yea by the confession of the Papists themselves, that Babylon in the Scripture is taken for Rome. And thus much for the first part, in which, because I have been over long, I will be shorter in that which remaineth.
All footnotes, headings, and bracketed comments added by this editor.
[1] This sermon comes from a larger work, entitled, Lectures upon the three first chapters of the Revelation: preached in Cambridge, Anno Dom. 1595, by Master William Perkins, and now published for the benefit of this Church, by Robert Hill, Bachelor in Divinitie, etc... London: Richard Field, 1604.
[2] Isaiah 61:1
[3] Luke 4:21
[4] Just as literal Babylon persecuted and enslaved literal Israel...casting all who worshipped not Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, by decree, into a fiery furnace; so has spiritual Babylon - Papal Rome - persecuted and enslaved spiritual Israel - the Church of Christ...sending all who worshipped not the Papal beast, nor his image, by decree, to their fiery deaths at the stake.
[5] Perkins understood that the Revelation details the ongoing history of two Churches - the Body of Christ vs. the body of Antichrist - the seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15).....something rarely taught (much less believed) in "reformed" circles today, let alone in the rest of professing Christendom. Robert Barnes (1531) and Thomas Becon (circa 1547), among others, wrote full-length treatises on the doctrine of the two Churches. As well, a three-part Revelation commentary was written by former Carmelite friar John Bale (circa 1550-57), entitled, The Image of Both Churches. On a related note, and of particular interest to this editor, is a statement Bale made in another work of his concerning Pope Joan, whom the Papists, for obvious reasons, deny to have ever existed:
".....it was the Lord's pleasure to bewray the whore of Babylon in a Pope being an whore..." (Bale, Pageant of Popes, Fol. 56; 1574)
Pope Joan's true identity would never have been discovered - having had her name changed to John English prior to being elected Pope - had she not given birth in the middle of the street while on procession to Lateran church (her fleshly appetite caused her to disclose herself, says Bale, having been gotten with child by one of her familiar Chaplains, a Cardinal). Such an episode resulted in subsequent Papal candidates having to sit in a special chair, wherein their "manhood" could be verified.
[6] e.g. Huss and Jerome of Prague; Luther and Melanchthon; Bucer and Cariton; Zwingli and Oecolampadius; Farel and Calvin, etc. The Reformers and Puritans did not view the two witnesses as literally limited to two in number, nor did they identify them as Enoch and Elijah, or Moses and Elijah. One must wonder why Futurists focus primarily upon Rev. 11:6 (i.e., stopping the rains and turning water to blood) in their quest to identify the two witnesses? In other words, why do they completely overlook verses 3-5, wherein mention is made of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, being identified as the two olive trees, and fire proceeding out of their mouths?
Daniel was clothed in sackcloth, as were many other Old Testament prophets (Dan. 9:3).
Zechariah 4:11 reveals that Zerubbabel and Joshua were called the two olive trees.
According to Jeremiah 5:14, fire proceeded from the mouth of Jeremiah!
So it seems that Futurists actually have at least SEVEN candidates from which to select their future "Wonder Twins!"
[7] John 18:31
[8] Leviticus 24:16
[9] Why don't Futurists posit Nineveh as the identity of the great city, in which the so-called future two witnesses will prophesy and testify? After all, not only is Nineveh referred to as the "great city" four times in Scripture, but was not Jonah a witness for the Lord, who preached unto all of that great city's inhabitants (3:2) - prophesying their impending destruction (3:4)? Have we discovered yet ANOTHER candidate for the role of "tribulation witness" -- effectively giving Futurists EIGHT men, from which they must now choose?
[10] A small cabinet (i.e., secret chamber) called a tabernacle, in which the consecrated host - supposed by the Romish faithful to be the literal body of Christ - is kept. Jesus Christ prophesied of a church that would one day worship a piece of bread, claiming it to be him. See Matt 24:6.
[11] The Reformers refuted the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation by arguing that the Lord cannot be carried off and eaten by mice or rats -- an event so common, that it merited specific mention in the Missale Romanum:
"Should the consecrated host disappear, either by accident, or by wind, or miracle, or be swallowed by some animal, and cannot be found; then let another be consecrated."
Hence, if the Lord is carried off to be eaten by mice, the priest is told to merely create the Lord anew! What blasphemous nonsense!
Charles Chiniquy, former Catholic Priest, in his book 50 Years in the Church of Rome, relates the story of Father Daule, an old priest who, upon finding out the bread he had just miraculously changed into the literal body of Christ had been carried off and eaten by rats, wept like a child and asked why the Lord had not taken his life before such a "calamity" had befallen him. The old Priest's desperation and hysteria had been instrumental in Chiniquy's eyes being opened to the lying sign and wonder that a mere piece of bread could be transformed into Christ's literal flesh. He concludes the account by stating that,
"I had refused, for a moment, to believe that a man can create his god with a wafer! and I had thought that a church which adores a god eaten by rats, must be an idolatrous church!" (page 254)
[12] See also Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews, ch. 9--
"So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of
her sway, and triumphant over the saints."
[13] The citation appears in chapter 17, not chapter 7.
[14] "His son Ninus, who, on his father’s death, succeeded to the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three years when Abraham was born, which was about the 1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another Babylon in the west."
[15] The citation appears in book 18, chap. 2.
[16] "Now Abraham was born in that kingdom among the Chaldees, in the time of Ninus. But since Grecian affairs are much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have diligently investigated the antiquity of the Roman nation’s origin have
followed the order of time through the Greeks to the Latins, and from them to the Romans, who themselves are Latins, we ought on this account, where it is needful, to mention the Assyrian kings, that it may appear how Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God, which is a stranger in this world. But the things proper for insertion in this work in comparing the two cities, that is, the earthly and heavenly, ought to be taken mostly from the Greek and Latin kingdoms, where Rome herself is like a second Babylon."
[17] "To be brief, the city of Rome was founded, like another Babylon, and as it were the daughter of the former Babylon, by which God was pleased to conquer the whole world, and subdue it far and wide by bringing it into one fellowship of government and laws."
[18] "...so at the beginning of the western Babylon, in the time of whose government Christ was to come in whom these promises were to be fulfilled, the oracles of the prophets were given not only in spoken but in written words, for a testimony that so great a thing should come to pass."
[19] Up to this point, I have been unable to find any information on this man.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/ll_twoedged_sword_ll/Reformers/Perkins.html
No comments:
Post a Comment