THE TWO BABYLONS

OR

THE PAPAL WORSHIP

PROVED TO BE

THE WORSHIP OF NIMROD

AND HIS WIFE.

 

With sixty-one Woodcut Illustrations from

NINEVEH, BABYLON, EGYPT, POMPEII, &c.

 

BY THE LATE

REV. ALEXANDER HISLOP,

OF EAST FREE CHURCH, ARBROATH.

 

Seventh Edition.

1871

LONDON:

S. W. PARTRIDGE & CO.,  9 PATERNOSTER ROW.

 

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

LORD JOHN SCOTT,

AS A TESTIMONY OF RESPECT FOR HIS TALENTS,

AND THE DEEP AND ENLIGHTENED INTEREST

TAKEN BY HIM IN THE SUBJECT OF

PRIMEVAL ANTIQUITY;

AS WELL AS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR

MANY MARKS OF COURTESY AND KINDNESS

RECEIVED AT HIS HANDS;

This Work

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED

BY HIS OBLIGED AND FAITHFUL SERVANT,

 

 

THE AUTHOR.

 

This Digital Edition has been restored, expanded, reset and the images remastered by the Central Highlands Congregation of God.

20 February, 2021

 

 

Table of Contents

Note By The Editor.

Preface to the Second Edition.

Preface To The Third Edition.

Editions Of Works

THE TWO BABYLONS

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.—Distinctive Character of the Two Systems.

CHAPTER II.—Objects of Worship.

Section I.—Trinity In Unity.

Section II.—The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child.

Sub-Section I.—The Child in Assyria.

Sub-Section II.—The Child in Egypt.

Sub-Section III.—The Child in Greece.

Sub-Section IV.—The Death of the Child.

Sub-Section V.—The Deification of the Child.

Section III.—The Mother of the Child.

Section IV.—The True God and His Son.

CHAPTER III.—Festivals.

Section I.—Christmas.

Section II.—Lady-Day

Section III.—Easter.

Section IV.—The Nativity of St. John.

Section V.—The Feast Of The Assumption.

Section VI.—God’s Appointed Times

Sub-Section I.—The Sabbath

ub-Section II.—Passover, Unleavened Bread and Pentecost

Sub-Section III.—The Future Holy Days

CHAPTER IV.—Doctrine And Discipline.

Section I.—Baptismal Regeneration.

Section II.—Justification by Works.

Section III.—The Sacrifice of the Mass.

Section IV.—Extreme Unction.

Section V.—Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead.

Section VI.—The Flames of Hell.

CHAPTER V.—Rites and Ceremonies.

Section I.—Idol Processions.

Section II.—Relic Worship.

Section III.—The Clothing and Crowning of Images.

Section IV.—The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart

Section V.—Lamps and Wax-Candles.

Section VI.—The Sign of the Cross.

Sub-Section I.—The Stake of Christ

CHAPTER VI.—Religious Orders.

Section I.—The Sovereign Pontiff.

Section II.—Priests, Monks, and Nuns.

CHAPTER VII.—The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered.

Section I.—The Great Red Dragon.

Section II.—The Beast From the Sea.

Section III.—The Beast From the Earth.

Section IV.—The Image of the Beast.

Section V.—The Name of the Beast, the Number of His Name, the Invisible Head of the Papacy.

CONCLUSION.

APPENDIX.

Note A, p. 8.—Woman with Golden Cup.

Note B, p. 8.—Hebrew Chronology.

Note C, p. 30.—Shing Moo and Ma Tsoopo of China.

Note D, p. 48.—Ala-Mahozim.

Note E, p. 65.—Meaning of the Name Centaurus.

Note F, p. 111.—Olenos, the Sin-Bearer.

Note G, p. 116.—The Identification of Rhea or Cybele and Venus.

Note H, p. 119.—The Virgin Mother of Paganism.

Note I, p. 121.—The Goddess Mother as a Habitation.

Note J, p. 178.—The Meaning of the Name Astarte.

Note K, p. 198.—Oannes and Souro.

Note L, p. 222.—The Identity of the Scandinavian Odin and Adon of Babylon.

Note M, p. 303.—The Stripping of the Clothes of the Initiated in the Mysteries.

Note N, p. 375.—Zoroaster, the Head of the Fire-Worshippers.

Note O, p. 377.—The Story of Phaëthon.

Note P, p. 389.—The Roman Imperial Standard of the Dragon: a Symbol of Fire-worship.

Note Q, p. 436.—The Slaying of the Witnesses.

Note R, p. 444.—Attes, the Sinner.

 

 

 

 

List of Illustrations

List of Illustrations

1 Woman with Cup from Babylon

2 Woman with Cup from Rome

3 & 4 Divine Trinities - Assyria & Siberia

5 & 6 Goddess Mother and Son - Babylon & India

7 Janus and his Club

8 Diana of Ephesus

9 Three-Horned Head of Togrul Begh

10 Assyrian Hercules, or Zernebogus

11 Horned Head-Dresses

12 Three-Horned Cap of Vishnu

13 Tyrian Hercules

14 Winged Bull from Nimrud

15 Winged Bull from Persepolis

16 Centaur from Babylonia

17 Centaur from India

18 Osiris of Egypt

19 Egyptian High Priest

20 Egyptian Calf-Idol

21 Assyrian Divinity, with Spotted Fallow-Deer

22 Bacchus, with Cup and Branch

23 An Egyptian Goddess, and Indian Crishna, crushing the Serpent’s Head

24 Baal-Berith, Lord of the Covenant

25 Dove and Olive Branch of Assyrian Juno

26 Circe, the Daughter of the Sun

27 The Yule Log

28 Roman Emperor Trajan burning Incense to Diana

29 Egyptian God Seb, and Symbolic Goose

30 The Goose of Cupid

31 Sacred Egg of Heliopolis, and Typhon’s Egg

32 Mystic Egg of Astarte

33 Juno, with Pomegranate

34 Two-Headed God

35 Cupid with Wine-cup and Ivy Garland of Bacchus

36 Symbols of Nimrod and Baal-berith

37 Ceres, Mother of Bar, “the Son” and of Bar, “the Corn”

38 Sun-Worship in Egypt

39 Popish Image of “God,” with Clover Crown

40 Cupid, with Symbolic “Heart”

41 Vishnu, with “Heart”

42 Lion of Mithra, with Bee in its Mouth

43 The Cruciform T or Tau of Ancient Nations

44 Ancient Pagans adorned with Crosses

45 Bacchus, with Head-Band covered with Crosses

46 Various Examples of Pagan Crosses

46-B Roman Impalement on a Post

47 Egyptian Pontiff-King borne on Men’s Shoulders

48 Assyrian Dagon, with Fish-Head Mitre

49 Maltese God with Similar Mitre

50 The Sacrificial Mitre of Chinese Emperor, as Pontifex Maximus of the Nation

51 Babylonian Crosier

52 The Defied Serpent, or Serpent of Fire

53 Roman Fire-Worship and Serpent-Worship Combined

54 Hindu Goddess Devaki, with the Infant Crishna at her Breast

55 & 56 The Ram-Headed God of Egypt and Etruria

57 & 58 Indian Goddess Lakshmi in a Lotus-flower, Virgin and Child in a Tulip

59 The Serpent of Æsculapius, and the Fly-Destroying Swallow, Symbol of Beel-zebub, from Pompeii

60 Popish Image of “God” with bandaged Globe of Paganism

61 Supreme Divinity of Ancient Persia, with bands of Cybele, “the Binder with Cords”

 

Note By The Editor.

——————

Had the lamented Author been spared to superintend the issue of the Fourth Edition of his work, it is probable he would have felt himself called upon to say something in reference to the political and ecclesiastical events that have occurred since the publication of the last Edition.  By the authoritative promulgation of the dogma of the Pope’s Infallibility, his argument as to the time of the slaying of the Witnesses, and his identification of the Roman pontiff as the legitimate successor of Belshazzar have been abundantly confirmed.

It is gratifying to the Author’s friends to know that the work has been so favourably received hitherto, and that no one, so far as we are aware, has ventured to challenge the accuracy of the historical proofs adduced in support of the startling announcement on the title page.  But it is deplorable to think that, notwithstanding all the revelations made from time to time of the true character and origin of Popery, Ritualism still makes progress in the Churches, and that men of the highest influence in the State are so infatuated as to seek to strengthen their political position by giving countenance to a system of idolatry.  If Britons would preserve their freedom and their pre-eminence among the nations, they should never forget the Divine declaration, “Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.”

It only remains for the Editor to say that the work has been carefully revised throughout, and a few trifling errors in the references have, in consequence, been corrected.  One or two notes also, enclosed in brackets, have been added, and the Index has been somewhat extended.

R. H.   BLAIR BANK, POLMONT STATION, N.B.,

January, 1871.

 

Preface to the Second Edition.

——————

 

Since the appearing of the First Edition of this work, the author has extensively prosecuted his researches into the same subject; and the result has been a very large addition of new evidence.  Somewhat of the additional evidence has already been given to the public, first through the columns of the British Messenger, and then in the publication entitled “The Moral Identity of Babylon and Rome,” issued by Mr. Drummond of Stirling.  In the present edition of “The Two Babylons,” the substance of that work is also included.  But the whole has now been re-written, and the mass of new matter that has been added is so much greater than all that had previously appeared, that this may fairly be regarded as an entirely new work.  The argument appears now with a completeness which, considering the obscurity in which the subject had long been wrapped, the author himself, only a short while ago, could not have ventured to anticipate as a thing capable of attainment.

