|
[Back | Home | Contents | Next]
The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop
Chapter VII
Section II
The Beast from the Sea
The next great enemy
introduced to our notice is the Beast from the Sea (Rev 13:1): "I
stood," says John, "upon the sand of the sea-shore, and saw a beast rise
up out of the sea." The seven heads and ten horns on this beast, as on the
great dragon, show that this power is essentially the same beast, but that it
has undergone a circumstantial change. In the old Babylonian system, after the
worship of the god of fire, there speedily followed the worship of the god of
water or the sea. As the world formerly was in danger of being burnt up, so now
it was in equal danger of being drowned. In the Mexican story it is said to
have actually been so. First, say they, it was destroyed by fire, and then it
was destroyed by water. The Druidic mythology gives the same account; for the
Bards affirm that the dreadful tempest of fire that split the earth asunder,
was rapidly succeeded by the bursting of the Lake Llion, when the waters of the
abyss poured forth and "overwhelmed the whole world." In Greece we meet with
the very same story. Diodorus Siculus tells us that, in former times, "a
monster called Aegides, who vomited flames, appeared in Phrygia; hence
spreading along Mount Taurus, the conflagration burnt down all the woods as far
as India; then, with a retrograde course, swept the forests of Mount Lebanon,
and extended as far as Egypt and Africa; at last a stop was put to it by
Minerva. The Phrygians remembered well this CONFLAGRATION and the FLOOD which
FOLLOWED it." Ovid, too, has a clear allusion to the same fact of the
fire-worship being speedily followed by the worship of water, in his fable of
the transformation of Cycnus. He represents King Cycnus, an attached
friend of Phaethon, and consequently of fire-worship, as, after his friend's
death, hating the fire, and taking to the contrary element that of water, through fear, and so being transformed into a swan. In
India, the great deluge, which occupies so conspicuous a place in its
mythology, evidently has the same symbolical meaning, although the story of
Noah is mixed up with it; for it was during that deluge that "the lost Vedas,"
or sacred books, were recovered, by means of the great god, under the
form of a FISH. The "loss of the Vedas" had evidently taken place at that very
time of terrible disaster to the gods, when, according to the Purans, a great
enemy of these gods, called Durgu, "abolished all religious ceremonies, the
Brahmins, through fear, forsook the reading of the Veda,...fire lost its
energy, and the terrified stars retired from sight"; in other words, when
idolatry, fire-worship, and the worship of the host of heaven had been
suppressed. When we turn to Babylon itself, we find there also substantially
the same account.
In Berosus, the deluge is
represented as coming after the time of Alorus, or the "god of fire,"
that is, Nimrod, which shows that there, too, this deluge was symbolical. Now,
out of this deluge emerged Dagon, the fish-god, or god of the sea. The origin
of the worship of Dagon, as shown by Berosus, was founded upon a legend, that,
at a remote period of the past, when men were sunk in barbarism, there came up
a BEAST CALLED OANNES FROM THE RED SEA, or Persian Gulf--half-man,
half-fish--that civilised the Babylonians, taught them arts and sciences, and
instructed them in politics and religion. The worship of Dagon was introduced
by the very parties--Nimrod, of course, excepted--who had previously seduced
the world into the worship of fire. In the secret Mysteries that were then set
up, while in the first instance, no doubt, professing the greatest antipathy to
the prescribed worship of fire, they sought to regain their influence and power
by scenic representations of the awful scenes of the Flood, in which Noah was
introduced under the name of Dagon, or the Fish-god--scenes in which the whole
family of man, both from the nature of the event and their common connection
with the second father of the human race, could not fail to feel a deep
interest. The concocters of these Mysteries saw that if they could only bring
men back again to idolatry in any shape, they could soon work that idolatry so
as substantially to re-establish the very system that had been put down. Thus
it was, that, as soon as the way was prepared for it, Tammuz was introduced as
one who had allowed himself to be slain for the good of mankind. A distinction
was made between good serpents and bad serpents, one kind being represented as
the serpent of Agathodaemon, or the good divinity, another as the serpent of
Cacodaemon, or the evil one. *
* WILKINSON.
In Egypt, the Uraeus, or the Cerastes, was the good serpent, the Apophis the
evil one.
