|
[Back | Home | Contents | Next]
The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop
Chapter II
Section I
Trinity in Unity
If there be this general
coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question arises, Does
the coincidence stop here? To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only
to bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome,
and then it will be seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other.
These Mysteries were long shrouded in darkness, but now the thick darkness
begins to pass away. All who have paid the least attention to the literature of
Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the "Mysteries"
occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities
there might be, in all essential respects these "Mysteries" in the
different countries were the same. Now, as the language of Jeremiah, already
quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source from which all these
systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians,
on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion. From Zonaras we
find that the concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was
to this effect; for, speaking of arithmetic and astronomy, he says: "It is said
that these came from the Chaldees to the Egyptians, and thence to the Greeks."
If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy from
Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the
priests, that is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion
from the same quarter. Both Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to
substantially the same result.
The statement of Bunsen is to
the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and "the
primitive empire in Babel." Layard, again, though taking a somewhat more
favourable view of the system of the Chaldean Magi, than, I am persuaded, the
facts of history warrant, nevertheless thus speaks of that system: "Of the
great antiquity of this primitive worship there is abundant evidence, and that
it originated among the inhabitants of the Assyrian plains, we have the united
testimony of sacred and profane history. It obtained the epithet of perfect, and was believed to be the most ancient of religious systems,
having preceded that of the Egyptians." "The identity," he adds, "of many of
the Assyrian doctrines with those of Egypt is alluded to by Porphyry and
Clemens"; and, in connection with the same subject, he quotes the following
from Birch on Babylonian cylinders and monuments: "The zodiacal signs...show
unequivocally that the Greeks derived their notions and arrangements of the
zodiac [and consequently their Mythology, that was intertwined with it] from
the Chaldees. The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion is not to be
rejected." Ouvaroff, also, in his learned work on the Eleusinian mysteries, has
come to the same conclusion. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian
priests claimed the honour of having transmitted to the Greeks the first
elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: "These positive facts would
sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, that the Mysteries
transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local
notions, never lost the character of their origin derived from the cradle of
the moral and religious ideas of the universe. All these separate facts--all
these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which places in
the East the centre of science and civilisation."
If thus we have evidence that
Egypt and Greece derived their religion from Babylon, we have equal evidence
that the religious system of the Phoenicians came from the same source.
Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of the Phoenician idolatry must
have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers, included Babylonia.
"The worship of the Architic Venus," says he, "formerly flourished as much
among the Assyrians as it does now among the Phenicians."
Now to establish the identity
between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have just to inquire
in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in
these Babylonian Mysteries. In prosecuting such an inquiry there are
considerable difficulties to be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible
at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata of the earth's surface, so
it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a complete and
connected account of the system established in that country. But yet, even as
the geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there,
and what "crops out" of itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to
determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and general contents of the
different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean
Mysteries. What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what
actually "crops out" in different directions, to a large extent necessarily
determines the character of much that does not directly appear on the surface.
Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian character of the ancient
Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us in our
researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine
and practice of the two Babylons--the Babylon of the Old Testament and the
Babylon of the New.
And here I have to notice,
first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The
ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the
unity of the Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as
possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged
that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other
nations did the same. "In the early ages of mankind," says Wilkinson in his
"Ancient Egyptians," "The existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created
all things, seems to have been the universal belief; and tradition
taught men the same notions on this subject, which, in later times, have been
adopted by all civilised nations." "The Gothic religion," says Mallet, "taught
the being of a supreme God, Master of the Universe, to whom all things were
submissive and obedient." (Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) The ancient Icelandic
mythology calls him "the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the
living, and awful Being; the searcher into concealed things, the Being that
never changeth." It attributeth to this deity "an infinite power, a boundless
knowledge, and incorruptible justice." We have evidence of the same having been
the faith of ancient Hindostan. Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of
gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far
otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says:
"Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no image" (Veda). He "illumines all,
delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live when born, and that
to which all must return" (Veda). In the "Institutes of Menu," he is
characterised as "He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the
external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity...the soul
of all beings, whom no being can comprehend." In these passages, there is a
trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very language employed bears
testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far purer
faith.
Nay, not merely had the
ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but
there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of
God, as revealed in His dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest
from the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal
God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the
meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are
carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew
Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words
derived from Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or
compassionate one." But Rahm also signifies the WOMB or the bowels; as
the seat of compassion. Now we find such language applied to Brahm, the one
supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm
had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm.
Thus, we find the God Crishna,
in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a
divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the following words: "The
great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place my foetus, and from it is the
procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the various forms
which are conceived in every natural womb." How could such language ever have
been applied to "The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the
Divine being, before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of
gods, the universal Lord," but from the connection between Rahm "the womb" and
Rahm "the merciful one"? Here, then, we find that Brahm is just the same as
"Er-Rahman," "The all-merciful one,"--a title applied by the Turks to the Most
High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now, had once known that "the most holy, most high God," is also
"The God of Mercy," in other words, that he is "a just God and a Saviour." And
proceeding on this interpretation of the name Brahm, we see how exactly their
religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the account of the
origin of all things, as given in Genesis.
It is well known that the
Brahmins, to exalt themselves as a priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all
others ought to bow down, have for many ages taught that, while the other
castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma--the visible
representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with
him--they alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find
statements in their sacred books which prove that once a very different
doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the Vedas, speaking of Brahma,
it is expressly stated that "ALL beings" "are created from his MOUTH." In the
passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in
connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt
what was the real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty
and exclusive pretensions of the Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever
since the fall, has been revealed to man as the "Merciful and Gracious
One" (Exo 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who in the
beginning:
"spake and
it was done,"
"commanded and all
things stood fast,"
who made all things by the
"Word of His power"
.