*   *   *   *   *

On the principle of giving honour to whom honour is due, the author gladly acknowledges, as he has done before, his obligations to the late H. J. Jones, Esq.—to whose researches Protestantism is not a little indebted—who was the first that directed his attention to this field of inquiry.  That able, and excellent, and distinguished writer, however, was called to his rest before his views were matured.  His facts, in important instances, were incorrect; and the conclusions at which he ultimately arrived were, in very vital respects, directly the reverse of those that are unfolded in these pages.  Those who have read, in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, his speculations in regard to the Beast from the Sea, will, it is believed, readily perceive that, in regard to it, as well as other subjects, his argument is fairly set aside by the evidence here adduced.

In regard to the subject of the work, there are just two remarks the author would make.  The first has reference to the Babylonian legends.  These were all intended primarily to commemorate facts that took place in the early history of the post-diluvian world.  But along with them were mixed up the momentous events in the history of our first parents.  These events, as can be distinctly proved, were commemorated in the secret system of Babylon with a minuteness and particularity of detail of which the ordinary student of antiquity can have little conception.  The post-diluvian divinities were connected with the ante-diluvian patriarchs, and the first progenitors of the human race, by means of the metempsychosis; and the names given to them were skilfully selected, so as to be capable of diverse meanings, each of these meanings having reference to some remarkable feature in the history of the different patriarchs referred to.  The knowledge of this fact is indispensable to the unravelling of the labyrinthine subject of Pagan mythology, which, with all its absurdities and abominations, when narrowly scrutinised, will be found exactly to answer to the idea contained in the well-known line of Pope in regard to a very different subject:—

“A mighty maze, but not without a plan.”

In the following work, however, this aspect of the subject has, as much as possible, been kept in abeyance, it being reserved for another work, in which, if Providence permit, it will be distinctly handled.

The other point on which the author finds it necessary to say a word, has reference to the use of the term “Chaldee,” as employed in this work.  According to ordinary usage, that term is appropriated to the language spoken in Babylon in the time of Daniel and thereafter.  In these pages the term Chaldee, except where otherwise stated, is applied indiscriminately to whatever language can be proved to have been used in Babylonia from the time that the Babylonian system of idolatry commenced.  Now, it is evident from the case of Abraham, who was brought up in Ur of the Chaldees, and who doubtless brought his native language along with him into Canaan, that, at that period, Chaldee and Hebrew were substantially the same.  When, therefore, a pure Hebrew word is found mixed up with a system that confessedly had its origin in Babylonia, the land of the Chaldees, it cannot be doubted that that term, in that very form, must have originally belonged to the Chaldee dialect, as well as to that which is now commonly known as Hebrew.  On this ground, the author has found himself warranted to give a wider application to the term “Chaldee” than that which is currently in use.

And now, in sending forth this new Edition, the author hopes he can say that, however feebly, he has yet had sincerely an eye, in the whole of his work, to the glory of “that name that is above every name,” which is dear to every Christian heart, and through which all tribes, and peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, of this sinful and groaning earth, are yet destined to be blest.  In the prosecuting of his researches, he has found his own faith sensibly quickened.   His prayer is, that the good Spirit of all grace may bless the work for the same end to all who may read it.

 

Preface To The Third Edition.

——————

 

In giving the Third Edition of this work to the public, I have little else to do than to express my acknowledgments to those to whom I am under obligations, for enabling me thus far to bring it to a successful issue.

To Mr. Murray, of Albemarle Street, London; Mr. Vaux, of the British Museum; and Messrs. Black and Messrs. Chambers, Edinburgh, I am specially indebted for permission to copy woodcuts belonging to them.  Individual woodcuts, from other sources, are acknowledged in the body of the work.  To Mr. John Adam, the artist, who has executed the whole of the woodcuts, with a few exceptions, I have to express my obligations for the spirit and artistic skill displayed in their execution; and I do so with the more pleasure, that Mr. Adam is a native of Arbroath, and the son of a worthy elder of my own.

I have also acknowledgments of another kind to make.  Considering the character of this work—a work that, from its very nature, required wide, and, at the same time, minute research, and the consultation of works of a very recondite character; and, taking also into view not only the very limited extent of my own library, but the distance of my abode from any of the great libraries of the land, where rare and expensive works may be consulted, the due preparation of such a work was attended with many difficulties.  The kindness of friends, however, has tended wonderfully to remove these difficulties.  From all quarters I have met with the most disinterested aid, of which I retain a grateful and pleasing remembrance.  To enumerate the different sources whence help has come to me, in the prosecution of my task, would be impossible.  There are three individuals, however, who stand out from the rest, whom I cannot pass over without notice.  Each of them has co-operated (and all spontaneously), though in different ways, in enabling me thus far to accomplish my task, and their aid has been of the most essential importance.

To Mrs. Barkworth, of Tranby Hall, Yorkshire (whose highly cultivated mind, enlightened zeal for Protestant truth, and unwearied beneficence need no testimony of mine), I am signally indebted, and it gives me pleasure to acknowledge it.

I have also to acknowledge my deep and peculiar obligations to one who chooses to be unknown,* who, entirely on public grounds, has taken a very lively interest in this work.  He has spared neither expense nor pains, that every incidental error being removed, the argument might be presented to the public in the most perfect possible form.  For this purpose he has devoted a large portion of his time, during the last three years, to the examination of every quotation contained in the last edition, going in every case where it was at all possible, to the fountain-head of authority.  His co-operation with me in the revisal of the work has been of the greatest advantage.  His acute and logical mind, quick in detecting a flaw, his determination to be satisfied with nothing that had not sufficient evidence to rest upon, and yet his willing surrender to the force of truth whenever that evidence was presented, have made him a most valuable coadjutor.  “As iron sharpeneth iron,” says Solomon, “so doth a man sharpen the countenance of his friend.” I have sensibly found it so.  His correspondence, by this stimulus, has led to the accumulation of an immense mass of new evidence, here presented to the reader, which, but for his suggestions, and objections too, might never have been discovered.  In the prosecution of his investigation he has examined no fewer than 240* out of the 270 works contained in the accompanying list of “Editions,” many of them of large extent, all of which are in his own possession, and not a few of which he has procured for the purpose of verification.  His object and mine has been, that the argument might be fairly stated, and that error might, as far as possible, be avoided.  How far this object has been attained, the references and list of “Editions” will enable each reader competent to the task, to judge for himself.  For myself, however, I cannot but express my high sense of the incalculable value of the service which the extraordinary labours of my kind and disinterested friend have rendered to the cause of universal Protestantism.

But while making mention of my obligations to the living, I may not forget what I owe to the dead.  To him whose name stands on the front of this work, I am, in some respects, pre-eminently indebted, and I cannot send forth this edition without a tribute of affection to his memory.  It is not for me to speak of his wit, and the brilliancy of his conversational powers, that captivated all who knew him; of the generous unselfishness of his nature, that made him a favourite with everyone that came in contact with him; or of the deep interest that he took in the efforts at present being made for improving the dwellings of the working-classes, and especially of those of his own estate, as well as in their moral and religious improvement.  But I should be liable to the charge of ingratitude if I contented myself, in the circumstances, with the mere formal dedication, which, though appropriate enough while he was alive, is now no more so when he is gone.

The time and the circumstances in which his active friendship was extended to me, made it especially welcome.  His keen eye saw at a glance, as soon as the subject of this work came under his attention, the importance of it; and from that time forward, though the work was then in its most rudimentary form, he took the deepest interest in it.  He did not wait till the leading organs of popular opinion, or the great dispensers of fame, should award their applause; but, prompted by his own kindly feeling, he spontaneously opened up a correspondence with me, to encourage and aid me in the path of discovery on which I had entered.

His own studies qualified him to appreciate the subject and pronounce upon it.  For many years he had deeply studied the Druidical system, which, with the haze and mystery around it, and with its many points of contact with the patriarchal religion, had a strange and peculiar fascination for him.  For the elucidation of this subject, he had acquired most valuable works; and what he possessed he was most ready to communicate.  In the prosecution of my inquiries, I had met with what to me seemed insuperable difficulties.  He had only to know of this to set himself to remove them; and the aid derived from him was at once precious and opportune; for through his acquaintance with Druidism, and the works received from him, difficulties disappeared, and a flood of light irradiated the whole subject.  If, therefore, the reader shall find the early history of superstition, not only in our native land, but in the world at large, set in a new and instructive light in these pages, he must know that he is essentially indebted for that to Lord John Scott.  In one, who was an entire stranger, being thus prompted to render efficient assistance to me at such a time, I could not but thankfully recognise the hand of a gracious Providence; and when I reflect on the generous, and humble, and disinterested kindness with which the four years’ correspondence between us was conducted on his part,—a correspondence in which he always treated me with as much confidence as if I had been his friend and brother, I cannot but feel warm and tender emotions, mingling with the thoughts that spring up in my bosom.  Friendship such as his was no ordinary friendship.  His memory, therefore, must be ever dear to me; the remembrance of his kindness ever fragrant.

Unexpected was the stroke—now, alas! near three years ago—by which our correspondence was brought to an end; but painful though that stroke was, and solemnising, there was no gloom attending it.  The “hope full of immortality” cheered his dying bed.  For years back he had found the emptiness of the world, and had begun to seek the better part.  His religion was no sentimental religion; his fear of God was not taught by the commandment of men.  His faith was drawn directly from the inspired fountain of Divine truth.  From the time that the claims of God to the homage of his heart had laid hold on him, the Word of God became his grand study, and few men have I ever known who held with a more firm and tenacious grasp the great truth that the Word of God, and that Word alone, is the light and rule for the guidance of Christians; and that every departure from that Word, alike on the part of Churches and individuals, implies, as he himself expressed it, “going off the rails,” and consequently danger of the highest kind.  As his religion was Scriptural, so it was spiritual.  In one of his earliest letters to me, he avowed that the bond of “spiritual religion” was that by which he felt himself specially bound to those whose character and spirit showed them to be the true sheep of Christ’s pasture; and in accepting the dedication of my work, he particularly stated, that the interest that he took in it was not as a mere matter of literary curiosity, but as being “fitted to teach great truths, which the world is not very willing to learn.”  This, in the connection in which he wrote it, evidently had special reference to the great doctrine of “regeneration.”  His mind was deeply penetrated with a sense of the majesty of God, and the “awfulness” of our relations to Him, in consequence of the sin that has entered the world, and has infected the whole human race, and therefore he vividly realised the indispensable necessity of Mediation and Atonement, to give hope to sinful man in prospect of the grand account.

