The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop
Chapter VII
Section IV
The Image of the Beast
Not merely does the beast from the earth lead the
world to worship the first beast, but (v 14) he prevails on them that dwell on the earth
to make "an IMAGE to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."
In meditating for many years on what might be implied in "the image of the
beast," I could never find the least satisfaction in all the theories that had ever
been propounded, till I fell in with an unpretending but valuable work, which I have
noticed already, entitled An Original Interpretation of the Apocalypse. That work,
evidently the production of a penetrating mind deeply read in the history of the Papacy,
furnished at once the solution of the difficulty. There the image of the beast is
pronounced to be the Virgin Mother, or the Madonna. This at first sight may appear a very
unlikely solution; but when it is brought into comparison with the religious history of
Chaldea, the unlikelihood entirely disappears. In the old Babylonian Paganism, there was
an image of the Beast from the sea; and when it is known what that image was, the
question will, I think, be fairly decided. When Dagon was first set up to be worshipped,
while he was represented in many different ways, and exhibited in many different
characters, the favourite form in which he was worshipped, as the reader well knows, was
that of a child in his mother's arms. In the natural course of events, the mother came to
be worshipped along with the child, yea, to be the favourite object of worship. To justify
this worship, as we have already seen, that mother, of course, must be raised to divinity,
and divine powers and prerogatives ascribed to her. Whatever dignity, therefore, the son
was believed to possess a like dignity was ascribed to her. Whatever name of honour he
bore, a similar name was bestowed upon her. He was called Belus, "the Lord";
she, Beltis, "My Lady." He was called Dagon, "the Merman"; she,
Derketo, "the Mermaid." He, as the World-king, wore the bull's horns; she, as we
have already seen, on the authority of Sanchuniathon, put on her own head a bull's
head, as the ensign of royalty. *
* EUSEBIUS, Proeparatio Evangelii. This
statement is remarkable, as showing that the horns which the great goddess wore were
really intended to exhibit her as the express image of Ninus, or "the Son." Had
she worn merely the cow's horns, it might have been supposed that these horns were
intended only to identify her with the moon. But the bull's horns show that the
intention was to represent her as equal in her sovereignty with Nimrod, or Kronos, the
"Horned one."
He, as the Sun-god, was called Beel-samen,
"Lord of heaven"; she, as the Moon-goddess, Melkat-ashemin, "Queen of
heaven." He was worshipped in Egypt as the "Revealer of goodness and
truth"; she, in Babylon, under the symbol of the Dove, as the goddess of gentleness
and mercy, the "Mother of gracious acceptance," "merciful and benignant to
men." He, under the name of Mithra, was worshipped as Mesites, or
"the Mediator"; she, as Aphrodite, or the "Wrath-subduer," was called
Mylitta, "the Mediatrix." He was represented as crushing the great serpent under
his heel; she, as bruising the serpent's head in her hand. He, under the name Janus, bore
a key as the opener and shutter of the gates of the invisible world. She, under the name
of Cybele, was invested with a like key, as an emblem of the same power. *
* TOOKE'S Pantheon. That the key of
Cybele, in the esoteric story, had a corresponding meaning to that of Janus, will appear
from the character above assigned to her as the Mediatrix.
He, as the cleanser from sin, was called the
"Unpolluted god"; she, too, had the power to wash away sin, and, though the
mother of the seed, was called the "Virgin, pure and undefiled." He was
represented as "Judge of the dead"; she was represented as standing by his side,
at the judgment-seat, in the unseen world. He, after being killed by the sword, was fabled
to have risen again, and ascended up to heaven. She, too, though history makes her to have
been killed with the sword by one of her own sons, * was nevertheless in the myth, said to
have been carried by her son bodily to heaven, and to have been made Pambasileia,
"Queen of the universe." Finally, to clench the whole, the name by which she was
now known was Semele, which, in the Babylonian language, signifies "THE IMAGE."
** Thus, in every respect, to the very least jot and tittle, she became the express image
of the Babylonian "beast that had the wound by a sword, and did live."
