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