The origin of that earnestness and attachment to spiritual religion which he manifested in his last years, was, as I was assured by a relative now also gone to his reward, the perusal of the tract entitled “Sin no Trifle.” Deep was the impression that tract had made.  He read it, and re-read it, and continually carried it about with him, till it was entirely worn away.  Under the impressions springing from such views of sin, he said to an intimate friend, when in the enjoyment of health and vigour, “It is easy to die the death of a gentleman, but that will not do.”  His death was not the death of a mere gentleman.  It was evidently the death of a Christian.

The circumstances in which he was removed were fitted to be peculiarly affecting to me.  In reply to a letter—the last which I received from him—in which he expressed deep interest in the spread of vital religion, I was led, in pursuance of the theme to which he himself had specially referred, to dwell more than ever before on the necessity not merely of having hope towards God, but of having the question of personal acceptance decisively settled, and the consequent habitual possession of the “joy of salvation,” and as one special reason for this, referred to the fact, that all would be needed in a dying hour.  “And who can tell,” I added, “how suddenly those who are surrounded with all the comforts of life may be removed from the midst of them?”  In illustration of this, I referred to the affecting case of one whom I had known well, just a short while before, lost along with his family in the Royal Charter.  Having made a large fortune in Australia, he was returning home, and when on the point of setting foot on his native shores, with the prospect of spending his days in ease and affluence, suddenly father and mother, son and daughter, were all engulfed in a watery grave.  My letter concluded with these words: “In view of such a solemnising event, well may we say, What is man?  But oh, man is great, if he walks with God, and the divine words are fulfilled in his experience, ‘God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the ‘light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’  That this may be more and more the experience of your Lordship, is my earnest desire.”  When I wrote this I had not the least suspicion that I was writing to a dying man.  But so it proved to be.  Only a few days after he received this, he was smitten with his death-sickness.  From his dying bed he sent me a kindly memorial of his affectionate remembrance, and in his painful illness he manifested the supporting power of faith, when faith has respect to the truth as it is in Jesus, and appropriates Him as a personal and Almighty Saviour.

 

 

Editions Of Works

Quoted Or Referred To In This Work.

——————————

Adam’s Roman Antiquities,

Æliani Historiæ,

Ælianus de Nat. Animal,

Æschylus,

Æschylus,

London,

Rome,

Tubingen,

Paris,

1835

1545

1768

1557

1552

Agathias (Corp. Script. Byzant.),

Alford’s Greek Test.,

Ambrosii Opera,

Ammianus Marcellinus,

Anacreon,

Bonn,  

London,

Paris,

Paris,

Cambridge,

1828

1856

1836

1681

1705

Apocalypse, Original Interpretation,

Apocriphi (Diodati, Bibbia),

Apollodorus,

Apuleius,

Arati Phœnomena,

London,

London,

Gottengen,

Leipsic,

Leipsic,

1857

1819

1803

1842

1793

Aristophanes,

Arnobius,

Athenæus,

Athenagoras,

Asiatic Journal,

Amsterdam,

Paris,

Leyden,

Wurtzburg,

London,

1710

1835

1612

1777

1816

Asiatic Researches,

Augustini Opera Omnia,

Augustine’s City of God, with Lud. Vives’s Comment.,

Aulus Gellius,

Aurelius Victor,

London,

Bassano,

London,

Leyden,

Utrecht,

1806

1807

1620

1666

1696

Ausonii Opera,

Barker and Ainsworth’s Lares and Penates of Cilicia,

Barker’s Hebrew Lexicon,

Baronii Annales,

Bede’s Works,

Amsterdam,

London,

London,

Cologne,

Cambridge,

1669

1853

1811

1609

1722

Begg’s Handbook of Popery,

Bell’s (Robert) Wayside Pictures,

Bell’s (John) Italy,

Berosus,

Betham’s Etruria Celtica,

Edinburgh,

London,

Edinburgh,

Leipsic,

Dublin,

1856

1849

1825

1825

1842

Betham’s Gael and Cymbri,

Bilney ( British Reformers),

Bion (Poet. Græc. Min.),

Blakeney’s Popery in its Social Aspect,

Borrow’s Gipsies,

Dublin,

London

Cambridge,

Edinburgh,

London,

1834

S. D.

1661

S. D.

1843

Bower’s Lives of the Popes,

Bryant’s Mythology,

Bulwark, The,

Bunsen’s Egypt,

Cæsar,

London,

London,

Edin.,

London;

London,

1750

1807

1853

1848

1770

Callimachus,

Catechismus Romanus,

Catlin’s American Indians,

Catullus,

Cedreni Compendium,

Utrecht,

Lyons,

London,

Utrecht,

Bonn,

1697

1659

1841

1659

1838

Charlotte Elizabeth’s Personal Recollections,

Charlotte Elizabeth’s Sketches of Irish History,

Chesney’s Euphrates Expedition,

Chronicon Paschale,

Chrysostomi Opera Omnia,

London,

Dublin,

London,

Bonn,

Paris,

1847

1844

1850

1832

1738

Ciceronis Opera Omnia,

Clemens Alexandrinus, Opera,

Clemens Protrepticos,

Clericus (Johannes) de Chaldseis et de Sabseis,

Clinton, Fasti Hellenici,

Paris,

Wurtzburg,

Lutetice,

Amsterdam,

Oxford,

1740

1778

1629

1700

1834

Codex Theodosianus,

Coleman’s Hindoo Mythology,

Cory’s Fragments,

Courayer’s Council of Trent,

Covenanter, Irish,

Bonn,

London,

London,

London,

Belfast,

1842

1832

1732

1736

1862

Crabb’s Mythology,

Crichton’s Scandinavia,

Cummianus (Patr. Patrum),

Davies’s Druids,

Daubuz’s Symbolical Dictionary,

London,

Edinburgh,

Paris,

London,

London,

1854

1838

1851

1809

1842

D’Aubigné’s Reformation,

David’s Antiquités Etrusques, &c,

Davis’s (Sir J. F.) China,

Didron’s Christian Iconography,

Diodori Bibliotheca,

Brussels,

Paris,

London,

London,

Paris,

1839

1787

1857

1851

1559

Diogenes Laertius,

Dionysius Afer,

Dionysius Halicarn.,

Dryden’s Virgil,

Dupuis, Origine de Tous les Cultes,

London,

London,

Oxford,

London,

Paris,

1664

1658

1704

1709

1822

Dymock’s Classical Dictionary,

Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ,

Ennodii Opera,

Epiphanii Opera Omnia,

Eunapius,

London,

London,

Paris,

Cologne,

Geneva,

1833

1851

1611

1682

1616

Euripides,

Eusebii Præpar. Evangel.,

Eusebii Chronicon,

Eusebii Chron.,

Eusebii Vita Constantin.,

Cambridge,

Leipsic,

Venice,

Basle,

Paris,

1694

1842

1818

1529

1677

Eustace’s Classical Tour,

Eutropius (Rom. Hist. Script. Græc. Min.),

Evangelical Christendom,

Evangelical Christendom,

Firmicus, Julius,

London,

Frankfort,

London,

London,

Oxford,

1813

1590

1853

1855

1678

Flores Seraphici,

--

Furniss’s What Every Christian must Know,

Fuss’s Roman Antiquities,

Garden of the Soul,

Garden of the Soul,

Gaussen’s Daniel,

Coloniæ Agrippinæ,

London,

Oxford,

Dublin,

London,

Paris,

1640

--

S.D.

1840

1850

S.D.

1849

Gebelin, Monde Primitif,

Gesenii Lexicon,

Gibbon’s Decline and Fall,

Gibson’s Preservative,

Gieseler’s Eccles. History,

Paris,

London,

Dublin,

London,

Edinburgh,

1782

1855

1781

1848

1846

Gill’s Commentary,

Gillespie’s Sinim,

Golden Manual,

Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera,

Greswell’s Dissertations,

London,

Edinburgh,

London,

Antwerp,

Oxford,

1854

1854

1850

1612

1837

Guizot’s European Civilisation,

Hanmer’s Chronographia; appended to Translation of Eusebius, &c,

Hardy, Spence.  Buddhism,

Harvet, Dr. Gent., Review of Epistle of,

Hay’s Sincere Christian,

London,

--

London,

London,

London,

Dublin,

1846

--

1636

1853

1598

1783

Heathen Mythology,

Herodoti Historia,

Hesiodus,

Hesychii Lexicon,

Hieronymi Opera,

London,

Paris,

Oxford,

Leyden,

Paris,

S.D.

1592

1737

1688

1643

Hislop’s Light of Prophecy,

Homer,

Homer, (Pope’s),

Horapollo’s Hieroglyphics,

Horatius,

Edinburgh,

Cambridge,

London,

Amsterdam,

Paris,

1846

1711

1715

1835

1691

Huc’s Voyage dans la Tartarie et Thibet,

Humboldt’s Mexican Researches,

Hurd’s Rites and Ceremonies,

Hyde’s Religio Persarum,

Hygini Fabulæ,

Paris,

London,

London,

Oxford,

Leipsic,

1857

1814

S.D.

1700

1856

Irenæi Opera,

Jamblichus on the Mysteries,

Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary,

Jewell (British Reformers),

Jones’s (Sir W.) Works,

Leipsic,

Chiswick,

Edinburgh,

London,

London,

1853

1821

1808

S.D.