* In like manner, Horus, in Egypt, is said to
have cut off his mother's head, as Bel in Babylon also cut asunder the great primeval
goddess of the Babylonians. (BUNSEN)
** Apollodorus states that Bacchus, on carrying
his mother to heaven, called her Thuone, which was just the feminine of his own name,
Thuoenus--in Latin Thyoneus. (OVID, Metam.) Thuoneus is evidently from the passive
participle of Thn, "to lament," a synonym for "Bacchus,"
"The lamented god." Thuone, in like manner, is "The lamented goddess."
The Roman Juno was evidently known in this very character of the "Image"; for
there was a temple erected to her in Rome, on the Capitoline hill, under the name of
"Juno Moneta." Moneta is the emphatic form of one of the Chaldee words for an
"image"; and that this was the real meaning of the name, will appear from the
fact that the Mint was contained in the precincts of that temple. (See SMITH'S
"Juno") What is the use of a mint but just to stamp "images"?
Hence the connection between Juno and the Mint.
After what the reader has already seen in a
previous part of this work, it is hardly necessary to say that it is this very goddess
that is now worshipped in the Church of Rome under the name of Mary. Though that goddess
is called by the name of the mother of our Lord, all the attributes given to her are
derived simply from the Babylonian Madonna, and not from the Virgin Mother of
Christ. *
* The very way in which the Popish Madonna is
represented is plainly copied from the idolatrous representations of the Pagan goddess.
The great god used to be represented as sitting or standing in the cup of a Lotus-flower.
In India, the very same mode of representation is common; Brahma being often seen seated
on a Lotus-flower, said to have sprung from the navel of Vishnu. The great goddess, in
like manner, must have a similar couch; and, therefore, in India, we find Lakshmi, the
"Mother of the Universe," sitting on a Lotus, borne by a tortoise (see Fig. 57). Now, in this very thing, also Popery has
copied from its Pagan model; for, in the Pancarpium Marianum the Virgin and child
are represented sitting in the cup of a tulip (see Fig.
58).
There is not one line or one letter in all the
Bible to countenance the idea that Mary should be worshipped, that she is the "refuge
of sinners," that she was "immaculate," that she made atonement for sin
when standing by the cross, and when, according to Simeon, "a sword pierced through
her own soul also"; or that, after her death, she was raised from the dead and
carried in glory to heaven. But in the Babylonian system all this was found; and all this
is now incorporated in the system of Rome. The "sacred heart of Mary" is
exhibited as pierced through with a sword, in token, as the apostate Church
teaches, that her anguish at the crucifixion was as true an atonement as the death of
Christ;--for we read in the Devotional office or Service-book, adopted by the
"Sodality of the sacred heart," such blasphemous words as these, "Go, then,
devout client! go to the heart of Jesus, but let your way be through the heart of Mary; the
sword of grief which pierced her soul opens you a passage; enter by the wound which
love has made"; *--again we hear one expounder of the new faith, like M. Genoude in
France, say that "Mary was the repairer of the guilt of Eve, as our Lord was the
repairer of the guilt of Adam"; and another--Professor Oswald of Paderbon--affirm
that Mary was not a human creature like us, that she is "the Woman, as Christ is the
Man," that "Mary is co-present in the Eucharist, and that it is indisputable
that, according to the Eucharistic doctrine of the Church, this presence of Mary in the
Eucharist is true and real, not merely ideal or figurative"; and, further, we
read in the Pope's decree of the Immaculate Conception, that that same Madonna, for this
purpose "wounded with the sword," rose from the dead, and being assumed up on
high, became Queen of Heaven. If all this be so, who can fail to see that in that apostate
community is to be found what precisely answers to the making and setting up in the heart
of Christendom, of an "Image to the beast that had the wound by a sword and did
live"?
* Memoir of Rev. Godfrey Massy. In the Paradisus
sponsi et sponsoe, by the author of Pancarpium Marianum, the following words,
addressed to the Virgin, occur in illustration of a plate representing the crucifixion,
and Mary, at the foot of the Cross, with the sword in her breast, "Thy beloved
son did sacrifice his flesh; thou thy soul--yea, both body and soul." This does much
more than put the sacrifice of the Virgin on a level with that of the Lord Jesus, it makes
it greater far. This, in 1617, was the creed only of Jesuitism; now there is reason
to believe it to be the general creed of the Papacy.
