torsdag 16 januari 2014

Judgment, therefore, begins with the harlot, as in privileges the house of God. part 1

NYHETER


Pingst gör studiebesök i Vatikanen


Saxat ur tidningen Dagen.


Dialogen mellan Pingst och Katolska kyrkan i Sverige går in i en ny fas. I maj görs ett gemensamt studiebesök i Vatikanen. Det har aldrig hänt tidigare. -En del kanske höjer på ögonbrynen, men i klassisk ekumenik är sådana resor en viktig del, säger Anders Arborelius, biskop i Katolska kyrkan i Sverige.

Inte heller Pelle Hörnmark, föreståndare i Pingst, tycker att besöket i Rom är märkligt:

-Jag ser det som en naturlig fortsättning på de samtal vi haft under flera år, säger han om dialogen som började 2003 och sedan dess pågått med träffar ett par gånger varje år.

-Rom är Katolska kyrkans hjärta i världen. Om vi vill förstå hur de tänker är det värdefullt att vara med på en sådan resa, säger Pelle Hörnmark.

Sedan han tillträdde som pingstföreståndare för knappt tre år sedan har han inte deltagit i samtalen utan valt att koncentrera sig på att jobba inåt i Pingst. Men nu ser han fram emot att vara delaktig i den fortsatta processen.

Anders Arborelius, som tillsammans med Sten-Gunnar Hedin tog initiativet till dialogen, hoppas att besöket ska bidra till en större förståelse och insikt i hur Katolska kyrkan fungerar:

-Dessutom tror jag att det kommer att leda till att Vatikanen får upp ögonen för den fördjupade ekumenik som Katolska kyrkan i Sverige har med Pingst, säger Anders Arborelius.

Han menar att dialogen med Pingst inte är särskilt ifrågasatt bland katoliker i Sverige:

-Nej, jag tror inte det. De flesta katoliker ser det som något normalt och viktigt. Vi har flera dialoger på gång samtidigt, bland annat med Svenska missionskyrkan som vi också gjort resor med, säger han.

Inte rädd för samtal

Pelle Hörnmark är medveten om att det finns de inom Pingst som anser att man inte borde ha en dialog med Katolska kyrkan.

Själv håller han dock inte med:

-Bara den som är otrygg är rädd för ett samtal, säger han.

Resan till Rom ser Pelle Hörnmark som ytterligare en möjlighet att bygga ett förtroende mellan pingstvänner och katoliker i Sverige.

-Som jag uppfattar saken handlar det inte om en åsiktsgemenskap utan om att få en större förståelse för våra likheter och olikheter samt att söka Andens gemenskap med varandra. Och det åstadkommer man genom att umgås, säger Pelle Hörnmark.

Bygga personliga relationer

Han jämför med den dialog Pingst har med Ortodoxa kyrkan i Sverige och som förra året mynnade ut i en gemensam resa:

-I december åkte några ledare från Pingst och Ortodoxa kyrkan till Jerusalem med ett liknande syfte. Det vill säga att upptäcka mer av det vi har gemensamt och att bygga personliga relationer.

Vad ser du själv mest fram emot med resan till Rom?

-Dels att bygga relationer mellan oss som ledare i Pingst och i Katolska kyrkan. Dels att få större kunskaper om Katolska kyrkan. Det är inga specifika frågor jag söker svar på utan det handlar mer om att få en känsla och en uppfattning om vilka de är och vad de står för.

Har du varit i Rom tidigare?

-Ja, flera gånger men bara som turist. Att få en chans att se insidan blir förstås en helt annan upplevelse än att enbart vara med på guidade turer, säger Pelle Hörnmark.

Visar på olika ansikten

Fredrik Emanuelson, tillförordnad talesperson för Katolska biskopsämbetet och Stockholms katolska stift, har bott och studerat i Rom i flera år och är den som ansvarar för programmet på resan.

-Vi har planerat detta i ungefär ett år och är angelägna om att visa Katolska kyrkans många olika ansikten.

För att underlätta förståelsen och ge en bred bild av Katolska kyrkan har besöket delats upp på tre olika nivåer: den globala, akademiska och lokala Katolska kyrkan.