1807

Josephus (Græcé),

Justini Hist. (Hist. Rom. Script.),

--

Justinus Martyr,

Justus Lipsius,

Juvenal,

Kennedy’s Ancient and Hindoo Mythology,

Kennett’s Roman Antiquities,

Kitto’s Cyclopaedia,

Kitto’s Illustrated Commentary,

Knox’s History of Reformation,

Knox (British Reformers),

Lactantius,

Lafitan, Mœurs des Sauvages Americains,

Landseer’s Sebean Researches,

Layard’s Babylon and Nineveh,

Layard’s Nineveh,

Livius,

Lorimer’s Manual of Presbytery,

Lucan. de Bell. Civ.,

Lucianus,

Lucretius,

Lycophron (Poet. Græc. Min.),

Macrobius,

--

M‘Gavin’s Protestant,

Maimonides More Nevochim,

Maitland on the Catacombs,

Mallet’s Northern Antiquities,

Mallet’s Northern Antiquities,

Manilius,

Martialis Epigrammata,

Massy, Memoir of Rev. G.,

Maurice’s Indian Antiquities,

--

Mede’s Works,

Middleton’s Letter from Rome,

Milner’s Church History,

Milton’s Paradise Lost,

Minutius Felix,

Missale Romanum,

Missale Romanum,

Missionary Record of Free Church,

Moor’s Hindoo Pantheon,

Morgan’s (Lady) Italy,

Moses of Chorené,

Müller’s Dorians,

Mulleri Fragmenta,

Newman’s Development,

Niebuhr’s Roman History,

Nonnus de Phil. Oriental. et Dionysiaca,

Orphic Hymns (Poet. Græc),

Ouvaroff’s Eleusinian Mysteries,

Basle,

Aurelii, Allobrog,

Wurtzburg,

London,

London,

London,

London,

Edinburgh,

London,

Edin.,

London,

Cambridge,

Paris,

London,

London,

London,

Amsterdam,

Edinburgh,

Leyden,

Amsterdam,

Oxford,

Geneva,

Sanct. Colon.,

Glasgow,

Basle,

London,

London,

London,

Berlin,

Leyden,

London,

London,

--

London,

London,

London,

London,

Leyden,

Paris,

Vienna,

Edinburgh,

London,

London,

London,

Oxford,

Paris,

London,

London,

Leipsic,

Paris,

London,

1544

--

1609

1777

1698

1728

1831

1696

1856

1840

1848

S.D.

1685

1724

1823

1853

1849

1710

1842

1658

1743

1695

1814

--

1521

1850

1629

1846

1770

1847

1846

1656

1859

(See Note)

1672

1741

1712

1695

1672

1677

1506

1855

1810

1824

1736

1830

1851

1846

1855

1857

1556

1817

Ovidii Opera,

Pancarpium Mariæ,

Paradisus Sponsi et Sponsæ,

Parkhurst’s Heb. Lexicon,

Parsons’ Japhet,

Pausanias,

Paxton’s Illustrations, Geography,

Persius,

Petri Suavis Polani, Concilium Tridentinum,

Pfeiffer’s (Ida) Iceland,

Photii Bibliotheca,

Photii Lexeōn Synagogé,

Pindarus,

Pinkerton’s Voyages,

Platonis Opera,

Plinii Opera,

Plutarchi Opera,

Pococke’s India in Greece,

Pompeii,

Pontificate Romanum,

Pontificate Romanum,

Poor Man’s Manual,

Porphyrius de Antro Nympharum,

Potter’s Greek Antiquities,

Prescott’s Conquest of Peru,

Prescott’s Mexico,

Prisciani Opera,

Proclus in Timæo,

Proclus on Plat. Theology,

Propertius,

Quarterly Journal of Prophecy,

Quintus Curtius,

Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary,

Rome in the Nineteenth Century,

Russell’s Egypt,

Ryle’s (Rev. J.) Commentary,

Salverté, Eusebe, Sciences Occultes,

Salverté, Eusebe, Essai sur les Noms,

Sanchuniathon,

Scottish Protestant,

Septuagint,

Servius,

Savary’s Letters on Egypt,

Seymour’s Evenings with Romanists,

Sinclair’s (Sir G.) Letters to Protestants,

Smith’s Classical Dictionary,

Socrates Ecclesiasticus,

Sophocles,

Stanley’s History of Philosophy,

Statius,

Stephens’s Central America,

Leyden,

Antwerp,

Antwerp,

London,

London,

Leipsic,

Edinburgh,

Leyden,

Gorinchemi

London,

Berlin,

London,

Oxford,

London,

Paris,

Frankfort,

Frankfort,

London,

London,

Venice,

Venice,

Dublin,

Utrecht,

Oxford,

London,

London,

Leipsic,

Vratislavice

London,

Utrecht,

London,

Amsterdam,

London,

London,

Edinburgh,

Ipswich,

Paris,

Paris,

Bremen,

Glasgow,

Paris,

Gottingen,

London,

London,

Edinburgh,

London,

Paris,

London,

London,

Leyden,

London,

1661

1618

1618

1799

1767

1696

1842

1696

1658

1853

1824

1822

1697

1814

1578

1599

1599

1852

1831

1543

1572

S.D.

1765

1697

1855

1843

1819

1847

1816

1659

1852

1684

1856

1823

1831

1858

1856

1824

1837

1852

1628

1826

1786

1854

1852

1859

1686

1747

1687

1671

1841

Stockii Clavis,

Strabo,

Suidas,

Symmachi Epistolæ,

Tacitus,

Taylor’s Mystic Hymns of Orpheus,

Taylor’s Pausanias,

Tertulliani Opera,

Theocritus (Poet. Græc. Min.),

Theopompus (Müller),

Thevenot, Voyages,

Thuani Historia,

Todd’s Western India,

Toland’s Druids,

Tooke’s Pantheon,

Trimen’s Architecture,

Trogus Pompeius (Hist. Rom. Script.),

--

Turner’s Anglo-Saxons,

Usher’s Syllogé,

Valerius Maximus,

Vaux’s Nineveh,

Vaux’s Antiquities of the British Museum,

Virgilius,

Vitruvius de Architectura,

Vossius de Idololatria,

Walpole’s Ansayri,

Wilkinson’s Egyptians,

Williams’s Missionary Enterprises,

Wilson’s India 3000 Years Ago,

Wilson’s Parsee Religion,

Wylie’s Great Exodus,

Xenophontis Opera,

Zonaras.,

Zosimus (Rom. Hist. Script. Græci. Min.),

Lipsice,

Basle,

Geneva,

Douai,

Dublin,

Chiswick,

London,

Paris,

Cambridge,

Paris,

Paris,

London,

London,

Edinburgh,

London,

London,

Aurel. Allobrog.,

London,

Dublin,

Venice,

London,

London,

Paris,

Leipsic,

Amsterdam,

London,

London,

London,

Bombay,

Bombay,

London,

Paris,

Bonn,

Frankfort,

1753

1549

1619

1587

1730

1824

1794

1844

1661

1853

1689

1733

1839

1815

1806

1849

--

1609

1823

1632

1505

1851

1851

1675

1807

1668

1849

1841

1847

1858

1843

1862

1625

1841

1590

 

Note.—Of Maurice’s “Indian Antiquities” in the copy quoted, except where otherwise stated, the 1st, 2nd, and 7th vols, are 1806; the 3rd, 1794; the 4th and fifth, 1800; and the 6th, 1812.

 

 

 

 

THE TWO BABYLONS

——————

“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”—Rev. 17:5.

——————

INTRODUCTION.

There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God, that the same minute and searching investigation, which displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the beauties of the other.  If the most finely polished needle on which the art of man has been expended be subjected to a microscope, many inequalities, much roughness and clumsiness, will be seen.  But if the microscope be brought to bear on the flowers of the field, no such result appears.  Instead of their beauty diminishing, new beauties and still more delicate, that have escaped the naked eye, are forthwith discovered; beauties that make us appreciate, in a way which otherwise we could have had little conception of the full force of the Lord’s saying, “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these.” The same law appears also in comparing the Word of God and the most finished productions of men.  There are spots and blemishes in the most admired productions of human genius.  But the more the Scriptures are searched, the more minutely they are studied, the more their perfection appears; new beauties are brought into light every day; and the discoveries of science, the researches of the learned, and the labours of infidels, all alike conspire to illustrate the wonderful harmony of all the parts, and the Divine beauty that clothes the whole.

If this be the case with Scripture in general, it is especially the case with prophetic Scripture.  As every spoke in the wheel of Providence revolves, the prophetic symbols start into still more bold and beautiful relief.  This is very strikingly the case with the prophetic language that forms the groundwork and corner-stone of the present work.  There never has been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman “sitting on seven mountains,” and having on her forehead the name written, “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” with the Roman apostacy.  “No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has, for its situation on seven hills.  Pagan poets and orators, who had no thought of elucidating prophecy, have alike characterised it as ‘ the seven-hilled city.’” Thus Virgil refers to it: “Rome has both become the most beautiful (city) in the world, and alone has surrounded for herself seven heights with a wall.”*  Propertius, in the same strain, speaks of it (only adding another trait, which completes the Apocalyptic picture), as “The lofty city on seven hills, which governs the whole world.”  Its “governing the whole world” is just the counterpart of the Divine statement—“which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18).  To call Rome the city “of the seven hills” was by its citizens held to be as descriptive as to call it by its own proper name.  Hence Horace speaks of it by reference to its seven hills alone, when he addresses, “The gods, who have set their affections on the seven hills.”  Martial, in like manner, speaks of “The seven dominating mountains.”§  In times long subsequent, the same kind of language was in current use; for when Symmachus, the prefect of the city, and the last acting Pagan Pontifex Maximus, as the Imperial substitute, introduces by letter one friend of his to another, he calls him “De septem montibus virum”—“a man from the seven mountains,” meaning thereby, as the commentators interpret it, “Civem Romanum,” “A Roman citizen.”*  Now, while this characteristic of Rome has ever been well marked and defined, it has always been easy to show that the Church which has its seat and headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called “Babylon,” inasmuch as it is the chief seat of idolatry under the New Testament, as the ancient Babylon was the chief seat of idolatry under the old.  But recent discoveries in Assyria, taken in connection with the previously well-known but ill-understood history and mythology of the ancient world, demonstrate that there is a vast deal more significance in the name Babylon the Great than this.  It has been known all along that Popery was baptised Paganism; but God is now making it manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptised is, in all its essential elements, the very Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.

