city by itself was simply "Babylon;" but when the Babylonian spirit had expanded into a whole continent of apostacy, it then became Babylon the Great.

The advocates for the rebuilding of Babylon having thus been fairly answered by Mr. Brown and others, we may now briefly enquire as to the meaning of a very important phrase connected with the history of Babylon, in the seventeenth of Revelation. In that chapter Babylon the Great is said to be the " Mother of Harlots." That phrase has for a long time been very conveniently explained away by the year-day commentators, and by those who so comfortably throw all the judgments of the book of Revelation off their own shoulders upon the Church of Rome. They will all tell you, with easy confidence, that Babylon is Rome, the Mother, and that the harlot daughters are the various Churches, districts, or parishes which are subject to the mother Church at Rome, in Italy. This sounds very plausibly-Rome the mother; Madrid, Lisbon, and Paris, being all Romanist, are supposed to be the daughters. But when we exercise a a little criticism, or even a little physiological reasoning, we shall soon discover the falseness of this interpretation. The Roman Catholic cities, etc., of Christendom, cannot by any rule of logic be called the daughters of Rome. They are a part of the Roman Church itself; they are the body and the limbs, while Rome is the head. They all, united with Rome, make one corporate body-one individual thing. Now, we all know that a daughter is not a part of her mother-she is a separate person; she has an individuality of her own quite distinct from that of her mother-and she is, in fact, no more a part of her mother than of any other human being. All this is undeniable. Yet she has one bond of connection with her mother. She has her mother's blood in her veins; she is descended from her mother.

She resembles her mother in appearance; in a word, a daughter is a person who is born of another person, and resembles her, but who, at the same time, is a perfectly distinct and separate individual. Now, this definition will not apply in any way to the districts, the provinces, or the parishes of the Roman Church. Those districts, etc., are simply parts of their venerable mother, and they have no kind of individuality of their own. Individuality, indeed! why Rome would burn, or at least, excommunicate any Roman Catholic district that should dare to have any individuality of its own. It is the very essence of Popery that it will admit of no separate personality. All its churches and districts must be part of itself, members of that one indivisible body of which Rome is the head. There is no such thing as "mother and daughters" in the Church of Rome, either in practice or theory, all are one body and one individual. The words "mother and daughter" may be used indeed, in a familiar colloquial way when Roman Catholics are speaking of Rome and themselves. But in the theory and dogmatic teaching of the Church of Rome, there is neither mother nor daughter, but simply one body, of which Rome is the head. Nor could there be such things as "mother" and "daughter" in Romanism, because the limbs of an animal body cannot be identified with the daughter of that body, and Roman Catholic Ireland (for example) is only a limb of Rome, not a separate body.

The question then arises, Who are meant by the "daughters" of the scarlet woman? That is indeed a question of importance. The mother

Oct. 1, 1868.

THE MOTHER AND HER TWO DAUGHTERS.

465

of harlots; but who are the harlots? Not the provinces of the Roman Church, as we have shown, but separate Churches: Churches which have a separate individual existence of their own, and which are just as distinct from the Church of Rome as a daughter is distinct from her mother. There must be a family likeness, in the first place, in order to constitute daughterhood, but there must next be a distinct and separate personality, as there is in the case of a daughter and her mother. This is a delicate subject, and one in which offence is hard to be avoided. The scarlet woman, Rome, is the mother. That means, that Rome is the original fountain head of apostate Christianity. From Rome the principal corruptions of Christianity have all flowed forth. They did not, it is true, begin at Rome. Christian apostacy began in the East, even in St. Paul's own time. (See 2 Thess. ii.) But when those corruptions had become as it were a deep and wide-spread lake, the imperial power, the central force, of Rome, drew them all up like the exhalations of a morass, and then returned them again in a perpetual shower, not to their native place alone, but to the whole of Christendom. Rome was the sun, not of righteousness, which drew up the mists of apostacy from one spot, and diffused them everywhere gently and imperceptibly-the unwholesome shower fell over the length and breadth of Christendom; or, to use another figure of speech, Rome was the mother of universal apostacy, and all the distinct Churches of Christendom derived their corruptions originally from her, sometimes directly, and then Rome was the direct mother, in the first degree; sometimes indirectly, and then Rome was the mother in the second degree, the mother of the mother. In either case, she became the mother of harlots.