It was easy, then, to lead men
on by degrees to believe that, in spite of all appearances to the contrary,
Tammuz, instead of being the patron of serpent-worship in any evil sense, was
in reality the grand enemy of the Apophis, or great malignant serpent that
envied the happiness of mankind, and that in fact he was the very seed of the
woman who was destined to bruise the serpent's head. By means of the
metempsychosis, it was just as easy to identify Nimrod and Noah, and to make it
appear that the great patriarch, in the person of this his favoured descendant,
had graciously condescended to become incarnate anew, as Dagon, that he might
bring mankind back again to the blessings they had lost when Nimrod was slain.
Certain it is, that Dagon was worshipped in the Chaldean Mysteries, wherever
they were established, in a character that represented both the one and the
other.
In the previous system, the
grand mode of purification had been by fire. Now, it was by water that
men were to be purified. Then began the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,
connected, as we have seen, with the passing of Noah through the waters of the
Flood. Then began the reverence for holy wells, holy lakes, holy rivers, which
is to be found wherever these exist on the earth; which is not only to be
traced among the Parsees, who, along with the worship of fire, worship also the
Zereparankard, or Caspian Sea, and among the Hindoos, who worship the purifying
waters of the Ganges, and who count it the grand passport to heaven, to leave
their dying relatives to be smothered in its stream; but which is seen in full
force at this day in Popish Ireland, in the universal reverence for holy wells,
and the annual pilgrimages to Loch Dergh, to wash away sin in its blessed
waters; and which manifestly lingers also among ourselves, in the popular
superstition about witches which shines out in the well-known line of Burns--
"A
running stream they daurna cross."
So much for the worship of
water. Along with the water-worship, however, the old worship of fire was soon
incorporated again. In the Mysteries, both modes of purification were
conjoined. Though water-baptism was held to regenerate, yet purification by
fire was still held to be indispensable; * and, long ages after baptismal
regeneration had been established, the children were still made "to pass
through the fire to Moloch." This double purification both by fire and
water was practised in Mexico, among the followers of Wodan. This double
purification was also commonly practised among the old Pagan Romans; ** and, in
course of time, almost everywhere throughout the Pagan world, both the
fire-worship and serpent-worship of Nimrod, which had been put down, was
re-established in a new form, with all its old and many additional abominations
besides.
* The name
Tammuz, as applied to Nimrod or Osiris, was equivalent to Alorus or the "god of
fire," and seems to have been given to him as the great purifier by fire.
Tammuz is derived from tam, "to make perfect," and muz, "fire,"
and signifies "Fire the perfecter," or "the perfecting fire." To this meaning
of the name, as well as to the character of Nimrod as the Father of the
gods, the Zoroastrian verse alludes when it says: "All things are the progeny
of ONE FIRE. The Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the second
mind, whom all nations of men call the first." (CORY'S Fragments) Here
Fire is declared to be the Father of all; for all things are said to be
its progeny, and it is also called the "perfecter of all things."
The second mind is evidently the child who displaced Nimrod's image as an
object of worship; but yet the agency of Nimrod, as the first of the gods, and
the fire-god, was held indispensable for "perfecting" men. And hence, too, no
doubt, the necessity of the fire of Purgatory to "perfect" men's souls
at last, and to purge away all the sins that they have carried with them into
the unseen world.
** OVID, Fasti. It was not a little interesting to me, after being led by strict
induction from circumstantial evidence to the conclusion that the purgation by
fire was derived from the fire-worship of Adon or Tammuz, and that by water had
reference to Noah's Flood, to find an express statement in Ovid, that such was
the actual belief at Rome in his day. After mentioning, in the passage to which
the above citation refers, various fanciful reasons for the twofold purgation
by fire and water, he concludes thus: "For my part, I do not believe them;
there are some (however) who say that the one is intended to commemorate
Phaethon, and the other the flood of Deucalion."
