The Roman Church is a Unit

What is meant by the saying, the Roman Church is a "unit"?

In order to answer this question, we must travel back in time, and uncover clues from a situation in which a discussion on the identity of Mystery Babylon is taking place in the Advent papers. There is also a tangentially- related lecture given in Battle Creek in 1851.

Here we consider three and more articles, one lecture, and an exchange of ideas in the Review and Herald. It's not really necessary to map it out entirely. Even if you had all of the material spread out in front of you, it would take some time to figure it all out— to explain exactly who is quoting what, and what the various positions are of each person. If you were to draw that out as a diagram, it would be somewhat complicated. But we can consider the exchange as something like a "peer-review" process which was taking place among Adventists during this time.

Are you glad to know our prophetic understanding is "peer-reviewed"? Sometimes truth arrives miraculously by inspiration, at other times it is hashed out by men with pencils. Someone says, this could be this, but it can't be that, or according to this language, it must be something entirely different.

It is in this way that truth is ESTABLISHED. And either way is a valid establishment, As long as it adheres to the bible, and of course, the rules of language.

In our day, we might consider a word like "vetted." Vetting is a modern political term, which means something like "taking an animal, by which they mean, "candidate," to the veterinarian, by which they mean “investigation.” It means, doing research and investigations into a political candidate, to see if they are really just a "sick" animal.

Along those lines, we can say most of our points of doctrine have also been “peer reviewed” or “vetted.” But it never hurts to continue the vetting process. Hopefully none of our doctrines are really just sick animals about to die on us— those that haven't been thoroughly checked-out.

So, here is just a conversation some Adventists were having in the papers in the 1850s, citing an earlier Millerite article, where they were trying to establish the identity of Mystery Babylon, in order to come out of it. And that's really all that matters about the situation.

The original article was from the Millerite periodical Voice of Truth, September 1844, which was also reprinted in the Review and Herald as the basis of a reply to the Advent Shield.

And the title of that article is one of my favorite titles of all time. I like this title so much, I will quote the title, along with the introduction, just for sake of hearing it repeatedly. The title of the article is:

What is Babylon? The Fall. Come out! Come out of Babylon!

And the introduction is:

Reader!—The subject we wish to investigate, is Coming OUT of BABYLON. You should not be prejudiced against the investigation, for it is a doctrine of the bible. God has proclaimed it; and commanded us to obey his mandate—pronouncing the most dreadful WOE upon all who shall knowingly disobey. Let us therefore fear not the result of searching for the truth on this as well as on all other subjects, nor dread the consequences of embracing and proclaiming it to others, when sure we have found it. With these preliminaries we will inquire: What is the Babylon out of which God calls his people?

That is the title and first paragraph of the article. Isn't it great? I'll bet you like it too now. It's fun to say COME OUT! As I mentioned, all of this material is about obtaining the correct understanding of Babylon, so that we can also follow the injunction to “come out” of it. And as the introduction stated, we need not fear to do so and to proclaim it, for it is a doctrine, and even a commandment in the Word of God which we need not fear to follow.

It's important to know also, that in these replies and refutations, and references, they are not often a complete stricture or denial of another man's position.

Quite often, one author will take what another has written, and be quick to show what is right about it.

They will agree with what is were correct in the reference. It's a shame more people don't work this way today. I'll use some examples to show this. In the 1844 Voice of Truth article, speaking on some differences between the beast and the woman, it states:

”Their seats are different. The beast has the seat of the Dragon, Revelation 13:2, which was at Rome.

But the woman has her seat on "many waters" which are peoples and multitudes and nations, and tongues. Their office is different. The beast carries, while the woman is carried.”

You can see truth is being slowly established here. James White is quick to agree with this, and is likely using it to rebuke the Advent Shield. Clearly there is a difference between the beast and the woman, so he agrees with it.