If the inspired terms be consulted, it will be
seen that this was to be done by some public general act of apostate Christendom; (v 14),
"Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast"; and they made it. Now, here is the important fact to be observed, that this
never was done, and this never could have been done, till eight years ago; for this
plain reason, that till then the Madonna of Rome was never recognised as combining all the
characters that belonged to the Babylonian "IMAGE of the beast." Till then it
was not admitted even in Rome, though this evil leaven had been long working, and that
strongly, that Mary was truly immaculate, and consequently she could not be the perfect
counterpart of the Babylonian Image. What, however, had never been done before, was done
in December, 1854. Then bishops from all parts of Christendom, and representatives from
the ends of the earth, met in Rome; and with only four dissentient voices, it was decreed
that Mary, the mother of God, who died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven,
should henceforth be worshipped as the Immaculate Virgin, "conceived and born without
sin." This was the formal setting up of the Image of the beast, and that by the
general consent of "the men that dwell upon the earth." Now, this beast being
set up, it is said, that the beast from the earth gives life and speech to the
Image, implying, first, that it has neither life nor voice in itself; but that,
nevertheless, through means of the beast from the earth, it is to have both life and
voice, and to be an effective agent of the Papal clergy, who will make it speak exactly as
they please. Since the Image has been set up, its voice has been everywhere heard
throughout the Papacy. Formerly decrees ran less or more in the name of Christ. Now all
things are pre-eminently done in the name of the Immaculate Virgin. Her voice is
everywhere heard--her voice is supreme. But, be it observed, when that voice is heard, it
is not the voice of mercy and love, it is the voice of cruelty and terror. The decrees
that come forth under the name of the Image, are to this effect (v 17), that "no man
might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of
his name." No sooner is the image set up than we see this very thing begun to be
carried out. What was the Concordat in Austria, that so speedily followed, but this very
thing? That concordat, through the force of unexpected events that have arisen, has not
yet been carried into effect; but if it were, the results would just be what is
predicted--that no man in the Austrian dominions should "buy or sell" without
the mark in some shape or other. And the very fact of such an intolerant concordat coming
so speedily on the back of the Decree of the Immaculate Conception, shows what is the
natural fruit of that decree. The events that soon thereafter took place in Spain showed
the powerful working of the same persecuting spirit there also. During the last few years,
the tide of spiritual despotism might have seemed to be effectually arrested; and many, no
doubt, have indulged the persuasion that, crippled as the temporal sovereignty of the
Papacy is, and tottering as it seems to be, that power, or its subordinates, could never
persecute more. But there is an amazing vitality in the Mystery of Iniquity; and no one
can ever tell beforehand what apparent impossibilities it may accomplish in the way of
arresting the progress of truth and liberty, however promising the aspect of things may
be. Whatever may become of the temporal sovereignty of the Roman states, it is by no means
so evident this day, as to many it seemed only a short while ago, that the overthrow of
the spiritual power of the Papacy is imminent, and that its power to persecute is finally
gone. I doubt not but that many, constrained by the love and mercy of God, will yet obey
the heavenly voice, and flee out of the doomed communion, before the vials of Divine wrath
descend upon it. But if I have been right in the interpretation of this passage, then it
follows that it must yet become more persecuting than ever it has been, and that that
intolerance, which, immediately after the setting up of the Image, began to display itself
in Austria and Spain, shall yet spread over all Europe; for it is not said that the Image
of the beast should merely decree, but should "cause that as many as
would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed" (v 15). When this takes
place, that evidently is the time when the language of verse 8 is fulfilled, "And all
that dwell on the earth shall worship the beast, whose names are not written in the book
of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." It is impossible to get
quit of this by saying, "This refers to the Dark Ages; this was fulfilled before
Luther." I ask, had the men who dwelt on the earth set up the Image of the beast
before Luther's days? Plainly not. The decree of the Immaculate Conception was the deed of