But, in order to constitute daughterhood, those harlots must be distinct individuals, quite separate from their mother; yet, at the same time, with a strong family likeness, both to their parent and to each other. We are therefore forced by necessity to arrive at the following conclusion, namely, that the Churches of Protestantism are the unfortunate daughters. We know, of course, that the Protestant Churches all branched off from Rome, at one time or other, from the 13th to the 16th century. This cannot be denied, as it is matter of history. So far at least they had one feature of daughterhood. They descended from Rome in one sense at least. But was this the wh le? Had the Protestant Churches no other feature of daughterhood? Have they not many features-many of the innate corruptions of the Roman Church? The Roman blood runs in many a vein which boasts that it is pure. For example, the love of power is the attribute of almost every Protestant Church. So is that deplorable readiness to accommodate itself to the opinions of the world in order to please and to govern the world. So, above all, is that inveterate dislike for the glorious doctrine of the second coming, and the kingdom of Christ. Those three features of apostacy are manifest to all as to the Church of Rome itself, and they are to be found, more carefully disguised, in almost every sect of Protestantism. Who can deny or disprove this assertion?

We must conclude, then, however reluctantly, that the harlot daughters are to be found not in Rome herself, but in Protestant Christendom. The family likeness, the original features, the long-descended corruptions, are all visible in Protestantism. In Roman Catholic Italy you will find the mother, but in Protestant England or Prussia you will find the daughters.

G

Oct. 1, 1868.

Would any nation that was really Christian, for example, have gone to war as we have done, for the sale of opium poison in China, and for the five millions per annum which we derive from that accursed trade? The scarlet mother herself has, in this case at least, been far outdone in transgression by her Protestant daughter. If this be not spiritual harlotry, what is meant by spiritual harlotry at all?

We need not go any further on this painful subject. We leave every reader to draw the conclusion for himself. One conclusion, however, is quite inevitable, namely, that the year-day interpreters, who throw all the burdens and the judgments upon the Church of Rome will soon find themselves wofully mistaken, if not actually condemned, like those who "give flattering titles unto men." Job. xxxii. 21, 22. Protestantism

and Popery will both soon fall under the personal Antichrist. Torquay.

R. A. PURDON.

ANSWER TO THE REV. B. YOUNG ON THE

MILLENNIUM.

CHAPTER IX.

IS THE LORD'S COMING IN ZECHARIAH XIV. LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?

THE

BY R. GOVETT.

THE question stirred by Mr. Young's ninth chapter is, “Are we to regard the Lord's coming, testified of by Zechariah in his fourteenth chapter, as figurative or literal?”

Now, one would think that a person would have only to read the prophet's words to be assured of their literality. "I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof towards the east and towards the west, and there shall be a very great valley."

Now our principle is, that everything must be taken literally where objective absurdity cannot be proved. Is there then any absurdity here? None whatever! Jesus is the Lord of Hosts here spoken of, and he has literal feet which in former days literally stood on Mount Olivet. "At night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the Mount of Olives." And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the Mount of Olives." Luke xxi. 37; xxii. 39. There it was that he sat, when he delivered the prophecy of his return. Matt. xxiv. 3. If now the Mount of Olives is literal, literal are the feet that are to stand upon it. And if the feet are literal, the coming of Jesus is literal. The same follows too, from the saints coming with Christ. Whether they be the risen sons of

men, or angels, their presence is literal. I never heard of any providential coming of the risen, or of angels. But if their coming be literal, literal is the testimony, "The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee." (v. 5.)

Moreover, in previous chapters of Zechariah, we have several events literally fulfilled in the Saviour's history while on earth. It was written, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Now how was this accomplished? By a providential coming upon a figurative ass? But if that were literal, the rest of the prophecy, not fulfilled at that time, must be accomplished at the day of the second coming. Jesus at his first coming was lowly, and rode the ass. But he is also to come as the just, and the issue then is the cutting off of the nations his enemies, the destruction of all the furniture and appliances of war. (v. 10.) And then comes his kingdom, after this slaughter of foes. "The battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen [Gentiles]: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river [Euphrates] unto the ends of

the earth."