After what has now been said,
any one who consults the "Asiatic Researches," may see that it is in a great
measure from a wicked perversion of this Divine title of the One Living and
True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men, that all those
moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of
India so offensive to the eye of purity. *
* While such
is the meaning of Brahm, the meaning of Deva, the generic name for "God" in
India, is near akin to it. That name is commonly derived from the Sanscrit, Div, "to shine,"--only a different form of Shiv, which has the
same meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv, "brightness or
splendour" (Dan 2:31); and, no doubt, when sun-worship was engrafted on the
Patriarchal faith, the visible splendour of the deified luminary might be
suggested by the name. But there is reason to believe that "Deva" has a much
more honourable origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee, Thav, "good," which is also legitimately pronounced Thev, and in
the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo, "The Good." The first
letter, represented by Th, as shown by Donaldson in his New
Cratylus, is frequently pronounced Dh. Hence, from Dheva or Theva, "The Good," naturally comes the Sanscrit, Deva, or,
without the digamma, as it frequently is, Deo, "God," the Latin, Deus, and the Greek, Theos, the digamma in the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in
Greek. This view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord
(Matt 19:17): "There is none good but One, that is (Theos)
God"--"The Good."
So utterly idolatrous was the
Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the Living God,
severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it:
"They that
sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of
the ONLY ONE, * eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the
mouse, shall be consumed together" (Isa 66:17).
* The words in our
translation are, "behind one tree," but there is no word in the original for
"tree"; and it is admitted by Lowth, and the best orientalists, that the
rendering should be, "after the rites of Achad," i.e. "The Only
One." I am aware that some object to making "Achad" signify, "The Only
One," on the ground that it wants the article. But how little weight is in
this, may be seen from the fact that it is this very term "Achad," and that
without the article, that is used in Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead
is asserted in the most emphatic manner, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is
one Jehovah," i.e., "only Jehovah." When it is intended to assert the
Unity of the Godhead in the strongest possible manner, the Babylonians used the
term "Adad." Macrobii Saturnalia.
In the unity of that one Only
God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that
doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the
equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this
day. *
* LAYARD's Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of
their "triform divinity."
In both cases such a
comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to
pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any
similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye
liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"
The Papacy has in some of its
churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of
Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. *
*
PARKHURST'S Hebrew Lexicon, "Cherubim." From the following extract from
the Dublin Catholic Layman, a very able Protestant paper, describing a
Popish picture of the Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be seen
that something akin to this mode of representing the Godhead is appearing
nearer home: "At the top of the picture is a representation of the Holy
Trinity. We beg to speak of it with due reverence. God the Father and God the
Son are represented as a MAN with two heads, one body, and two arms. One
of the heads is like the ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the
head of an old man, surmounted by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure
is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. We think it must be painful
to any Christian mind, and repugnant to Christian feeling, to look at this
figure." (17th July, 1856)
The Babylonians had something
of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a
triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. ** (see figure
3) The accompanying cut (see figure 4 below) of such
another divinity, worshipped among the Pagans of Siberia, is taken from a medal
in the Imperial Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and given in Parson's "Japhet." ***
** Babylon and
Nineveh. Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in
the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of
persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to
heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen
nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.
*** Japhet, p.
184.
The three heads are
differently arranged in Layard's specimen, but both alike are evidently
intended to symbolise the same great truth, although all such representation of
the Trinity necessarily and utterly debase the conceptions of those, among whom
such images prevail, in regard to that sublime mystery of our faith.
In India, the supreme
divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is
represented with three heads on one body, under the name of "Eko Deva
Trimurtti," "One God, three forms." *
* Col.
KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology. Col. Kennedy objects to the application of
the name "Eko Deva" to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on
the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm. But in so doing he
is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that
triform image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a
curse is pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Seva,
the three divinities represented by that image.
In Japan, the Buddhists
worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same form,
under the name of "San Pao Fuh." All these have existed from ancient times.
While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all
the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was
the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in
Genesis. *
* The
threefold invocation of the sacred name in the blessing of Jacob bestowed on
the sons of Joseph is very striking: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God,
before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which fed me all my
life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the
lads" (Gen 48:15,16). If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob
could never have invoked him as on an equality with God. In Hosea 12:3-5, "The
Angel who redeemed" Jacob is expressly called God: "He (Jacob) had power with
God: yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made
supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even
the Lord God of Hosts; The Lord is his memorial."
When we look at the symbols in
the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely examine them,
they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as
signifying "Time without bounds." But the hieroglyphic meaning of the circle is
evidently different. A circle in Chaldea was zero; * and zero also signified
"the seed."
* In our own
language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among the Chaldeans;
for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And whence can we
have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without doubt, had
themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators at once
of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently come
from the Chaldee, zer, "to encompass," from which, also, no doubt, was
derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a "saros."
(BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great "Seed," was
looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle (BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, "the circle,"
and zero, "the seed," was easily established.
Therefore, according to the
genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent founded on
double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, "a
circle," was understood by the initiated to signify zero, "the seed." Now,
viewed in this light, the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows
clearly what had been the original patriarchal faith. First, there is the head
of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for "the seed"; and lastly,
the wings and tail of the bird or dove; * showing, though blasphemously, the
unity of Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost.
* From the
statement in Genesis 1:2, that "the Spirit of God fluttered on the face
of the deep" (for that is the expression in the original), it is evident that
the dove had very early been a Divine emblem for the Holy Spirit.
While this had been the
original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though
this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, yet there is
evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in
the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons
had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human
mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation.
[Back | Home | Contents | Next]
|