Later on in the Review article James White references a lecture, which he had likely just attended. This is James White (unattributed) writing in the Review and Herald of December 9th, 1851, and he states:

“Mr. Hotchkiss, of this city, in a recent discourse defined Babylon to be exclusively Papal Rome. Not a few adopt his views; and we believe they are now generally entertained by the different Protestant sects. To this answer we object.”

And by writing, “we object” he is clearly taking issue, or disagreeing with it.

This is the situation in 1851 in Battle Creek, Michigan. A man named Hotchkiss, of that city, had given a lecture in which he identified Babylon with Roman Catholicism.

James White had attended, or been made aware that in the lecture Hotchkiss had stated that Babylon was exclusively or “only” Papal Rome. And this is the point that James White is refuting. He (White) continues with the refutation.

”1st. Because Rome papal does not answer the definition of the term, babylon.

As Mr. Hotchkiss justly contended, Rome, or the Catholic Church, is a 'unit.' She is one in name, doctrine, ordinances, and all her work. But Babylon signifies confusion or mixture.' It cannot therefore be applicable, exclusively to the Catholic Church. It should not be forgotten that there is meaning in the name, Babylon; God has given the name, and rightly applied it: It does not fitly apply to the Catholic Church.

2nd. The catholic church, abstractly, has its seat at Rome; but Babylon has her seat upon “many waters.” Revelation 17:1.

3rd. The catholic church, abstractly, does not reign, neither has she ever reigned over the whole earth; but Babylon, or 'where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues,' (Revelation 17:15) which embrace the whole earth.”

You'll notice that James White writes, as Hotchkiss "justly" contended, meaning that Hotchkiss had rightly said it.

And this is where we find the definition of “the Roman Church is a unit.” It comes from a 1851 lecture in Battle Creek, Michigan, given by one Mr. Hotchkiss, affiliation unknown, where he stated: “Rome” or the “Catholic Church” is a “UNIT.” “She is one in name, doctrine, ordinances, and all her work.”

And although James White disagreed with Hotchkiss' final analysis of a Roman Catholic or Papal Babylon, he does agree with the statement that “The Roman Church is a Unit.”

That's because it is true. There is not any autonomy or diversity of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church.

They are not congregationalists. Catholic churches are not a collection of independent operators. Everything they do is very prescribed. It is dictated down from the hierarchy. She has held her doctrines and practices for a long time, and it is all very well-defined. Everybody knows about it, or easily could if they cared to. She is “one in doctrine,” “one in ordinance” and “one in all her work.” Hence she is called a “unit” in the saying “the Roman church is a unit.” The word unit here, being the root of unity, meaning one. She is one big thing that she is and does. James White immediately adopts this definition, and we see it appear later in some writings by J. N. Andrews.

It becomes a foregone conclusion that “the roman church is a unit,” because it's a simple way to say it. It is a CLARIFYING, even a FILTERING statement.

And the reason we need this clarified, is because it's a REFUTATION. Babylon cannot be both a MIXTURE, and also a UNIT. But many, not just Adventists, but many Christians of every stripe have all kinds of differing ideas about Mystery Babylon, and most, if they think about it at all, have adopted the Hotchkiss idea.

They have been hypnotized or mesmerized by endless repetitions, graphics, memes and power-point slides saying the word "Babylon” and showing a picture of the Pope holding the communion cup or monstrance.

They are thinking about the idea of a woman holding a cup, and here is a man holding a cup, wearing a long dress like a woman, while they hear the word BABYLON. We've been shown this repeatedly, creating a strong mental impression— an association with the word "Babylon" to equate it with the Papacy or Roman Catholicism.

Even so, the truth that Babylon is NOT ROME, has been very well-established. [Peer-reviewed and vetted.] She cannot be both a unified UNIT and also a CONFUSION or MIXTURE. From this truth, other amazing truths are further revealed in James White's 1853 book, Signs of the Times. It's the book, not the later periodical, from which I quote, in which he resounding refutes the idea of Rome being Babylon at all.

