nothing more, when fhe ftands for Rome, whether Pagan, or Chriftian. The concinnity of the figure, and the just correfpondence of the thing fignified to the fign, demands the observance of this rule; which cannot be violated without manifeft abfurdity and confufion. "But why then, it is afked, was fuch an emblem employed? Why was not Jerufalem, or Samaria (of which adultery might be predicated) rather chofen, than Babylon, for the type, or representation of idolatrous Chriftian Rome ?" The reason, again, is obvious. It was, because Babylon was the first of all idolatrous cities; and the fittest [b] to emblematize the enormous guilt, or to set in full light the extenfive influence, of ido [b]-for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols. Jer. 1. 38. Again: Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine, therefore the nations are mad. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev. xvii.the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. latrous latrous Rome. For each, in its turn, was the mother of barlots and abominations of the earth; the former corrupting the heathen world with her fornication, and the latter, the Chriftian. When therefore for this, or the like reafon, Babylon was made the emblem of Christian Rome, the prophet was obliged to retain the idea of fornication, only, and not to interpose that of adultery, through the whole tenour of his application. . It may, further, be worth obferving, that pagan idolatry is, for the most part, exposed by the antient prophets under the notion of LVES, or LYING VANITIES [c]; and very rarely, I think in no more than one or two short paffages, under that of fornication. For vague luft was fo generally practised in the heathen world, and the law of nature, condemning that vice, fo little known, or respected by it, that the metaphor would not have conveyed to a Pagan. idolater the atrocious nature of his crime. [c] Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49. The The Mofaic Law, on the other hand, interdicting fornication in the feverest terms, and requiring that there should be no whore of the daughters of Ifrael [d], the guilt of idolatry was very forcibly, as well as naturally, reprefented to a Jew, under that idea. Accordingly, we find, that the prophets every where, and in whole pages, employ this figure, when they address themselves to Jewish idolaters. Whence it may seem, that, although there be fufficient authori ties to justify the prophet St. John in confidering his emblematic Babylon under the idea of a barlot, yet he would not have prosecuted even this inferior charge of fornication fo far as he has done, and in fo many parts of his prophecy, if his purpose had not been to apply it to a believing, and not a Pagan city. If the myftical Babylon be Chriftian Rome, we fee the force and propriety of this representation; which had clearly been lefs apt, if Pagan Rome, ac [d] Deut. xxiii. 17. cording cording to the Bishop of Meaux, had been intended by the prophet. We fee then, in both ways, why Rome is not an adultrefs in the Revelations; and why she is so emphatically, a barlot. The type employed forbad the former charge, though the anti-type be Rome Chriftian: The latter charge had not been fo much laboured, if the anti-type had been Rome Pagan. Thus, the edge of this acute objection is entirely taken off, and the execution, it was to make on the Proteftant fyftem, prevented. To return, now, to the confideration of our three marks. These marks, it is faid, other many agree to fo befides that powers, of the Papacy, that they cannot be made the peculiar, diftinctive characters of Chriftian Rome. And, without doubt, confidered merely in themselves, they cannot. But, having already understood that the power, thus ftigmatized, is a power feated in the feven billed city, and that too, an ecclefiafti cal cal power, one fees clearly that, if the prophecies have hitherto received their accomplishment in any degree, these marks can only be fought in Papal Rome, and must be the proper, exclusive characters of that power. I fay, one fees this; but, it must be owned, not without amazement, That a fpecies of government, calling itself Christian, and profeffing to model itself on the example of the Lamb, on the pure and fimple principles of the Gofpel, fhould yet be all over stained with thofe fpecific vices, which Chriftianity most abhorsthe utmost pride of fecular domination the most relentless zeal against the rights of confcience and, what is ftill more incredible, the most blafphemous idolatry. The accumulated infamy of thefe crimes ftruck the prophet, St. John, fo forcibly, that, on the fight of this portentous monster, exhibited to him in the vifion, he wondered, as himself expreffes it, with great admiration [e]. [e] Rev. xvii. 6. ἐθαύματα θαῦμα μέγα. But, |