If, however, any
one should still think it unlikely that the worship of Noah should be mingled
in the ancient world with the worship of the Queen of Heaven and her son, let
him open his eyes to what is taking place in Italy at this hour [in 1856] in
regard to the worship of that patriarch and the Roman Queen of Heaven. The
following, kindly sent me by Lord John Scott, as confirmatory of the views
propounded in these pages, appeared in the Morning Herald, October 26,
1855: "AN ARCHBISHOP'S PRAYER TO THE PATRIARCH NOAH.-POPERY IN TURIN.--For
several consecutive years the vintage has been almost entirely destroyed in
Tuscany, in consequence of the prevalent disease. The Archbishop of Florence
has conceived the idea of arresting this plague by directing prayers to be
offered, not to God, but to the patriarch Noah; and he has just published a
collection, containing eight forms of supplication, addressed to this
distinguished personage of the ancient covenant. 'Most holy patriarch Noah!' is
the language of one of these prayers, 'who didst employ thyself in thy long
career in cultivating the vine, and gratifying the human race with that
precious beverage, which allays the thirst, restores the strength, and enlivens
the spirits of us all, deign to regard our vines, which, following thine
example, we have cultivated hitherto; and, while thou beholdest them
languishing and blighted by that disastrous visitation, which, before the
vintage, destroys the fruit (in severe punishment for many blasphemies and
other enormous sins we have committed), have compassion on us, and, prostrate
before the lofty throne of God, who has promised to His children the fruits of
the earth, and an abundance of corn and wine, entreat Him on our behalf;
promise Him in our name, that, with the aid of Divine grace, we will forsake
the ways of vice and sin, that we will no longer abuse His sacred gifts, and
will scrupulously observe His holy law, and that of our holy Mother, the
Catholic Church,' &c. The collection concludes with a new prayer, addressed
to the Virgin Mary, who is invoked in these words: 'O immaculate Mary, behold
our fields and vineyards! and, should it seem to thee that we merit so great a
favour, stay, we beseech thee, this terrible plague, which, inflicted for our
sins, renders our fields unfruitful, and deprives our vines of the honours of
the vintage,' &c. The work contains a vignette, representing the patriarch
Noah presiding over the operations of the vintage, as well as a notification
from the Archbishop, granting an indulgence of forty days to all who shall
devoutly recite the prayers in question.--Christian Times" In view of
such rank Paganism as this, well may the noble Lord already referred to remark,
that surely here is the world turned backwards, and the worship of the old god
Bacchus unmistakably restored!
Now, this god of the sea, when
his worship had been firmly re-established, and all formidable opposition had
been put down, was worshipped also as the great god of war, who, though he had
died for the good of mankind, now that he had risen again, was absolutely
invincible. In memory of this new incarnation, the 25th of December, otherwise
Christmas Day, was, as we have already seen, celebrated in Pagan Rome as
"Natalis Solis invicti," "the birth-day of the Unconquered Sun." We have
equally seen that the very name of the Roman god of war is just the name of
Nimrod; for Mars and Mavors, the two well-known names of the Roman war-god, are
evidently just the Roman forms of the Chaldee "Mar" or "Mavor," the Rebel. Thus
terrible and invincible was Nimrod when he reappeared as Dagon, the beast from
the sea. If the reader looks at what is said in Revelation 13:3, he will see
precisely the same thing: "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded unto
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the
beast. And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power unto the beast, and
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to
make war with him?" Such, in all respects, is the analogy between the language
of the prophecy and the ancient Babylonian type.
Do we find, then, anything
corresponding to this in the religious history of the Roman empire after the
fall of the old Paganism of that empire? Exactly in every respect. No sooner
was Paganism legally abolished, the eternal fire of Vesta extinguished, and the
old serpent cast down from the seat of power, where so long he had sat secure,
than he tried the most vigorous means to regain his influence and authority.
Finding that persecution of Christianity, as such, in the meantime would not do
to destroy the church symbolised by the sun-clothed Woman, he made another tack
(Rev 12:15):
"And the serpent
cast out of his mouth a flood of water after the woman, that he might cause her
to be carried away of the flood."
The symbol here is certainly
very remarkable. If this was the dragon of fire, it might have been
expected that it would have been represented, according to popular myths, as
vomiting fire after the woman. But it is not so. It was a flood of water that he cast out of his mouth. What could this mean? As the water came out of
the mouth of the dragon--that must mean doctrine, and of course, false doctrine. But is there nothing more specific than this? A single
glance at the old Babylonian type will show that the water cast out of the
mouth of the serpent must be the water of baptismal regeneration. Now,
it was precisely at this time, when the old Paganism was suppressed, that the
doctrine of regenerating men by baptism, which had been working in the
Christian Church before, threatened to spread like a deluge over the face of
the Roman empire. *
* From about
AD 360, to the time of the Emperor Justinian, about 550, we have evidence both
of the promulgation of this doctrine, and also of the deep hold it came at last
to take of professing Christians.