-Vi har valt ett sådant upplägg eftersom det är lätt att få intrycket att Katolska kyrkan enbart är påven och Vatikanen. Så är det naturligtvis inte och det är viktigt för oss att förmedla, säger han.

Det blir bland annat ett besök på Påvliga rådet för främjandet av de kristnas enhet, eller Enhetsrådet som det brukar kallas, och på Angelicum som är ett av de katolska universiteten.

Tanken är att också hinna med att besöka ett av de bästa ekumeniska biblioteken i världen, Centro pro unione.

-Vi planerar dessutom att stifta bekantskap med en av de största katolska gemenskaperna i världen, Sant’Egidio, en lekmannarörelse med fokus på att leva evangeliet tillsammans och att engagera sig socialt, säger Fredrik Emanuelson.

Utökat teologiskt utbyte

När Anders Arborelius beskriver vad åtta års dialog med Pingst betytt så nämner han dels ett utökat teologiskt utbyte och dels ett närmande på det personliga planet.

-Vi katoliker har också blivit inspirerade av pingstvännernas inställning till utåtriktat arbete. Vi har upptäckt betydelsen av att gemensamt föra ut det kristna budskapet i det sekulariserade Sverige, säger Anders Arborelius.

Inte bara gräl mellan kristna

Den fortsatta processen med Pingst ser han positivt på. Han tror på teologiska samtal, både om det som förenar och som skiljer. Han hoppas också på utåtriktade satsningar tillsammans.

-I svensk offentlig debatt beskrivs vi kristna ofta som ständigt grälande med varandra. Men dialogen mellan Katolska kyrkan och Pingst tycker jag är ett bevis på att vi är konstruktiva.

-Och att vi gör en gemensam resa till Rom betyder att vi också kan samverka på många andra områden, säger Anders Arborelius.

FAKTA: Resan till Rom

Tolv personer, sex från vardera Pingst och Katolska kyrkan, åker till Rom.

Från Pingst är det pingstföreståndaren Pelle Hörnmark, pastorerna Sten-Gunnar HedinDan Salomonsson och Uno Solinger, teologen Peter Halldorf, samt Dagens förre chefredaktör Olof Djurfeldt.

Katolska kyrkans delegation består av biskop Anders Arborelius, biskopsvikarie Fredrik Emanuelson, diakon Erik Kennet Pålsson, dominikansyster Veronica Tournier, universitetslärareJonas Holmstrand samt överläkare Michael Alvarsson.

Resan genomförs den 16-19 maj.

Saxat ur Bengts Blogg, katolskt fönster.

Ekumeniken utvecklas på flera fronter. Innan Pelle Hörnmark stack iväg till Rom fick vi höra att han predikat på Livets ords söndagsgudstjänst, vilket var historiskt och vittnar om att relationerna håller på att utvecklas mellan Pingst och Livets Ord. Ulf Ekman har ju för övrigt också varit i Rom på ett studiebesök tillsammans med flera av sina pastorer. I dagens läge kan man säga att relationerna mellan Livets Ord och Katolska kyrkan är mycket goda. Den sista tioårsperioden har ju inneburit en ny fas i pastor Ulfs utveckling där han helt ändrat attityd till de gamla samfunden. Vi har ofta sett katoliker som talare på Livets Ords konferenser, och Ulf Ekman talade själv på den Nordiska katolska karismatiska konferensen i höstas.

Så i triangeln Katolska kyrkan – Pingst – Livets Ord bedrivs just nu en intensiv andlig ekumenik som jag tror kommer att visa sig mycket fruktbärande. Jag tror alla tre samfunden har en likartad syn på hur man bedriver ekumenik. Det handlar om att lära känna varandra och göra det man kan gemensamt, men utan att kompromissa med det som är väsentligt och grundläggande för den egna tron. De tio punkter som Charles Whitehead listade som ekumenikens grunder vid Nordiska karismatiska konferensen i Stockholm i höstas tror jag alla skriver under på.

Den formel som påve Benedikt XVI (kardinal Ratzinger då intervjun gjordes) uttryckt i intervjuboken Gud och Världen tror jag också mycket väl fångar in vad ekumenik handlar om. Ratzinger svarar på journalisten Peter Seewalds fråga Kyrkan ber för de kristnas återförening. Men vem ska egentligen ansluta sig till vem?”:

——-

Alexander Hislop reveals that many Roman Catholic teachings did not originate with Christ or the Bible, but were adopted from ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and given Christian names.