That new and unexpected light, in some way or other, should be cast, about this very period, on the Church of the grand Apostacy, the very language and symbols of the Apocalypse might have prepared us to anticipate.  In the Apocalyptic visions, it is just before the judgment upon her that, for the first time, John sees the Apostate Church with the name Babylon the Great “written upon her forehead” (Rev. 17:5).  What means the writing of that name “on the forehead?”  Does it not naturally indicate that, just before judgment overtakes her, her real character was to be so thoroughly developed that every one who has eyes to see, who has the least spiritual discernment, would be compelled, as it were, on ocular demonstration, to recognise the wonderful fitness of the title which the Spirit of God has affixed to her.  Her judgment is now evidently hastening on; and just as it approaches, the Providence of God, conspiring with the Word of God, by light pouring in from all quarters, makes it more and more evident that Rome is in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar.  In the warfare that has been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all churches—the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation.  If ever there was excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer.  If the position I have laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff-king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, “praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone” (Dan. 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian Church; but not otherwise.  This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position.

 

 

 

CHAPTER I.Distinctive Character of the Two Systems.

In leading proof of the Babylonian character of the Papal Church, the first point to which I solicit the reader’s attention, is the character of MYSTERY which attaches alike to the modern Roman and the ancient Babylonian systems.  The gigantic system of moral corruption and idolatry, described in this passage under the emblem of a woman with a “GOLDEN CUP IN HER HAND” (Rev. 17:4), “making all nations DRUNK with the wine of her fornication” (Rev. 17:2; 18:3), is divinely called “MYSTERY, Babylon the Great” (Rev. 17:5).  That Paul’s “Mystery of Iniquity,” as described in 2 Thess. 2:7, has its counterpart in the Church of Rome, no man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the subject, can easily doubt.  Such was the impression made by that account on the mind of the great Sir Matthew Hale, no mean judge of evidence, that he used to say, that if the apostolic description were inserted in the public “Hue and Cry,” any constable in the realm would be warranted in seizing, wherever he found him, the Bishop of Rome as the Head of that “MYSTERY of Iniquity.”  Now, as the system here described is equally characterised by the name of “MYSTERY,” it may be presumed that both passages refer to the same system.  But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the reader cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon of the ancient world.  As the Apocalyptic woman has in her hand a cup, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was it with the Babylon of old.  Of that Babylon, while in all its glory, Jehovah thus spake, in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: “Babylon hath been a GOLDEN CUP in Jehovah’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad” (Jer. 51:7).  Why this exact similarity of language in regard to the two systems?  The natural inference surely is, that the one stands to the other in the relation of type and antitype.  Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is characterised by the name of “Mystery,” so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean “MYSTERIES,” that formed so essential a part of that system.  And to these Mysteries, the very language of the Hebrew prophet, symbolical though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he speaks of Babylon as a “GOLDEN CUP.”  To drink of “mysterious beverages” says Salverté, was indispensable on the part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries.*  These “mysterious beverages” were composed of wine, honey, water, and flour.  From the ingredients avowedly used, and from the nature of others not avowed, but certainly used,  there can be no doubt that they were of an intoxicating nature; and till the aspirants had come under their power, till their understandings had been dimmed, and their passions excited by the medicated draught, they were not duly prepared for what they were either to hear or to see.  If it be inquired what was the object and design of these ancient “Mysteries,” it will be found that there was a wonderful analogy between them and that “Mystery of Iniquity” which is embodied in the Church of Rome.  Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to propound.  The time at which they were instituted proves that this must have been the case.  The Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image of her own depraved and polluted mind.§  That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming, she was worshipped as Rhea,* the great “MOTHER” of the gods,  with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus, the MOTHER of all impurity, and raised the very city where she had reigned to a bad eminence among the nations, as the grand seat at once of idolatry and consecrated prostitution.  Thus was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the “Woman” in the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her hand, and the name on her forehead, “Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” (Fig. 1.)

 

Fig. 1.

 
 
Woman with cup§ from Babylon.—(KITTO’S Biblical Cyclopadia).

 

The Apocalyptic emblem of the Harlot woman with the cup in her hand was even embodied in the symbols of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece; for thus was the Greek Venus originally represented,* and it is singular that in our own day, and so far as appears for the first time, the Roman Church has actually taken this very symbol as her own chosen emblem.  In 1825, on the occasion of the Jubilee, Pope Leo XII. struck a medal, bearing on the one side his own image, and on the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolised as a “Woman,” holding in her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup, with the legend around her, “Sedet super universum,” “The whole world is her seat.” (Fig. 2.)  Now the period when Semiramis lived,—a period when the patriarchal faith was still fresh in the minds of men, when Shem was still alive, to rouse the minds of the faithful to rally around the banner for the truth and cause of God, made it hazardous all at once and publicly to set up such a system as was inaugurated by the Babylonian queen.

Fig. 2.

 
 

Woman with cup from Rome, on reverse of medal.—(ELLIOTT’S Horæ.)

We know, from the statements in Job, that among patriarchal tribes that had nothing whatever to do with Mosaic institutions, but which adhered to the pure faith of the patriarchs, idolatry in any shape was held to be a crime, to be visited with signal and summary punishment on the heads of those who practised it.  “If I beheld the sun,” said Job, “when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, and* my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God that is above” (Job 31:26-28).  Now if this was the case in Job’s day, much more must it have been the case at the earlier period when the Mysteries were instituted.  It was a matter, therefore, of necessity, if idolatry were to be brought in, and especially such foul idolatry as the Babylonian system contained in its bosom, that it should be done stealthily and in secret.*  Even though introduced by the hand of power, it might have produced a revulsion, and violent attempts might have been made by the uncorrupted portion of mankind to put it down; and at all events, if it had appeared at once in all its hideousness, it would have alarmed the consciences of men, and defeated the very object in view.  That object was to bind all mankind in blind and absolute submission to a hierarchy entirely dependent on the sovereigns of Babylon.  In the carrying out of this scheme, all knowledge, sacred and profane, came to be monopolised by the priesthood, who dealt it out to those who were initiated in the “Mysteries” exactly as they saw fit, according as the interests of the grand system of spiritual despotism they had to administer might seem to require.  Thus the people, wherever the Babylonian system spread, were bound neck and heel to the priests.  The priests were the only depositaries of religious knowledge; they only had the true tradition, by which the writs and symbols of the public religion could be interpreted; and without blind and implicit submission to them, what was necessary for salvation could not be known.  Now compare this with the early history of the Papacy, and with its spirit and modus operandi throughout, and how exact was the coincidence! Was it in a period of patriarchal light that the corrupt system of the Babylonian “Mysteries” began?  It was in a period of still greater light that that unholy and unscriptural system commenced, that has found such rank development in the Church of Rome.  It began in the very age of the apostles, when the primitive Church was in its flower, when the glorious fruits of Pentecost were everywhere to be seen, when martyrs were sealing their testimony for the truth with their blood.  Even then, when the Gospel shone so brightly, the Spirit of God bore this clear and distinct testimony by Paul: “THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK” (2 Thess. 2:7).  That system of iniquity which then began it was divinely foretold was to issue in a portentous apostacy, that in due time would be awfully “revealed,” and would continue until it should be destroyed “by the breath of the Lord’s mouth, and consumed by the brightness of his coming” [Ibid. v. 8).  But at its first introduction into the Church, it came in secretly and by stealth, with “all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness.” It wrought “mysteriously” under fair but false pretences, leading men away from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus.  And it did so secretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly introduced in the ancient Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe, it was not prudent to do otherwise.  The zeal of the true Church, though destitute of civil power, would have aroused itself, to put the false system and all its abettors beyond the pale of Christianity, if it had appeared openly and all at once in all its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress.  Therefore it was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one corruption being introduced after another, as apostacy proceeded, and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it, till it has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in almost every particular the system of the Papacy is the very antipodes of the system of the primitive Church.  Of the gradual introduction of all that is now most characteristic of Rome, through the working of the “Mystery Of Iniquity,” we have very striking evidence, preserved even by Rome itself, in the inscriptions copied from the Roman catacombs.  These catacombs are extensive excavations underground in the neighbourhood of Rome, in which the Christians, in times of persecution during the first three centuries, celebrated their worship, and also buried their dead.  On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles and practices of Rome.  Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy?  Yet from these inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was known.  Witness the following, found on different tombs:—

1.  “To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife.  They made this for themselves.”