It was then precisely that our
Lord Jesus Christ began to be popularly called Ichthys, that is, "the Fish,"
manifestly to identify him with Dagon. At the end of the fourth century, and
from that time forward, it was taught, that he who had been washed in the
baptismal font was thereby born again, and made pure as the virgin snow.
This flood issued not merely
from the mouth of Satan, the old serpent, but from the mouth of him who came to
be recognised by the Pagans of Rome as the visible head of the old Roman
Paganism. When the Roman fire-worship was suppressed, we have seen that the
office of Pontifex Maximus, the head of that Paganism, was abolished. That was
"the wounding unto death" of the head of the Fiery Dragon. But scarcely had
that head received its deadly wound, when it began to be healed again. Within a
few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived,
and that by the very Emperor that had abolished it, and was bestowed, with all
the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from
that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing
Christendom, first the ruinous doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and then all
the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. When this Pagan
title was bestowed on the Roman bishop, it was not as a mere empty title of
honour it was bestowed, but as a title to which formidable power was annexed.
To the authority of the Bishop of Rome in this new character, as Pontifex, when
associated "with five or seven other bishops" as his counsellors, bishops, and
even metropolitans of foreign churches over extensive regions of the West, in
Gaul not less than in Italy, were subjected; and civil pains were attached to
those who refused to submit to his pontifical decisions. Great was the danger
to the cause of truth and righteousness when such power was, by imperial
authority, vested in the Roman bishop, and that a bishop so willing to give
himself to the propagation of false doctrine. Formidable, however, as the
danger was, the true Church, the Bride, the Lamb's wife (so far as that Church
was found within the bounds of the Western Empire), was wonderfully protected
from it. That Church was for a time saved from the peril, not merely by the
mountain fastnesses in which many of its devoted members found an asylum, as
Jovinian, Vigilantius, and the Waldenses, and such-like faithful ones, in the
wilderness among the Cottian Alps, and other secluded regions of Europe, but
also not a little, by a signal interposition of Divine Providence in its
behalf. That interposition is referred to in these words (Rev 12:16):
"The earth opened
her mouth and swallowed up the flood, which the dragon cast out of his
mouth."
What means the symbol of the
"earth's opening its mouth"? In the natural world, when the earth opens its
mouth, there is an earthquake; and an "earthquake," according to the figurative
language of the Apocalypse, as all admit, just means a great political
convulsion. Now, when we examine the history of the period in question, we find
that the fact exactly agrees with the prefiguration; that soon after the Bishop
of Rome because Pontiff, and, as Pontiff, set himself so zealously to bring in
Paganism into the Church, those political convulsions began in the civil empire
of Rome, which never ceased till the framework of that empire was broken up,
and it was shattered to pieces. But for this the spiritual power of the Papacy
might have been firmly established over all the nations of the West, long
before the time it actually was so. It is clear, that immediately after
Damasus, the Roman bishop, received his pontifical power, the predicted
"apostacy" (1 Tim 4:3), so far as Rome was concerned, was broadly developed.
Then were men "forbidden to marry," * and "commanded to abstain from meats."
* The
celibacy of the clergy was enacted by Syricius, Bishop of Rome, AD 385.
(GIESELER)
Then, with a factitious
doctrine of sin, a factitious holiness also was inculcated, and people were led
to believe that all baptised persons were necessarily regenerated. Had the
Roman Empire of the West remained under one civil head, backed by that civil
head, the Bishop of Rome might very soon have infected all parts of that empire
with the Pagan corruption he had evidently given himself up to propagate.
Considering the cruelty with which Jovinian, and all who opposed the Pagan
doctrines in regard to marriage and abstinence, were treated by the Pontifex of
Rome, under favour of the imperial power, it may easily be seen how serious
would have been the consequences to the cause of truth in the Western Empire
had this state of matters been allowed to pursue its natural course. But now
the great Lord of the Church interfered. The "revolt of the Goths," and the
sack of Rome by Alaric the Goth in 410, gave that shock to the Roman Empire
which issued, by 476, in its complete upbreaking and the extinction of the
imperial power. Although, therefore, in pursuance of the policy previously
inaugurated, the Bishop of Rome was formally recognised, by an imperial edict
in 445, as "Head of all the Churches of the West," all bishops being commanded
"to hold and observe as a law whatever it should please the Bishop of Rome to
ordain or decree"; the convulsions of the empire, and the extinction, soon
thereafter, of the imperial power itself, to a large extent nullified the
disastrous effects of this edict. The "earth's opening its mouth," then--in
other words, the breaking up of the Roman Empire into so many independent
sovereignties--was a benefit to true religion, and prevented the flood of error
and corruption, that had its source in Rome, from flowing as fast and as far as
it would otherwise have done.