Learn the true origins of:

The Mother and Child

The Mass

The Wafer (Eucharist)

Purgatory

The Sovereign Pontiff

Prayers for the Dead

The Rosary

The Sign of the Cross

The Confessional

Clothing and Crowning of Images

Priests, Monks, and Nuns

Relic Worship

Worship of the Sacred Heart

Extreme Unction

and much more!

Although difficult reading, this book accurately provides a fascinating historical in-depth examination of the shocking similarities between the practices of ancient Babylonian religion and those of today’s Roman Catholic church.

See how a religion that was started by Nimrod and his wife spread to various regions, taking on different names, but keeping the same pagan rituals and trappings. These same rituals embody the Catholic church of today.

Similar items:



50 Years in the ”Church” of Rome
Answers to my Catholic Friends
Understanding Roman Catholicism



Rev 18:20  Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

 
SB

Revelation 18:1-24

Contents: Last form of apostate Christendom and the warning to God’s people. The human and the angelic views of Babylon.

Conclusion: As there is to be an ecclesiastical (church) Babylon (“confusion”) heading up in the great Tribulation period, so there is also a great political Babylon, the pride of the great men of the earth, which shall likewise come to a terrible and an everlasting end, when Christ shall return in glory. This great system, back of which is anti-Christ, will bitterly hate any who would glorify any god but materialism and the beast and will be guilty of the blood of many prophets and saints who have stood true to the ever-lasting Gospel.



Key Word: Babylon’s fall, Rev_18:2Rev_18:21.

JFB

Revelation 18:20

holy apostles — So C reads. But A, B, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas read, “Ye saints and ye apostles.”

avenged you on her — Greek, “judged your judgment on (literally, exacting it from) her.” “There is more joy in heaven at the harlot’s downfall than at that of the two beasts. For the most heinous of all sin is the sin of those who know God’s word of grace, and keep it not. The worldliness of the Church is the most worldly of all worldliness. Hence, Babylon, in Revelation, has not only Israel’s sins, but also the sins of the heathen; and John dwells longer on the abominations and judgments of the harlot than on those of the beast. The term ‘harlot’ describes the false Church’s essential characterShe retains her human shape as the woman, does not become a beast: she has the form of godliness, but denies its power. Her rightful lord and husband, Jehovah-Christ, and the joys and goods of His house, are no longer her all in all, but she runs after the visible and vain things of the world, in its manifold forms. The fullest form of her whoredom is, where the Church wishes to be itself a worldly power, uses politics and diplomacy, makes flesh her arm, uses unholy means for holy ends, spreads her dominion by sword or money, fascinates men by sensual ritualism, becomes ‘mistress of ceremonies’ to the dignitaries of the world, flatters prince or people, and like Israel, seeks the help of one world power against the danger threatening from another” [Auberlen].

Judgment, therefore, begins with the harlot, as in privileges the house of God.

——-

Where did the practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism come from? In this scholarly classic, first published over eighty years ago, Alexander Hislop reveals that many Roman Catholic teachings did not originate with Christ or the Bible, but were adopted from ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and given Christian names.

The Two Babylons

or The Papal Worship Proved to be
the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife

By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop

First published as a pamphlet in 1853–greatly expanded in 1858

Contents

Introduction

Chapter I
Distinctive Character of the Two Systems (35k)

Chapter II 
Objects of Worship

Section I. Trinity in Unity (22k)
Section II. The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child (14k)

  • Sub-Section I. The Child in Assyria (57k)
  • Sub-Section II. The Child in Egypt (22k)
  • Sub-Section III. The Child in Greece (28k)
  • Sub-Seciton IV. The Death of the Child (10k)
  • Sub-Section V. The Deification of the Child (61k)

Section III. The Mother of the Child (73k)

Chapter III
Festivals
Section I. Christmas and Lady-day (35k)
Section II. Easter (41k)
Section III. The Nativity of St. John (42k)
Section IV. The Feast of the Assumption (11k)
See Chapter V, Section IV regarding Cupid (St. Valentine’s Day)