2.  “Petronia, a priest’s wife, the type of modesty.  In this place I lay my bones.  Spare your tears, dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God.”*  A prayer here and there for the dead: “May God refresh thy spirit,” proves that even then the Mystery of Iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working,—that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely “forbidding its priests to ‘marry.’”  Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of priest-craft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure.  At its commencement, “Mystery” was stamped upon its system.
But this feature of “Mystery” has adhered to it throughout its whole course.  When it had once succeeded in dimming the light of the Gospel, obscuring the fullness and freeness of the grace of God, and drawing away the souls of men from direct and immediate dealings with the One Grand Prophet and High Priest of our profession, a mysterious power was attributed to the clergy, which gave them “dominion over the faith” of the people—a dominion directly disclaimed by apostolic men (2 Cor. 1:24), but which, in connection with the confessional, has become at least as absolute and complete as was ever possessed by Babylonian priest over those initiated in the ancient Mysteries.  The clerical power of the Roman priesthood culminated in the erection of the confessional.  That confessional was itself borrowed from Babylon.  The confession required of the votaries of Rome is entirely different from the confession prescribed in the Word of God.  The dictate of Scripture in regard to confession is, “Confess your faults one to another” (James 5:16), which implies that the priest should confess to the people, as well as the people to the priest, if either should sin against the other.  This could never have served any purpose of spiritual despotism; and therefore, Rome, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian system.  In that system, secret confession to the priest, according to a prescribed form, was required of all who were admitted to the “Mysteries;” and till such confession had been made, no complete initiation could take place.  Thus does Salverté refer to this confession as observed in Greece, in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian origin:*—“All the Greeks, from Delphi to Thermopylae, were initiated in the Mysteries of the temple of Delphi. Their silence in regard to everything they were commanded to keep secret was secured both by the fear of the penalties threatened to a perjured revelation, and by the general CONFESSION exacted of the aspirants after initiation—a confession which caused them greater dread of the indiscretion of the priest, than gave him reason to dread their indiscretion.”  This confession is also referred to by Potter, in his “Greek Antiquities,” though it has been generally overlooked.  In his account of the Eleusinian mysteries, after describing the preliminary ceremonies and instructions before the admission of the candidates for initiation into the immediate presence of the divinities, he thus proceeds:—“Then the priest that initiated them, called Ιεϑοφαντης [the Hierophant], proposed certain QUESTIONS, as, whether they were fasting, &c, to which they returned answers in a set form.”  The etcetera here might not strike a casual reader; but it is a pregnant etcetera, and contains a great deal.  It means, Are you free from every violation of chastity? and that not merely in the sense of moral impurity, but in that factitious sense of chastity which Paganism always cherishes.*  Are you free from the guilt of murder?—for no one guilty of slaughter, even accidentally, could be admitted till he was purged from blood, and there were certain priests, called Köes, who “heard confessions” in such cases, and purged the guilt away.  The strictness of the inquiries in the Pagan confessional is evidently implied in certain licentious poems of Propertius, Tibullus, and Juvenal.  Wilkinson, in his chapter on “Private Fasts and Penance,” which, he says, “were strictly enforced,” in connection with “certain regulations at fixed periods,”§ has several classical quotations, which clearly prove whence Popery derived the kind of questions which have stamped that character of obscenity on its confessional, as exhibited in the notorious pages of Peter Dens.  The pretence under which this auricular confession was required, was, that the solemnities to which the initiated were to be admitted were so high, so heavenly, so holy, that no man with guilt lying on his conscience, and sin unpurged, could lawfully be admitted to them.  For the safety, therefore, of those who were to be initiated, it was held to be indispensable that the officiating priest should thoroughly probe their consciences, lest coming without due purgation from previous guilt contracted, the wrath of the gods should be provoked against the profane intruders.  This was the pretence; but when we know the essentially unholy nature, both of the gods and their worship, who can fail to see that this was nothing more than a pretence; that the grand object in requiring the candidates for initiation to make confession to the priest of all their secret faults and shortcomings and sins, was just to put them entirely in the power of those to whom the inmost feelings of their souls and their most important secrets were confided?  Now, exactly in the same way, and for the very same purposes, has Rome erected the confessional.  Instead of requiring priests and people alike, as the Scripture does, to “confess their faults one to another,” when either have offended the other, it commands all, on pain of perdition, to confess to the priest, * whether they have transgressed against him or no, while the priest is under no obligation to confess to the people at all.  Without such confession, in the Church of Rome, there can be no admission to the Sacraments, any more than in the days of Paganism there could be admission without confession to the benefit of the Mysteries.  Now, this confession is made by every individual, IN SECRECY AND IN SOLITUDE, to the priest sitting in the name and clothed with the authority of God, invested with the power to examine the conscience, to judge the life, to absolve or condemn according to his mere arbitrary will and pleasure.  This is the grand pivot on which the whole “Mystery of Iniquity,” as embodied in the Papacy, is made to turn; and wherever it is submitted to, admirably does it serve the design of binding men in abject subjection to the priesthood.
In conformity with the principle out of which the confessional grew, the Church, that is, the clergy, claimed to be the sole depositaries of the true faith of Christianity.  As the Chaldean priests were believed alone to possess the key to the understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, a key handed down to them from primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be the sole interpreters of Scripture; they only had the true tradition, transmitted from age to age, without which it was impossible to arrive at its true meaning.  They, therefore, require implicit faith in their dogmas; all men were bound to believe as the Church believed, while the Church in this way could shape its faith as it pleased.  As possessing supreme authority, also, over the faith, they could let out little or much, as they judged most expedient; and “RESERVE” in teaching the great truths of religion was as essential a principle in the system of Babylon, as it is in Romanism or Tractarianism at this day.*  It was this priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that “imprisoned the truth in unrighteousness”  in the ancient world, so that “darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people.” It was the very same claim, in the hands of the Roman priests, that ushered in the dark ages, when, through many a dreary century, the Gospel was unknown, and the Bible a sealed book to millions who bore the name of Christ.  In every respect, then, we see how justly Rome bears on its forehead the name, “Mystery, Babylon the great.”

 

 

 

CHAPTER II.Objects of Worship.

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, Phenicia, 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 (Egyptiis vero antiquiores esse MAGOS Aristoteles auctor est in primo de Philosophia libro.—Theopompi Frag.)”  “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 Phenicians came from the same source.  Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of the Phenician 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 Phenicans.”*

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, Phenicia, 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.”—(Tacit. 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 Hindus 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 רַחוּם 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 Brahmà—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 Brahmà, 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” (Exod. 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who in the beginning “spoke 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, anyone who consults the “Asiatic Researches,” vol. vii. p. 293, 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 makes the symbols of the pagan temples of India so offensive to the eye of purity.§
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.” (Isaiah 66:17).  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.*  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.  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 (Fig. 3).  The accompanying cut (Fig. 4) 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.”*  The three heads are differently arranged in Layard’s specimen, but both alike are evidently intended to symbolise the same concept, although all such representations 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.”
 
 

Fig.3 is from Assyria, and Fig. 4 from Siberia.

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 in Genesis.  When we look at the symbols in the trinity 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 Chaldee was Zero;* and Zero also signified “the seed.”  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 trinity 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 Spirit.  While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Three-in-One 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.

————

Section II.The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child.

While this was the theory, the first person in the Godhead was practically overlooked.  As the Great Invisible, taking no immediate concern in human affairs, he was “to be worshipped through silence alone,”*  that is, in point of fact, he was not worshipped by the multitude at all.  The same thing is strikingly illustrated in India at this day.  Though Brahmà, according to the sacred books, is the first person of the Hindoo Triad, and the religion of Hindostan is called by his name, yet he is never worshipped, and there is scarcely a single temple in all India now in existence of those that were formerly erected to his honour.
So also is it in those countries of Europe where the Papal system is most completely developed.  In Papal Italy, as travellers universally admit (except where the Gospel has recently entered), all appearance of worshipping the King Eternal and Invisible is almost extinct, while the Mother and the Child are the grand objects of worship.  Exactly so, in this latter respect, also was it in ancient Babylon.  The Babylonians, in their popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother’s arms (Fig. 5).  From Babylon, this worship of the Mother and the Child spread to the ends of the earth.  In Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris,* in India, even to this day, as Isa and Iswara (Fig. 6); in Asia, as Cybele and Deōius in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy;§ in Greece, as Ceres, the great Mother, with the babe at her breast,** or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms;†† and even in Thibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were astonished to find the counterpart of Madonna‡‡  and her child as devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had been employed to set her up.*
 
 
Fig. 5 is from Babylon* and Fig. 6 from India.

————

Sub-Section I.The Child in Assyria.