When many different wills in
the different countries were substituted for the one will of the
Emperor, on which the Sovereign Pontiff leaned, the influence of that Pontiff
was greatly neutralised. "Under these circumstances," says Gieseler, referring
to the influence of Rome in the different kingdoms into which the empire was
divided, "under these circumstances, the Popes could not directly interfere in
ecclesiastical matters; and their communications with the established Church of
the country depended entirely on the royal pleasure." The Papacy at last
overcame the effects of the earthquake, and the kingdoms of the West were
engulfed in that flood of error that came out of the mouth of the dragon. But
the overthrow of the imperial power, when so zealously propping up the
spiritual despotism of Rome, gave the true Church in the West a lengthened
period of comparative freedom, which otherwise it could not have had. The Dark
Ages would have come sooner, and the darkness would have been more intense, but for the Goths and Vandals, and the political convulsions that
attended their irruptions. They were raised up to scourge an apostatising
community, not to persecute the saints of the Most High, though these,
too, may have occasionally suffered in the common distress. The hand of
Providence may be distinctly seen, in that, at so critical a moment, the earth
opened its mouth and helped the woman.
To return, however, to the
memorable period when the pontifical title was bestowed on the Bishop of Rome.
The circumstances in which that Pagan title was bestowed upon Pope Damasus,
were such as might have been not a little trying to the faith and integrity of
a much better man than he. Though Paganism was legally abolished in the Western
Empire of Rome, yet in the city of the Seven Hills it was still rampant,
insomuch that Jerome, who knew it well, writing of Rome at this very period,
calls it "the sink of all superstitions." The consequence was, that, while
everywhere else throughout the empire the Imperial edict for the abolition of
Paganism was respected, in Rome itself it was, to a large extent, a dead
letter.
Symmachus, the prefect of the
city, and the highest patrician families, as well as the masses of the people,
were fanatically devoted to the old religion; and, therefore, the Emperor found
it necessary, in spite of the law, to connive at the idolatry of the Romans.
How strong was the hold that Paganism had in the Imperial city, even after the
fire of Vesta was extinguished, and State support was withdrawn from the
Vestals, the reader may perceive from the following words of Gibbon: "The image
and altar of Victory were indeed removed from the Senate-house; but the Emperor
yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed to public view; four
hundred and twenty-four temples or chapels still remained to satisfy the
devotion of the people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice." Thus strong was
Paganism in Rome, even after State support was withdrawn about 376. But look
forward only about fifty years, and see what has become of it. The name of
Paganism has almost entirely disappeared; insomuch that the younger Theodosius,
in an edict issued AD 423, uses these words: "The Pagans that remain, although
now we may believe there are none." The words of Gibbon in reference to this
are very striking. While fully admitting that, notwithstanding the Imperial
laws made against Paganism, "no peculiar hardships" were imposed on "the
sectaries who credulously received the fables of Ovid, and obstinately rejected
the miracles of the Gospel," he expresses his surprise at the rapidity of the
revolution that took place among the Romans from Paganism to Christianity. "The
ruin of Paganism," he says--and his dates are from AD 378, the year when the
Bishop of Rome was made Pontifex, to 395--"The ruin of Paganism, in the age of
Theodosius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any
ancient and popular superstition; and may therefore deserve to be considered as
a singular event in the history of the human mind."...After referring to the
hasty conversion of the senate, he thus proceeds: "The edifying example of the
Anician family [in embracing Christianity] was soon imitated by the rest of the
nobility...The citizens who subsisted by their own industry, and the populace
who were supported by the public liberality, filled the churches of the Lateran
and Vatican with an incessant throng of devout proselytes. The decrees of the
senate, which proscribed the worship of idols, were ratified by the general
consent of the Romans; the splendour of the capitol was defaced, and the
solitary temples were abandoned to ruin and contempt. Rome submitted to the
yoke of the Gospel...The generation that arose in the world, after the
promulgation of Imperial laws, was ATTRACTED within the pale of the Catholic
Church, and so RAPID, yet so GENTLE was the fall of Paganism, that only
twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius [the elder], the faint and
minute vestiges were no longer visible to the eye of the legislator." Now, how
can this great and rapid revolution be accounted for? Is it because the Word of