Chapter IV
Doctrine and Discipline
Section I. Baptismal Regeneration (47k)
Section II. Justification by Works (39k)
Section III. The Sacrifice of the Mass (25k)
Section IV. Extreme Unction (6k)
Section V. Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead (10k)

Chapter V
Rites and Ceremonies
Section I. Idol Procession (15k)
Section II. Relic Worship (16k)
Section III. The Clothing and Crowning of Images (17k)
Section IV. The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart (10k)
Section V. Lamps and Wax-Candles (18k)
Section VI. The Sign of the Cross (21k)

Chapter VI
Religious Orders
Section I. The Sovereign Pontiff (36k)
Section II. Priests, Monks, and Nuns (19k)

Chapter VII
The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered
Section I. The Great Red Dragon (79k)
Section II. The Beast from the Sea (44k)
Section III. The Beast from the Earth (22k)
Section IV. The Image of the Beast (26k)
Section V. The Name of the Beast, the Number of His Name–the Invisible Head of the Papacy (47k)

Conclusion (28k)

The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Introduction

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

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 not thought of elucidating prophecy, have alike characterised it as ‘the seven hilled city.’”

seven (n.)

Old English seofon, from Proto-Germanic *sebun (cf. Old Saxon sibun, Old Norse sjau, Swedish sju, Danish syv, Old Frisian sowensiugun, Middle Dutch seven, Dutch zeven, Old High German sibun, German sieben, Gothic sibun), from PIE *septm ”seven” (cf. Sanskrit sapta, Avestan hapta, Hittite shipta, Greek hepta, Latin septem, Old Church Slavonic sedmi, Lithuanian septyni, Old Irish secht, Welsh saith).

Long regarded as a number of perfection (e.g. seven wondersseven sleepers, the latter translating Latin septem dormientesseven against Thebes, etc.), but that notion is late in Old English and in German a nasty, troublesome woman could be eine böse Sieben ”an evil seven” (1662).

Magical power or healing skill associated since 16c. with the seventh son ["The seuenth Male Chyld by iust order (neuer a Gyrle or Wench being borne betweene)," Thomas Lupton, "A Thousand Notable Things," 1579]. The typical number for ”very great, strong,” e.g. seven-league boots in the fairy story of Hop o’my Thumb. The Seven Years’ War (1756-63) is also the Third Silesian War.

The Seven Stars (Old English sibunsterri), usually refers to the Pleiades, though in 15c. and after this name occasionally was given to the Big Dipper (which also has seven stars), or the seven planets of classical astronomy. Popular as a tavern sign, it might also (with six in a circle, one in the center) be a Masonic symbol.

FOOL: … The reason why the
seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
LEAR: Because they are not eight?
FOOL: Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.
["King Lear," Act I, Scene V]

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 everyone 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 had 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.



The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

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 Thessalonians 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, the Lord thus spake, in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: ”Babylon hath been a GOLDEN CUP in the Lord’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 Salverte, 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 proved 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. *

* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia and EUSEBIUS’ Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the time of Abraham.

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. *

* A correspondent has pointed out a reference by Pliny to the cup of Semiramis, which fell into the hands of the victorious Cyrus. Its gigantic proportions must have made it famous among the Babylonians and the nations with whom they had intercourse. It weighed fifteen talents, or 1200 pounds. PLINII, Hist. Nat.

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.” 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, (see note below) 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 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.” 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.

* For the age of Shem see Genesis 11:10, 11. According to this, Shem lived 502 years after the flood, that is, according to the Hebrew chronology, till BC 1846. The age of Ninus, the husband of Semiramis, as stated in a former note, according to Eusebius, synchronised with that of Abraham, who was born BC 1996. It was only about nine years, however, before the end of the reign of Ninus, that the birth of Abraham is said to have taken place. (SYNCELLUS) Consequently, on this view, the reign of Ninus must have terminated, according to the usual chronology, about BC 1987. Clinton, who is of high authority in chronology, places the reign of Ninus somewhat earlier. In his Fasti Hellenici he makes his age to have been BC 2182. Layard (in his Nineveh and its Remains) subscribes to this opinion. Semiramis is said to have survived her husband forty-two years. (SYNCELL) Whatever view, therefore, be adopted in regard to the age of Ninus, whether that of Eusebius, or that at which Clinton and Layard have arrived, it is evident that Shem long survived both Ninus and his wife. Of course, this argument proceeds on the supposition of the correctness of the Hebrew chronology. For conclusive evidence on that subject, see note 2 below.