It is testified again in Zech. xii., that the coming of the Lord, when all nations are gathered against Jerusalem, shall be personal. The Lord shall smite horse and rider among his foes with blindness and madness; as, in the former day at the Red Sea, he looked out of the cloud, and took off the chariot-wheels of the Egyptians, preparatory to swallowing up the host in the depths. So the Lord then will destroy all the nations gathered against Jerusalem. Then God pours upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace, "AND THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and mourn.” (v. 10.) Here then the scene is just the same as in chapter xiv. The coming, too, is as literal as words can make it. Jesus' piercing was a literal piercing of his body, hands, feet, and side. They shall then as truly look upon and see Jesus in person hereafter, at the time of Israel's restoration, as they did look on Jesus in the time of their unbelief, when they pierced and slew him. I entreat all opponents to submit themselves to this clear testimony of God.

Even Mr. Y. seems staggered by the clearness of Zech. xiv. Here then are two testimonies, given by God, that by their mouth this great doctrine might be established. Jesus, in this chapter of the prophet, calls himself "Lord of Hosts," which is no gospel title. (v. 16, 17, 21.) It demands then another dispensation than the gospel, in order to fulfil it. This proves, that under the gospel the Jews will not be converted: for it is not till they look on the Lord of Hosts that the nation mourns. And Jesus, during the gospel, cannot appear as the "Man of war."

and peace.

'Tis now, grace

But Mr. Y. has something to allege against interpreting literally this prophecy of Zechariah.

I. "The prophecies of Zechariah are full of symbols." Now that is true of the first six chapters, but not of the remainder. And it is in the last chapter that the passage we are examining occurs. Some of the passages alleged by Mr. Y. are, I suppose, quite literal; and others are not symbols, but figures of speech, inserted in literal prophecies. It has been shown above, by two examples, that Zechariah contains prophecies already fulfilled

RAINBOW

Oct. 1, 1868. literally. I will now offer one more example from the same prophet-the giving thirty pieces of silver as the shepherd's price (chapter xi. 12, 13). How was that accomplished? Let the Holy Ghost tell us. Matt. xxvii. 9.

II. His second objection is, "That if you interpret Zechariah literally, you produce confusion and inconsistency." Joel says, "The mountains shall drop new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and water the valley of Shittim." Now, is this to be taken literally? Even so. Will it be more difficult to the Lord, than to turn water into wine, as at Cana? But what do you say to Ezekiel's waters ? Would waters, issuing from the house of the Lord, be so abundant as to form an impassable river? Would there be such virtue in a stream from the temple, as that the trees should give their monthly fruits, "because their waters issue out of the sanctuary?" If so, the heathen and Romish conceit of sacred water will become a reality.' The waters are literal. They are endowed with peculiar blessings, because they spring from a spot made holy by the presence of the Lord God. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Exodus iii. 5. "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy." Josh. v. 15. The heathen idea of holy water was indeed a conceit; for their gods were unclean spirits, and gave no holiness to earth, or water, or building. But shall not the presence of the true God do again what it has done before-consecrate both earth and water? The Romish pretence about "holy water" is indeed a conceit; for God is not hallowing any of the waters of earth NOW. God is the God of heaven now. But shall he not do it in a day to come, when he has promised to do it—when he revisits earth? But Ezekiel sees the waters in one stream, and that flowing eastward; while Zechariah divides it into two." So Matthew speaks of two possessed ones, healed by Jesus at Gadara; Mark speaks of but one. Does that destroy the literality of the possession or of the cure? May not God, in his prophecies, give to one prophet one aspect of his plans, to another seer another?

"But how do you expound the promise that the nations shall come from one Sabbath to another; from one new moon to another; and from one year to another to worship at Jerusalem? How could that be, without constant supernatural assistance?" Well, friend, the case seems very simple. If the fulfilment of God's word requires constant supernatural assistance, then constant supernatural assistance will be afforded. But perhaps God's words only mean, that those who live near shall come up every week, those farther off, once a month; those farthest away, once a year.

III. And now for the last two objections. Literally to understand parts of this fourteenth chapter, would put it out of harmony with the evangelical character of the prophet's teaching." Can any one seriously think that Zechariah's prophecy describes the gospel? I know that the fountain which he describes (chapter xiii. 1), is traditionally taken to signify the Saviour's blood. But any one who will carefully regard the contest must see, that if so, we have no part in the gospel! For the foun tain promised is not to be opened till the day when the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem look on Christ whom they pierced, and mourn in the day, when with terrible valour they destroy all the nations which have beleaguered Jerusalem. And, even then, the fountain is only for "the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem." So, then,