the Lord has had free course and been glorified? Then, what means the new
aspect that the Roman Church has now begun to assume? In exact proportion as
Paganism has disappeared from without the Church, in the very same
proportion it appears within it. Pagan dresses for the priests, Pagan
festivals for the people, Pagan doctrines and ideas of all sorts, are
everywhere in vogue. The testimony of the same historian, who has spoken so
decisively about the rapid conversion of the Romans to the profession of the
Gospel, is not less decisive on this point. In his account of the Roman Church,
under the head of "Introduction of Pagan Ceremonies," he thus speaks:
"As the objects of
religion were gradually reduced to the standard of the imagination, the rites
and ceremonies were introduced that seemed most powerfully to effect the senses
of the vulgar. If, in the beginning of the fifth century, Tertullian or
Lactantius had been suddenly raised from the dead, to assist at the festival of
some popular saint or martyr, they would have gazed with astonishment and
indignation on the profane spectacle which had succeeded to the pure and
spiritual worship of a Christian congregation. As soon as the doors of the
church were thrown open, they must have been offended by the smoke of incense,
the perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused at
noon-day a gaudy, superfluous, and, in their opinion, sacrilegious light."
Gibbon has a great deal more
to the same effect. Now, can any one believe that this was accidental? No. It
was evidently the result of that unprincipled policy, of which, in the course
of this inquiry, we have already seen such innumerable instances on the part of
the Papacy. *
* Gibbon
distinctly admits this. "It must ingenuously be confessed," says he, "that the
ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model they were so
impatient to destroy."
Pope Damasus saw that, in a
city pre-eminently given to idolatry, if he was to maintain the Gospel pure and
entire, he must be willing to bear the cross, to encounter hatred and ill-will,
to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, he
could not but equally see, that if bearing the title, around which, for
so many ages, all the hopes and affections of Paganism had clustered, he should
give its votaries reason to believe that he was willing to act up to the
original spirit of that title, he might count on popularity, aggrandisement and
glory. Which alternative, then, was Damasus likely to choose? The man that came
into the bishopric of Rome, as a thief and a robber, over the dead bodies of
above a hundred of his opponents, could not hesitate as to the election he
should make. The result shows that he had acted in character, that, in assuming
the Pagan title of Pontifex, he had set himself at whatever sacrifice of truth
to justify his claims to that title in the eyes of the Pagans, as the
legitimate representative of their long line of pontiffs. There is no
possibility of accounting for the facts on any other supposition. It is evident
also that he and his successors were ACCEPTED in that character by the Pagans,
who, in flocking into the Roman Church, and rallying around the new Pontiff,
did not change their creed or worship, but brought both into the
Church along with them. The reader has seen how complete and perfect is the
copy of the old Babylonian Paganism, which, under the patronage of the Popes,
has been introduced into the Roman Church. He has seen that the god whom the
Papacy worships as the Son of the Highest, is not only, in spite of a Divine
command, worshipped under the form of an image, made, as in the days of avowed
Paganism, by art and man's device, but that attributes are ascribed to Him
which are the very opposite of those which belong to the merciful
Saviour, but which attributes are precisely those which were ascribed to
Moloch, the fire-god, or Ala Mahozim, "the god of fortifications." He has seen
that, about the very time when the Bishop of Rome was invested with the Pagan
title of Pontifex, the Saviour began to be called Ichthys, or "the Fish,"
thereby identifying Him with Dagon, or the Fish-god; and that, ever since,
advancing step by step, as circumstances would permit, what has gone under the
name of the worship of Christ, has just been the worship of that same
Babylonian divinity, with all its rites and pomps and ceremonies, precisely as
in ancient Babylon. Lastly, he has seen that the Sovereign Pontiff of the
so-called Christian Church of Rome has so wrought out the title bestowed
upon him in the end of the fourth century, as to be now dignified, as for
centuries he has been, with the very "names of blasphemy" originally bestowed
on the old Babylonian pontiffs. *
* The reader
who has seen the first edition of this work, will perceive that, in the above
reasoning, I found nothing upon the formal appointment by Gratian of the Pope
as Pontifex, with direct authority over the Pagans, as was done in that
edition. That is not because I do not believe that such an appointment was
made, but because, at the present moment, some obscurity rests on the subject.