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).

* That which I have rendered ”and” is in the authorised version ”or,” but there is no reason for such a rendering, for the word in the original is the very same as that which connects the previous clause, ”and my heart,” &c.

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. *

* It will be seen by-and-by what cogent reason there was, in point of fact, for the profoundest secrecy in the matter. See Chapter II

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.” 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.” (DR. MAITLAND’S Church in the Catacombs) 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 priestcraft, 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 fulness 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 Salverte 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 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 Koes, 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.

* BISHOP HAY’S Sincere Christian. In this work, the following question and answer occur: ”Q. Is this confession of our sins necessary for obtaining absolution? A. It is ordained by Jesus Christ as absolutely necessary for this purpose.” See also Poor Man’s Manual, a work in use in Ireland.

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 Tractariansim 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.”

* Even among the initiated there was a difference. Some were admitted only to the ”Lesser Mysteries”; the ”Greater” were for a favoured few. WILKINSON’S Ancient Egyptians

** Romans 1:18. The best interpreters render the passage as given above. It will be observed Paul is expressly speaking of the heathen.



Notes

Woman with Golden Cup

In Pausanias we find an account of a goddess represented in the very attitude of the Apocalyptic ”Woman.” ”But of this stone [Parian marble] Phidias,” says he, ”made a statue of Nemesis; and on the head of the goddess there is a crown adorned with stags, and images of victory of no great magnitude. In her left hand, too, she holds a branch of an ash tree, and in her right A CUP, in which Ethiopians are carved.” (PAUSANIAS, Attica) Pausanias declares himself unable to assign any reason why ”the Ethiopians” were carved on the cup; but the meaning of the Ethiopians and the stags too will be apparent to all who read further. We find, however, from statements made in the same chapter, that though Nemesis is commonly represented as the goddess of revenge, she must have been also known in quite a different character. Thus Pausanias proceeds, commenting on the statue: ”But neither has this statue of the goddess wings. Among the Smyrneans, however, who possess the most holy images of Nemesis, I perceived afterwards that these statues had wings. For, as this goddess principally pertains to lovers, on this account they may be supposed to have given wings to Nemesis, as well as to love,” i.e., Cupid. The giving of wings to Nemesis, the goddess who ”principally pertained to lovers,” because Cupid, the god of love, bore them, implies that, in the opinion of Pausanias, she was the counterpart of Cupid, or the goddess of love–that is, Venus. While this is the inference naturally to be deduced from the words of Pausanias, we find it confirmed by an express statement of Photius, speaking of the statue of Rhamnusian Nemesis: ”She was at first erected in the form of Venus, and therefore bore also the branch of an apple tree.” (PHOTII, Lexicon) Though a goddess of love and a goddess of revenge might seem very remote in their characters from one another, yet it is not difficult to see how this must have come about. The goddess who was revealed to the initiated in the Mysteries, in the most alluring manner, was also known to be most unmerciful and unrelenting in taking vengeance upon those who revealed these Mysteries; for every such one who was discovered was unsparingly put to death. (POTTER’S Antiquities, ”Eleusinia”) Thus, then, the cup-bearing goddess was at once Venus, the goddess of licentiousness, and Nemesis, the stern and unmerciful one to all who rebelled against her authority. How remarkable a type of the woman, whom John saw, described in one aspect as the ”Mother of harlots,” and in another as ”Drunken with the blood of the saints”!

____________________

Hebrew Chronology

Dr. Hales has attempted to substitute the longer chronology of the Septuagint for the Hebrew chronology. But this implies that the Hebrew Church, as a body, was not faithful to the trust committed to it in respect to the keeping of the Scriptures, which seems distinctly opposed to the testimony of our Lord in reference to these Scriptures (John 5:39; 10:35), and also to that of Paul (Rom 3:2), where there is not the least hint of unfaithfulness. Then we can find a reason that might induce the translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria to 83 lengthen out the period of the ancient history of the world; we can find no reason to induce the Jews in Palestine to shorten it. The Egyptians had long, fabulous eras in their history, and Jews dwelling in Egypt might wish to make their sacred history go as far back as they could, and the addition of just one hundred years in each case, as in the Septuagint, to the ages of the patriarchs, looks wonderfully like an intentional forgery; whereas we cannot imagine why the Palestine Jews should make any change in regard to this matter at all. It is well known that the Septuagint contains innumerable gross errors and interpolations.