yesterday. The prophecy, then, refers to our own times--to the period on which the Church
is now entering. In other words, the slaying of the witnesses, the grand trial of the
saints, IS STILL TO COME. (see note below)
____________________
The Slaying of the Witnesses
Is it past, or is it still to come? This is a
vital question. The favourite doctrine at this moment is, that it is past centuries ago,
and that no such dark night of suffering to the saints of God can ever come again, as
happened just before the era of the Reformation. This is the cardinal principle of a work
that has just appeared, under the title of The Great Exodus, which implies, that
however much the truth may be assailed, however much the saints of God may be threatened,
however their fears may be aroused, they have no real reason to fear, for that the Red Sea
will divide, the tribes of the Lord will pass through dry shod, and all their enemies,
like Pharaoh and his host, shall sink in overwhelming ruin. If the doctrine maintained by
many of the soberest interpreters of Scripture for a century past, including such names as
Brown of Haddington, Thomas Scott, and others, be well founded-viz., that the putting down
of the testimony of the witnesses is till to come, this theory must not only be a
delusion, but a delusion of most fatal tendency--a delusion that by throwing professors
off their guard, and giving them an excuse for taking their ease, rather than standing in
the high places of the field, and bearing bold and unflinching testimony for Christ,
directly paves the way for that very extinction of the testimony which is predicted. I
enter not into any historical disquisition as to the question, whether, as a matter of
fact, it was true that the witnesses were slain before Luther appeared. Those who wish to
see an historical argument on the subject may see it in the Red Republic, which I
venture to think has not yet been answered. Neither do I think it worth while particularly
to examine the assumption of Dr. Wylie, and I hold it to be a pure and gratuitous
assumption, that the 1260 days during which the saints of God in Gospel times were to
suffer for righteousness' sake, has any relation whatever, as a half period, to a whole,
symbolised by the "Seven times" that passed over Nebuchadnezzar when he was
suffering and chastened for his pride and blasphemy, as the representative of the
"world power." *
* The author does not himself make the
humiliation of the Babylonian king a type of the humiliation of the Church. How then can
he establish any typical relation between the "seven times" in the one case, and
the "seven times" in the other? He seems to think it quite enough to establish
that relation, if he can find one point of resemblance between Nebuchadnezzar, the humbled
despot, and the "world-power" that oppresses the Church during the two
periods of "seven times" respectively. That one point is the "madness"
of the one and the other. It might be asked, Was, then, the "world-power" in its
right mind before "the seven times" began? But waiving that, here is the
vital objection to this view: The madness in the case of Nebuchadnezzar was simply an affliction;
in the other it was sin. The madness of Nebuchadnezzar did not, so far as we know,
lead him to oppress a single individual; the madness of the "world-power,"
according to the theory, is essentially characterised by the oppression of the saints.
Where, then, can there be the least analogy between the two cases? The "seven
times" of the Babylonian king were seven times of humiliation, and humiliation
alone. The suffering monarch cannot be a type of the suffering Church; and still less
can his "seven times" of deepest humiliation, when all power and glory was taken
from him, be a type of the "seven times" of the "world-power," when
that "world-power" was to concentrate in itself all the glory and grandeur of
the earth. This is one fatal objection to this theory. Then let the reader only look at
the following sentence from the work under consideration, and compare it with historical
fact, and he will see still more how unfounded the theory is: "It follows
undeniably," says the author, "that as the Church is to be tyrannised over by
the idolatrous power throughout the whole of the seven times, she will be oppressed during
the first half of the 'seven times,' by idolatry in the form of Paganism, and during the
last half by idolatry in the form of Popery." Now, the first half, or 1260 years,
during which the Church was to be oppressed by Pagan idolatry, ran out exactly, it
is said, in AD 530 or 532; when suddenly Justinian changed the scene, and brought the new
oppressor on the stage. But I ask where was the "world-power" to be found up to
530, maintaining "idolatry in the form of Paganism"? From the time of
Gratian at least, who, about 376, formally abolished the worship of the gods, and
confiscated their revenues, where was there any such Pagan power to persecute?