The Rev. Barcroft Boake, a very learned minister of the Church of England in
Ceylon, when in this country, communicated to me his researches on the subject,
which have made me hesitate to assert that there was any formal authority given
to the Bishop of Rome over the Pagans by Gratian. At the same time, I am
still convinced that the original statement was substantially true. The late
Mr. Jones, in the Journal of Prophecy, not only referred to the Appendix to the Codex Theodosianus, in proof of such an appointment,
but, in elucidation of the words of the Codex, asserted in express terms
that there was a contest for the office of Pontifex, and that there were two
candidates, the one a Pagan, Symmachus, who had previously been Valentinian's
deputy, and the other the Bishop of Rome. (Quarterly Journal of
Prophecy, Oct. 1852) I have not been able to find Mr. Jones's authority for
this statement; but the statement is so circumstantial, that it cannot easily
be called in question without impugning the veracity of him that made it. I
have found Mr. Jones in error on divers points, but in no error of such a
nature as this; and the character of the man forbids such a supposition.
Moreover, the language of the Appendix cannot easily admit of any other
interpretation. But, even though there were no formal appointment of Bishop
Damasus to a pontificate extending over the Pagans, yet it is clear that, by
the rescript of Gratian (the authenticity of which is fully admitted by the
accurate Gieseler), he was made the supreme spiritual authority in the Western Empire in all religious questions. When, therefore, in
the year 400, Pagan priests were, by the Christian Emperor of the West,
from political motives, "acknowledged as public officers" (Cod.
Theod., ad POMPEJANUM, Procons), these Pagan priests necessarily came under
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, as there was then no other tribunal but
his for determining all matters affecting religion. In the text, however I have
made no allusion to this. The argument, as I think the reader will admit, is
sufficiently decisive without it.
Now, if the circumstance in
which the Pope has risen to all this height of power and blasphemous
assumption, be compared with a prediction in Daniel, which, for want of the
true key has never been understood, I think the reader will see how literally
in the history of the Popes of Rome that prediction has been fulfilled. The
prediction to which I allude is that which refers to what is commonly called
the "Wilful King" as described in Daniel 11:36, and succeeding verses. That
"Wilful King" is admitted on all hands to be a king that arises in Gospel
times, and in Christendom, but has generally been supposed to be an Infidel
Antichrist, not only opposing the truth but opposing Popery as well, and every
thing that assumed the very name of Christianity. But now, let the prediction
be read in the light of the facts that have passed in review before us, and it
will be seen how very different is the case (v 36):
"And the king
shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself
above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and
shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined
shall be done. Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire
of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."
So far these words give an
exact description of the Papacy, with its pride, its blasphemy, and forced
celibacy and virginity. But the words that follow, according to any sense that
the commentators have put upon them, have never hitherto been found capable of
being made to agree either with the theory that the Pope was intended, or any
other theory whatever. Let them, however, only be literally rendered, and
compared with the Papal history, and all is clear, consistent, and harmonious.
The inspired seer has declared that, in the Church of Christ, some one shall
arise who shall not only aspire to a great height, but shall actually reach it,
so that "he shall do according to his will"; his will shall be supreme
in opposition to all law, human and Divine. Now, if this king is to be a
pretended successor of the fisherman of Galilee, the question would naturally
arise, How could it be possible that he should ever have the means of rising to
such a height of power? The words that follow give a distinct answer to that
question: "He shall not REGARD * any god, for he shall magnify himself above
all. BUT, in establishing himself, shall he honour the god of
fortifications (Ala Mahozim), and a god, whom his fathers knew not,
shall he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant
things. Thus shall he make into strengthening bulwarks ** [for himself] the
people of a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and
he shall cause them to rule over many, and he shall divide the land for gain."
* The reader
will observe, it is not said he shall not worship any god; the reverse
is evident; but that he shall not regard any, that his own glory is his
highest end.
** The word here is
the same as above rendered "fortifications."