The original of that mother, so widely worshipped, there is reason to believe, was Semiramis, already referred to, who, it is well known, was worshipped by the Babylonians,* and other eastern nations, and that under the name of Rhea, the great “Goddess Mother.”
It was from the son, however, that she derived all her glory and her claims to deification.  That son, though represented as a child in his mother’s arms, was a person of great stature and immense bodily powers, as well as most fascinating manners.  In Scripture he is referred to (Ezek. 8:14) under the name of Tammuz, but he is commonly known among classical writers under the name of Bacchus, that is, “The Lamented one.”§  To the ordinary reader the name of Bacchus suggests nothing more than revelry and drunkenness, but it is now well known, that amid all the abominations that attended his orgies, their grand design was professedly “the purification of souls,”** and that from the guilt and defilement of sin.  This lamented one, exhibited and adored as a little child in his mother’s arms, seems, in point of fact, to have been the husband of Semiramis, whose name, Ninus, by which he is commonly known in classical history, literally signified “The Son.”††  As Semiramis, the wife, was worshipped as Rhea, whose grand distinguishing character was that of the great goddess “Mother,”‡‡ the conjunction with her of her husband, under the name of Ninus, or “The Son,” was sufficient to originate the peculiar worship of the “Mother and Son,” so extensively diffused among the nations of antiquity; and this, no doubt, is the explanation of the fact which has so much puzzled the inquirers into ancient history, that Ninus is sometimes called the husband, and sometimes the son of Semiramis.* This also accounts for the origin of the very same confusion of relationship between Isis and Osiris, the mother and child of the Egyptians; for, as Bunsen shows, Osiris was represented in Egypt as at once the son and husband of his mother; and actually bore, as one of his titles of dignity and honour, the name “Husband of the Mother.”  This still further casts light on the fact already noticed, that the Indian God Iswara is represented as a babe at the breast of his own wife Isi, or Parvati.
Now, this Ninus, or “Son,” borne in the arms of the Babylonian Madonna, is so described as very clearly to identify him with Nimrod.  “Ninus, king of the Assyrians,”* says Trogus Pompeius, epitomised by Justin, “first of all changed the contented moderation of the ancient manners, incited by a new passion, the desire of conquest.  He was the first who carried on war against his neighbours, and he conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia, as they were yet unacquainted with the arts of war.”  This account points directly to Nimrod, and can apply to no other.  The account of Diodorus Siculus entirely agrees with it, and adds another trait that goes still further to determine the identity.  That account is as follows:—“Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in history, performed great actions.  Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory that results from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and vigorous like himself, trained them up a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war, and to face dangers with intrepidity.”*  As Diodorus makes Ninus “the most ancient of the Assyrian kings,” and represents him as beginning those wars which raised his power to an extraordinary height by bringing the people of Babylonia under subjection to him, while as yet the city of Babylon was not in existence, this shows that he occupied the very position of Nimrod, of whom the Scriptural account is, that he first “began to be mighty on the earth,” and that the “beginning of his kingdom was Babylon.” [Gen 10:9-10]  As the Babel builders, when their speech was confounded, were scattered abroad on the face of the earth, and therefore deserted both the city and the tower which they had commenced to build, Babylon as a city, could not properly be said to exist till, Nimrod, by establishing his power there, made it the foundation and starting-point of his greatness.  In this respect, then, the story of Ninus and of Nimrod exactly harmonise.  The way, too, in which Ninus gained his power is the very way in which Nimrod erected his.  There can be no doubt that it was by inuring his followers to the toils and dangers of the chase, that he gradually formed them to the use of arms, and so prepared them for aiding him in establishing his dominion; just as Ninus, by training his companions for a long time “in laborious exercises and hardships,” qualified them for making him the first of the Assyrian kings.
The conclusions deduced from these testimonies of ancient history are greatly strengthened by many additional considerations.  In Gen. 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject.  That passage, as given in the authorised version, runs thus:—“Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh.”  This speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the human race in general went forth from the same land.  It goes upon the supposition that Asshur had some sort of divine right to that land, and that he had been, in a manner, expelled from it by Nimrod, while no divine right is elsewhere hinted at in the context, or seems capable of proof.  Moreover, it represents Asshur as setting up in the IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURHOOD of Nimrod as mighty a kingdom as Nimrod himself, Asshur building four cities, one of which is emphatically said to have been “great” (ver. 12); while Nimrod, on this interpretation, built just the same number of cities, of which none is specially characterised as “great.”  Now, it is in the last degree improbable that Nimrod would have quietly borne so mighty a rival so near him.  To obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, “out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria.”  But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original should have been “Ashurah,” with the sign of motion to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed.  I am persuaded that the whole perplexity that commentators have hitherto felt in considering this passage, has arisen from supposing that there is a proper name in the passage, where in reality no proper name exists.  Asshur is the passive participle of a verb, which, in its Chaldee sense, signifies “to make strong,”* and, consequently, signifies “being strengthened,” or “made strong.” Read thus, the whole passage is natural and easy (ver. 10), “And the beginning of his (Nimrod’s) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.”  A beginning naturally implies something to succeed, and here we find it (ver. 11); “Out of that land he went forth, being made strong, or when he had been made strong (ashur), and builded Nineveh,” &c.  Now, this exactly agrees with the statement in the ancient history of Justin: “Ninus strengthened the greatness of his acquired dominion by continued possession.  Having subdued, therefore, his neighbours, when, by an accession of forces, being still further strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and as every new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the peoples of the East.”*  Thus, then,  Nimrod, or Ninus, was the builder of Nineveh; and the origin of the name of that city, as “the habitation of Ninus,” is accounted for, and light is thereby, at the same time, cast on the fact that the name of the chief part of the ruins of Nineveh is Nimroud at this day.
Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that assumption itself.  Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon.  If Ninus was in reality the first king of Babylon, how could Belus or Bel, his father, be said to be the founder of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we consider who was Bel, and what we can trace of his doings.  If Ninus was Nimrod, who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for “Cush begat Nimrod” (Gen. 10:8); and Cush is generally represented as having been a ringleader in the great apostacy.§  But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the “son of Ham.”*  Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods.  The distinguished Gesenius identifies him with the Babylonian Nebo, as the prophetic god; and a statement of Hyginus shows that he was known as the grand agent in that movement which produced the division of tongues.  His words are these: “For many aged men lived under the government of Jove [evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of the Hebrews], without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language.  But after that Mercury interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes), the same individual distributed the nations.  Then discord began.”*  Here there is a manifest enigma.  How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the speeches of mankind when they “all spoke one language”?  To find out the meaning of this, we must go to the language of the Mysteries.  Peresh, in Chaldee, signifies “to interpret;” but was pronounced by old Egyptians and by Greeks, and often by the Chaldees themselves, in the same way as “Peres,” to “divide.”  Mercury, then, or Hermes, or Cush, “the son of Ham,” was the “DIVIDER of the speeches of men.”  He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well-known title of Hermes,—“the interpreter of the gods,” would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be divided, and themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the earth.  Now look at the name of Belus or Bel, given to the father of Ninus, or Nimrod, in connection with this.  While the Greek name Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were nevertheless two entirely distinct titles.  These titles were both alike often given to the same god, but they had totally different meanings.  Baal, as we have already seen, signified “The Lord;” but Bel signified “The Confounder.”  When, then, we read that Belus, the father of Ninus, was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt, in what sense it was that the title of Belus was given to him?  It must have been in the sense of Bel the “Confounder.” And to this meaning of the name of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in Jeremiah 1:2, where it is said, “Bel is confounded,” that is, “The Confounder is brought to confusion.”  That Cush was known to Pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel, “The Confounder,” a statement of Ovid very clearly proves.  The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus “the god of gods,”* from whom all the other gods had their origin; is made to say of himself: “The ancients …. called me Chaos.”  Now, first this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but as the “god of Confusion.”  But, secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name of Chus or Cush?§  Then, look at the symbol of Janus (see Fig. 7**), whom “the ancients called Chaos,” and it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of Cush, when he is identified with Bel, “The Confounder.” That symbol is a club; and the name of “a club” in Chaldee comes from the very word which signifies “to break in pieces, or scatter abroad.”††  He who caused the confusion of tongues was he who “broke” the previously united earth (Gen. 11:1) “in pieces,” and “scattered” the fragments abroad.

 

Fig. 7.

 
 

 

How significant, then, as a symbol, is the club, as commemorating the work of Cush, as Bel, the “Confounder”?  And that significance will be all the more apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of Gen. 11:9, and finds that the very word from which a club derives its name is that which is employed when it is said, that in consequence of the confusion of tongues, the children of men were “scattered abroad on the face of all the earth.”*  The word there used for scattering abroad is הֱפִיצָם Hephaitz, which, in the Greek form becomes Hephaizt, and hence the origin of the well-known but little understood name of Hephaistos, as applied to Vulcan, “The father of the gods.” Hephaistos is the name of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as “The Scatterer abroad,” as Bel is the name of the same individual as the “Confounder of tongues.”  Here, then, the reader may see the real origin of Vulcan’s Hammer, which is just another name for the club of Janus or Chaos, “The god of Confusion;” and to this, as breaking the earth in pieces, there is a covert allusion in Jer. 1:23, where Babylon, as identified with its primeval god, is thus apostrophised: “How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken!”  Now, as the tower-building was the first act of open rebellion after the flood, and Cush, as Bel, was the ringleader in it, he was, of course, the first to whom the name Merodach, “The great Rebel,”* must have been given, and, therefore, according to the usual parallelism of the prophetic language, we find both names of the Babylonian god referred to together, when the judgment on Babylon is predicted: “Bel is confounded: Merodach is broken in pieces “(Jer. 1:2).  The judgment comes upon the Babylonian god according to what he had done.  As Bel, he had “confounded” the whole earth, therefore he is “confounded.” As Merodach, by the rebellion he had stirred up, he had “broken” the united world in pieces; therefore he himself is “broken in pieces.”
So much for the historical character of Bel, as identified with Janus or Chaos, the god of confusion, with his symbolical club.  Proceeding, then, on these deductions, it is not difficult to see how it might be said that Bel or Belus, the father of Ninus, founded Babylon, while, nevertheless, Ninus or Nimrod was properly the builder of it.  Now, though Bel or Cush, as being specially concerned in laying the first foundations of Babylon, might be looked upon as the first king, as in some of the copies of “Eusebius’s Chronicle” he is represented, yet it is evident, from both sacred history and profane, that he could never have reigned as king of the Babylonian monarchy, properly so called; and accordingly, in the Armenian version of the “Chronicle of Eusebius,” which bears the undisputed palm for correctness and authority, his name is entirely omitted in the list of Assyrian kings, and that of Ninus stands first, in such terms as exactly correspond with the Scriptural account of Nimrod.  Thus, then, looking at the fact that Ninus is currently made by antiquity the son of Belus, or Bel, when we have seen that the historical Bel is Cush, the identity of Ninus and Nimrod is still further confirmed.
But when we look at what is said of Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, the evidence receives an additional development.  That evidence goes conclusively to show that the wife of Ninus could be none other than the wife of Nimrod, and, further, to bring out one of the grand characters in which Nimrod, when deified, was adored.  In Daniel 11:38, we read of a god called Ala mahozine*i.e., “the god of fortifications.”  Who this god of fortifications could be, commentators have found themselves at a loss to determine.  In the records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands forth there with any prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the existence of a goddess of fortifications, everyone knows that there is the amplest evidence.  That goddess is Cybele, who is universally represented with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on her head.  Why was Rhea or Cybele thus represented?  Ovid asks the question and answers it himself; and the answer is this:  The reason, he says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, “because she first erected them in cities.”*  The first city in the world after the flood (from whence the commencement of the world itself was often dated) that had towers and encompassing walls, was Babylon; and Ovid himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that city, who was believed to have “surrounded Babylon with a wall of brick.”  Semiramis, then, the first deified queen of that city and tower whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have been the prototype of the goddess who “first made towers in cities.” When we look at the Ephesian Diana, we find evidence to the very same effect.  In general, Diana was depicted as a Virgin, and the patroness of virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different.  She was represented with all the attributes of the Mother of the gods (see Fig. 8), and, as the Mother of the gods, she wore a turreted crown, such as no one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded of the tower of Babel.