And I quote:

“The word Babylon comes from Babel, and signifies “confusion or mixture.” See Genesis 10:10; 11:9. Once when men were all of one language, they undertook to build a “city and a tower whose top should reach unto heaven.” But God came down and confounded their language, so that they “could not understand one another’s speech.” — “So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel, [margin, that is, confusion,] because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth. Genesis 11:1-9. Babylon, signifying confusion, well applies to the many denominations of professed Christians, with their different creeds, holding forth such confusion of sentiments. We are aware that many will object to this view; but we ask such as do object, to make a better application. Do you apply it to the Roman Catholic church, only? If you do, please show when that church (which has always been low and corrupt) morally fell? and, then, as a second event, became corrupted with spiritual wickedness? Again, Babylon, signifying confusion, cannot be properly applied to the Roman church, she being a unit.

Babylon is where God’s people are and from which they are called out, a short time before the seven plagues are poured out. This is evident from Revelation 18:4. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues.” As the plagues are still future and immediately follow Babylon’s fall, and the call to God’s people, the present is shown to be the period of her fallen condition, and the time for God’s people to be called out of her. This forbids the idea of applying the text to the Catholic church in past times. Where, then, are the people of God of this generation? Are they in the Roman Catholic church? No. They have been, and many still are, in the Protestant sects. Bear this in mind: Babylon is where God’s people are, a short time before the seven last plagues are poured out. She morally falls, and the people of God are called out to escape her plagues. This shows the propriety of applying Babylon to the sects, and locates the whole scene in a short period just prior to the Second Advent.

If it be said that the city of Rome is this Babylon, and that her fall is the burning of that literal city, then we would ask, How can the city of Rome “become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” after it is burned. And how is it possible for God’s people to be in Rome, (in order to be called out,) after that city is burned, and is thrown down with violence, like a great mill-stone cast into the sea by a mighty angel, and “found no more at all.” Will God’s people be in Rome after that city is no more? Again, the people of God are called out of Babylon to escape her plagues. But will they flee out of Rome after it is burned, to escape plagues, of which her being burned is her last plague? “Her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire.” — Revelation 18:8. The true application of Babylon is free from all these inconsistencies. The prophecy when rightly applied, will fit like the glove to the hand, being made purposely for it.

We unhesitatingly apply the Babylon of the apocalypse to all corrupt Christianity. The term, signifying confusion, is perfectly applicable to the many different sects, each holding different sentiments, divided and sub-divided, and all united with the world. The Protestant sects are fitly represented by the harlot daughters of the woman of Revelation 17:4-5. The woman that would leave her husband, and unite with, and seek protection from another, would be called thus. The professed church of Christ has left the arm of her true husband, and now leans on the strong arm of the law. She seeks protection, and to be nourished by the corrupt governments of the world, and is properly represented by the harlot daughters of the old mother, she being a symbol of the Catholic church. As the woman should cleave to her husband, so should the church cleave to Christ, and instead of seeking protection form the arm of the law, lean only on the potent arm of her Beloved. The church is unlawfully wedded to the world.” James White, Signs of the Times, 1853.

And to conclude, and to show that BABYLON is NOT ROME, and that this was the ESTABLISHED POSITION for over 30 Years, (even much longer), I will leave you with a quote from Spirit of Prophecy Volume 4—the 1884 Great Controversy, page two hundred and thirty two.

”The term Babylon, derived from Babel, and signifying confusion, is applied in Scripture to the various forms of false or apostate religion. But the message announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to some religious body that was once pure, and has become corrupt. It cannot be the Romish Church which is here meant; for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. But how appropriate the figure as applied to the Protestant churches, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects. The unity for which Christ prayed does not exist. Instead of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, there are numberless conflicting creeds and theories. Religious faith appears so confused and discordant that the world know not what to believe as truth. God is not in all this; it is the work of man,—the work of Satan.”

And this is the significance of the saying “The Roman Church is a Unit,” for Babylon in Revelation can never be a “unit” in which all are speaking the same doctrinal tongue, but Babylon is an apt figure of the multitude of divided, scattered, doctrinal tongues— those which shows the variety and confusion of all of the Protestant Churches.