Such is the prophecy. Now,
this is exactly what the Pope did. Self-aggrandisement has ever been the grand
principle of the Papacy; and, in "establishing" himself, it was just the
"god of Fortifications" that he honoured. The worship of that god he introduced
into the Roman Church; and, by so doing, he converted that which otherwise
would have been a source of weakness to him, into the very tower of his
strength--he made the very Paganism of Rome by which he was surrounded the
bulwark of his power. When once it was proved that the Pope was willing to
adopt Paganism under Christian names, the Pagans and Pagan priests would be his
most hearty and staunch defenders. And when the Pope began to wield lordly
power over the Christians, who were the men that he would recommend--that he
would promote--that he would advance to honour and power? Just the very people
most devoted to "the worship of the strange god" which he had introduced into
the Christian Church. Gratitude and self-interest alike would conspire to this.
Jovinian, and all who resisted the Pagan ideas and Pagan practices, were
excommunicated and persecuted. Those only who were heartily attached to the
apostacy (and none could now be more so than genuine Pagans) were favoured and
advanced. Such men were sent from Rome in all directions, even as far as
Britain, to restore the reign of Paganism--they were magnified with high
titles, the lands were divided among them, and all to promote "the gain" of the
Romish see, to bring in "Peter's pence" from the ends of the earth to the Roman
Pontiff. But it is still further said, that the self-magnifying king was to
"honour a god, whom his fathers knew not, with gold and silver and precious
stones."
The principle on which
transubstantiation was founded is unquestionably a Babylonian principle, but
there is no evidence that that principle was applied in the way in which it has
been by the Papacy. Certain it is, that we have evidence that no such wafer-god
as the Papacy worships was ever worshipped in Pagan Rome. "Was any man ever so
mad," says Cicero, who himself was a Roman augur and a priest--"was any man
ever so mad as to take that which he feeds on for a god?" Cicero could not have
said this if anything like wafer-worship had been established in Rome. But what
was too absurd for Pagan Romans is no absurdity at all for the Pope. The host,
or consecrated wafer, is the great god of the Romish Church. That host is
enshrined in a box adorned with gold and silver and precious stones. And thus
it is manifest that "a god" whom even the Pope's Pagan "fathers knew
not," he at this day honours in the very way that the terms of the prediction
imply that he would. Thus, in every respect, when the Pope was invested with
the Pagan title of Pontifex, and set himself to make that title a reality, he
exactly fulfilled the prediction of Daniel recorded more than 900 years before.
But to return to the
Apocalyptic symbols. It was out of the mouth of the "Fiery Dragon" that "the
flood of water" was discharged. The Pope, as he is now, was at the close of the
fourth century the only representative of Belshazzar, or Nimrod, on the earth;
for the Pagans manifestly ACCEPTED him as such. He was equally, of course, the
legitimate successor of the Roman "Dragon of fire." When, therefore, on
being dignified with the title of Pontifex, he set himself to propagate the old
Babylonian doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that was just a direct and
formal fulfilment of the Divine words, that the great Fiery Dragon should
"cast out of his mouth a flood of water to carry away the Woman with the
flood." He, and those who co-operated with him in this cause, paved the way
for the erecting of that tremendous civil and spiritual despotism which began
to stand forth full in the face of Europe in AD 606, when, amid the convulsions
and confusions of the nations tossed like a tempestuous sea, the Pope of Rome
was made Universal Bishop; and when the ten chief kingdoms of Europe recognised
him as Christ's Vicar upon earth, the only centre of unity, the only source of
stability to their thrones. Then by his own act and deed, and by the consent of the UNIVERSAL PAGANISM of Rome, he was actually the
representative of Dagon; and as he bears upon his head at this day the mitre of
Dagon, so there is reason to believe he did then. *
* It is from
this period only that the well-known 1260 days can begin to be counted; for not
before did the Pope appear as Head of the ten-horned beast, and head of the
Universal Church. The reader will observe that though the beast above referred
to has passed through the sea, it still retains its primitive characteristic.
The head of the apostacy at first was Kronos, "The Horned One." The head
of the apostacy is Kronos still, for he is the beast "with seven head and ten horns."
Could there, then, be a more
exact fulfilment of chapter 13:1
"And I stood upon
the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads
and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of
blasphemy...And I saw one of his heads as it had been wounded to death; and his
deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the
beast"?
[Back | Home | Contents | Next]
|