 

Fig 8.

 
 

Diana of Ephesis**

** From KITTO’S Illustrated Commentary, vol. v. p. 205.

Now, this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly identified with Semiramis.*  When, therefore, we remember that Rhea, or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, was, in point of fact, a Babylonian goddess,*  and that Semiramis, when deified, was worshipped under the name of Rhea, there will remain, I think, no doubt as to the personal identity of the “goddess of fortifications.”
Now there is no reason to believe that Semiramis alone (though some have represented the matter so) built the battlements of Babel.  We have the express testimony of the ancient historian, Megasthenes, as preserved by Abydenus, that it was “Belus” who “surrounded Babylon with a wall.”  As “Bel,” the Confounder, who began the city and tower of Babel, had to leave both unfinished, this could not refer to him.  It could refer only to his son Ninus, who inherited his father’s title, and who was the first actual king of the Babylonian empire, and, consequently, Nimrod.  The real reason that Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, gained the glory of finishing the fortifications of Babylon, was, that she came in the esteem of the ancient idolaters to hold a preponderating position, and to have attributed to her all the different characters that belonged, or were supposed to belong, to her husband.  Having ascertained, then, one of the characters in which the deified wife was worshipped, we may from that conclude what was the corresponding character of the deified husband.  Layard distinctly indicates his belief that Rhea or Cybele, the “tower-crown” goddess, was just the female counterpart of the “deity presiding over bulwarks or fortresses;”§ and that this deity was Ninus, or Nimrod, we have still further evidence from what the scattered notices of antiquity say of the first deified king of Babylon, under a name that identifies him as the husband of Rhea, the “tower-bearing” goddess.  That name is Kronos or Saturn.*  It is well known that Kronos, or Saturn, was Rhea’s husband; but it is not so well known who was Kronos himself.  Traced back to his original, that divinity is proved to have been the first king of Babylon.  Theophilus of Antioch shows that Kronos in the East was worshipped under the names of Bel and Bal; and from Eusebius we learn that the first of the Assyrian kings, whose name was Belus, was also by the Assyrians called Kronos.*  As the genuine copies of Eusebius do not admit of any Belus, as an actual king of Assyria, prior to Ninus, king of the Babylonians, and distinct from him, that shows that Ninus, the first king of Babylon, was Kronos.  But, further, we find that Kronos was king of the Cyclops, who were his brethren, and who derived that name from him, and that the Cyclops were known as “the inventors of tower-building.”  The king of the Cyclops, “the inventors of tower-building,” occupied a position exactly correspondent to that of Rhea, who “first erected (towers) in cities.”  If, therefore, Rhea, the wife of Kronos, was the goddess of fortifications, Kronos or Saturn, the husband of Rhea, that is, Ninus or Nimrod, the first king of Babel, must have been Ala mahozim, “the god of fortifications.”§
The name Kronos itself goes not a little to confirm the argument.  Kronos signifies “The Horned one.”**  As a horn is a well-known Oriental emblem for power or might, Kronos, “The Horned one,” was, according to the mystic system, just a synonym for the Scriptural epithet applied to Nimrod—viz., Gheber, “The mighty one.” (Gen. 10:8), “He began to be mighty on the earth.”  The name Kronos, as the classical reader is well aware, is applied to Saturn as the “Father of the gods.”  We have already had another “father of the gods” brought under our notice, even Cush in his character of Bel the Confounder, or Hephaistos, “The Scatterer abroad;”* and it is easy to understand how, when the deification of mortals began, and the “mighty” Son of Cush was deified, the father, especially considering the part which he seems to have had in concocting the whole idolatrous system, would have to be deified too, and of course, in his character as the Father of the “Mighty one,” and of all the “immortals” that succeeded him.  But, in point of fact, we shall find, in the course of our inquiry, that Nimrod was the actual Father of the gods, as being the first of deified mortals; and that, therefore, it is in exact accordance with historical fact that Kronos, the Horned, or Mighty one, is, in the Classic Pantheon, known by that title.
The meaning of this name Kronos, “The Horned one,” as applied to Nimrod, fully explains the origin of the remarkable symbol, so frequently occurring among the Nineveh sculptures, the gigantic HORNED man-bull, as representing the great divinities in Assyria.  The same word that signified a bull, signified also a ruler or prince.   Hence the “Horned bull” signified “The mighty Prince,” thereby pointing back to the first of those “Mighty ones,” who, under the name of Guebres, Gabrs, or Cabiri, occupied so conspicuous a place in the ancient world, and to whom the deified Assyrian monarchs covertly traced back the origin of their greatness and might.  This explains the reason why the Bacchus of the Greeks was represented as wearing horns, and why he was frequently addressed by the epithet “Bull-horned,” as one of the high titles of his dignity.*  Even in comparatively recent times, Togrul Begh, the leader of the Seljukian Turks, who came from the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, was in a similar manner represented with three horns growing out of his head, as the emblem of his sovereignty (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9.

 
 
This, also, in a remarkable way accounts for the origin of one of the divinities worshipped by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors under the name of Zernebogus.  This Zernebogus was “the black, malevolent, ill-omened divinity,” in other words, the exact counterpart of the popular idea of the Devil, as supposed to be black, and equipped with horns and hoofs.  This name, analysed and compared with the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 10), from Layard,* casts a very singular light on the source from whence has come the popular superstition in regard to the grand Adversary.

Fig. 10.

 
 
The name Zer-Nebo-Gus is almost pure Chaldee, and seems to unfold itself as denoting “The seed of the prophet Cush.”  We have seen reason already to conclude that, under the name Bel, as distinguished from Baal, Cush was the great soothsayer or false prophet worshipped at Babylon.  But independent inquirers have been led to the conclusion that Bel and Nebo were just two different titles for the same god, and that a prophetic god.  Thus does Kitto comment on the words of Isaiah 46:1: “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth,” with reference to the latter name: “The word seems to come from Nibba, to deliver an oracle, or to prophesy; and hence would mean an ‘oracle,’ and may thus, as Calmet suggests (‘Commentaire Literal,’ in loc), be no more than another name for Bel himself, or a characterising epithet applied to him; it being not unusual to repeat the same thing, in the same verse, in equivalent terms.”*  “Zer-Nebo-Gus,” the great “seed of the prophet Cush,” was, of course, Nimrod; for Cush was Nimrod’s father.  Turn now to Layard, and see how this land of ours and Assyria are thus brought into intimate connection.  In the Fig. 10 woodcut, first we find “the Assyrian Hercules,” that is “Nimrod the giant,” as he is called in the Septuagint version of Genesis, without club, spear, or weapons of any kind, attacking a bull.  Having overcome it, he sets the bull’s horns on his head, as a trophy of victory and a symbol of power; and thenceforth the hero is represented, not only with the horns and hoofs above, but from the middle downwards, with the legs and cloven feet of the bull.  Thus equipped, he is represented as turning next to encounter a lion.  This, in all likelihood, is intended to commemorate some event in the life of him who first began to be mighty in the chase and in war, and who, according to all ancient traditions, was remarkable also for bodily power, as being the leader of the Giants that rebelled against heaven.  Now Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was black, in other words, was a negro.  “Can the Æthiopian change his skin?” is in the original, “Can the Cushite do so?”  Keeping this, then, in mind, it will be seen that in that figure disentombed from Nineveh, we have both the prototype of the Anglo-Saxon Zer-Nebo-Gus, “the seed of the prophet Cush,” and the real original of the black Adversary of mankind, with horns and hoofs.  It was in a different character from that of the Adversary that Nimrod was originally worshipped; but among a people of a fair complexion, as the Anglo-Saxons, it was inevitable that, if worshipped at all, it must generally be simply as an object of fear; and so Kronos, “The Horned one,” who wore the “horns,” as the emblem both of his physical might and sovereign power, has come to be, in popular superstition, the recognised representative of the Devil.
In many and far-separated countries, horns became the symbols of sovereign power.  The corona or crown, that still encircles the brows of European monarchs, seems remotely to be derived from the emblem of might adopted by Kronos, or Saturn, who, according to Pherecydes, was “the first before all others that ever wore a crown.”*
The first regal crown appears to have been only a band, in which the horns were set.  From the idea of power contained in the “horn,” even subordinate rulers seem to have worn a circlet adorned with a single horn, in token of their derived authority.  Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller, gives examples of Abyssinian chiefs thus decorated (Fig. 11), in regard to whom he states that the horn attracted his particular attention, when he perceived that the governors of provinces were distinguished by this head-dress.  In the case of sovereign powers, the royal head-band was adorned sometimes with a double, sometimes with a triple horn.  The double horn had evidently been the original symbol of power or might on the part of sovereigns; for, on the Egyptian monuments, the heads of the deified royal personages have generally no more than the two horns to shadow forth their power.  As sovereignty in Nimrod’s case was founded on physical force, so the two horns of the bull were the symbols of that physical force.  And, in accordance with this, we read in “Sanchuniathon,” that “Astarte put on her own head a bull’s head, as the ensign of royalty.”

 

 

Fig. 11