Bunsen casts overboard all Scriptural chronology whatever, whether Hebrew, Samaritan, or Greek, and sets up the unsupported dynasties of Manetho, as if they were sufficient to over-ride the Divine word as to a question of historical fact. But, if the Scriptures are not historically true, we can have no assurance of their truth at all. Now it is worthy of notice that, though Herodotus vouches for the fact that at one time there were no fewer than twelve contemporaneous kings in Egypt, Manetho, as observed by Wilkinson, has made no allusion to this, but has made his Thinite, Memphite, and Diospolitan dynasties of kings, and a long etcetera of other dynasties, all successive!

The period over which the dynasties of Manetho extend, beginning with Menes, the first king of these dynasties, is in itself a very lengthened period, and surpassing all rational belief. But Bunsen, not content with this, expresses his very confident persuasion that there had been long lines of powerful monarchs in Upper and Lower Egypt, ”during a period of from two to four thousand years,” even before the reign of Menes. In coming to such a conclusion, he plainly goes upon the supposition that the name Mizraim, which is the Scriptural name of the land of Egypt, and is evidently derived from the name of the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, is not, after all, the name of a person, but the name of the united kingdom formed under Menes out of ”the two Misr,” ”Upper and Lower Egypt,” which had previously existed as separate kingdoms, the name Misrim, according to him, being a plural word. This derivation of the name Mizraim, or Misrim, as a plural word, infallibly leaves the impression that Mizraim, the son of Ham, must be only a mythical personage. But there is no real reason for thinking that Mizraim is a plural word, or that it became the name of ”the land of Ham,” from any other reason than because that land was also the land of Ham’s son. Mizraim, as it stands in the Hebrew of Genesis, without the points, is Metzrim; and Metzr-im signifies ”The encloser or embanker of the sea” (the word being derived from Im, the same as Yam, ”the sea,” and Tzr, ”to enclose,” with the formative M prefixed).

If the accounts which ancient history has handed down to us of the original state of Egypt be correct, the first man who formed a settlement there must have done the very thing implied in this name. Diodorus Siculus tells us that, in primitive times, that which, when he wrote, ”was Egypt, was said to have been not a country, but one universal sea.” Plutarch also says (De Iside) that Egypt was sea. From Herodotus, too, we have very striking evidence to the same effect. He excepts the province of Thebes from his statement; but when it is seen that ”the province of Thebes” did not belong to Mizraim, or Egypt proper, which, says the author of the article ”Mizraim” in Biblical Cyclopoedia, ”properly denotes Lower Egypt”; the testimony of Herodotus will be seen entirely to agree with that of Diodorus and Plutarch. His statement is, that in the reign of the first king, ”the whole of Egypt (except the province of Thebes) was an extended marsh. No part of that which is now situate beyond the lake Moeris was to be seen, the distance between which lake and the sea is a journey of seven days.” Thus all Mizraim or Lower Egypt was under water.

This state of the country arose from the unrestrained overflowing of the Nile, which, to adopt the language of Wilkinson, ”formerly washed the foot of the sandy mountains of the Lybian chain.” Now, before Egypt could be fit for being a suitable place for human abode–before it could become what it afterwards did become, one of the most fertile of all lands, it was indispensable that bounds should be set to the overflowings of the sea (for by the very name of the Ocean, or Sea, the Nile was anciently called–DIODORUS), and that for this purpose great embankments should enclose or confine its waters. If Ham’s son, then, led a colony into Lower Egypt and settled it there, this very work he must have done. And what more natural than that a name should be given him in memory of his great achievement? and what name so exactly descriptive as Metzr-im, ”The embanker of the sea,” or as the name is found at this day applied to all Egypt (WILKINSON), Musr or Misr? Names always tend to abbreviation in the mouths of a people, and, therefore, ”The land of Misr” is evidently just ”The land of the embanker.” From this statement it follows that the ”embanking of the sea”–the ”enclosing” of it within certain bounds, was the making of it as a river, so far as Lower Egypt was concerned. Viewing the matter in this light, what a meaning is there in the Divine language in Ezekiel 29:3, where judgments are denounced against the king of Egypt, the representative of Metzr-im, ”The embanker of the sea,” for his pride: ”Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which saith, My river is mine own, I have made it for myself.”