There is certainly a very considerable interval between 376 and 532. The necessities of
the theory require that Paganism, and that avowed Paganism, be it observed, shall be
persecuting the Church straight away till 532; but for 156 years there was no such thing
as a Pagan "world-power" in existence to persecute the Church. "The legs of
the lame," says Solomon, "are not equal"; and if the 1260 years of Pagan
persecution lack no less that 156 years of the predicted period, surely it must be
manifest that the theory halts very much on one side at least. But I ask, do the facts
agree with the theory, even in regard to the running out of the second 1260 years in 1792,
at the period of the French Revolution? If the 1260 years of Papal oppression terminated
then, and if then the Ancient of days came to begin the final judgment on the
beast, He came also to do something else. This will appear from the language of Daniel
7:21, 22: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed
against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the
Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." This
language implies that the judgment on the little horn, and the putting of the saints in
possession "of the kingdom" are contemporaneous events. Long has the rule of the
kingdoms of this world been in the hands of worldly men, that knew not God nor obeyed Him;
but now, when He to whom the kingdom belongs comes to inflict judgment on His enemies, He
comes also to transfer the rule of the kingdoms of this world from the hands of those who
have abused it, into the hand of those that fear God and govern their public conduct by
His revealed will. This is evidently the meaning of the Divine statement. Now, on the
supposition that 1792 was the predicted period of the coming of the Ancient of days, it
follows that, ever since, the principles of God's Word must have been leavening the
governments of Europe more and more, and good and holy men, of the spirit of Daniel and
Nehemiah, must have been advanced to the high places of power. But has it been so in point
of fact? Is there one nation in all Europe that acts on Scriptural principles at this day?
Does Britain itself do so? Why, it is notorious that it was just three years after the
reign of righteousness, according to this theory, must have commenced that that
unprincipled policy began that has left hardly a shred of appearance of respect for the
honour of the "Prince of the Kings of the earth" in the public rule of this
nation. It was in 1795 that Pitt, and the British Parliament, passed the Act for the
erecting of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, which formed the beginning of a course
that, year by year, has lifted the Man of Sin into a position of power in this land, that
threatens, if Divine mercy do not miraculously interfere, to bring us speedily back again
under complete thraldom to Antichrist. Yet, according to the theory of The Great Exodus,
the very opposite of this ought to have been the case.
But to this only I call the reader's attention,
that even on the theory of Dr. Wylie himself, the witnesses of Christ could not possibly
have finished their testimony before the Decree of the Immaculate Conception came forth.
The theory of Dr. Wylie, and those who take the same general view as he, is, that the
"finishing of the testimony," means "completing the elements" of the
testimony, bearing a full and complete testimony against the errors of Rome. Dr. Wylie
himself admits that "the dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' [which was given forth
only during the last few years] declares Mary truly 'divine,' and places her upon the
altars of Rome as practically the sole and supreme object of worship" (The Great
Exodus). This was NEVER done before, and therefore the errors and blasphemies of Rome
were not complete until that decree had gone forth, if even then. Now, if the corruption
and blasphemy of Rome were "incomplete" up to our own day, and if they have
risen to a height which was never witnessed before, as all men instinctively felt and
declared, when that decree was issued, how could the testimony of the witnesses be "complete"
before Luther's day! It is nothing to say that the principle and the germ of this decree
were in operation long before. The same thing may be said of all the leading errors of
Rome long before Luther's day. They were all in essence and substance very broadly
developed, from near the time when Gregory the Great commanded the image of the Virgin to
be carried forth in the processions that supplicated the Most High to remove the
pestilence from Rome, when it was committing such havoc among its citizens. But that does
in no wise prove that they were "complete," or that the witnesses of Christ
could then "finish their testimony" by bearing a full and "complete
testimony" against the errors and corruptions of the Papacy. I submit this view of
the matter to every intelligent reader for his prayerful consideration. If we have not
"understanding of the times," it is vain to expect that we "shall know what
Israel ought to do." If we are saying "Peace and safety," when trouble is
at hand, or underrating the nature of that trouble, we cannot be prepared for the grand
struggle when that struggle shall come.
|