When we turn to what is recorded of the doings of Menes, who, by Herodotus, Manetho, and Diodorus alike, is made the first historical king of Egypt, and compare what is said of him, with this simple explanation of the meaning of the name of Mizraim, how does the one cast light on the other? Thus does Wilkinson describe the great work which entailed fame on Menes, ”who,” says he, ”is allowed by universal consent to have been the first sovereign of the country.” ”Having diverted the course of the Nile, which formerly washed the foot of the sandy mountains of the Lybian chain, he obliged it to run in the centre of the valley, nearly at an equal distance between the two parallel ridges of mountains which border it on the east and west; and built the city of Memphis in the bed of the ancient channel. This change was effected by constructing a dyke about a hundred stadia above the site of the projected city, whose lofty mounds and strong EMBANKMENTS turned the water to the eastward, and effectually CONFINED the river to its new bed. The dyke was carefully kept in repair by succeeding kings; and, even as late as the Persian invasion, a guard was always maintained there, to overlook the necessary repairs, and to watch over the state of the embankments.” (Egyptians)

When we see that Menes, the first of the acknowledged historical kings of Egypt, accomplished that very achievement which is implied in the name of Mizraim, who can resist the conclusion that menes and Mizraim are only two different names for the same person? And if so, what becomes of Bunsen’s vision of powerful dynasties of sovereigns ”during a period of from two to four thousand years” before the reign of Menes, by which all Scriptural chronology respecting Noah and his sons was to be upset, when it turns out that Menes must have been Mizraim, the grandson of Noah himself? Thus does Scripture contain, within its own bosom, the means of vindicating itself; and thus do its minutest statements, even in regard to matters of fact, when thoroughly understood, shed surprising light on the dark parts of the history of the world.



The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Chapter II
Section I
Trinity in Unity

If there be this general coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question arises, Does the coincidence stop here? To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only to bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome, and then it will be seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other. These Mysteries were long shrouded in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the ”Mysteries” occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all essential respects these ”Mysteries” in the different countries were the same. Now, as the language of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians, on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion. From Zonaras we find that the concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was to this effect; for, speaking of arithmetic and astronomy, he says: ”It is said that these came from the Chaldees to the Egyptians, and thence to the Greeks.” If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy from Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the priests, that is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion from the same quarter. Both Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to substantially the same result. The statement of Bunsen is to the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and ”the primitive empire in Babel.” Layard, again, though taking a somewhat more favourable view of the system of the Chaldean Magi, than, I am persuaded, the facts of history warrant, nevertheless thus speaks of that system: ”Of the great antiquity of this primitive worship there is abundant evidence, and that it originated among the inhabitants of the Assyrian plains, we have the united testimony of sacred and profane history. It obtained the epithet of perfect, and was believed to be the most ancient of religious systems, having preceded that of the Egyptians.” ”The identity,” he adds, ”of many of the Assyrian doctrines with those of Egypt is alluded to by Porphyry and Clemens”; and, in connection with the same subject, he quotes the following from Birch on Babylonian cylinders and monuments: ”The zodiacal signs…show unequivocally that the Greeks derived their notions and arrangements of the zodiac [and consequently their Mythology, that was intertwined with it] from the Chaldees. The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion is not to be rejected.” Ouvaroff, also, in his learned work on the Eleusinian mysteries, has come to the same conclusion. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of having transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: ”These positive facts would sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, that the Mysteries transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local notions, never lost the character of their origin derived from the cradle of the moral and religious ideas of the universe. All these separate facts–all these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which places in the East the centre of science and civilisation.” If thus we have evidence that Egypt and Greece derived their religion from Babylon, we have equal evidence that the religious system of the Phoenicians came from the same source. Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of the Phoenician idolatry must have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers, included Babylonia. ”The worship of the Architic Venus,” says he, ”formerly flourished as much among the Assyrians as it does now among the Phenicians.”

Now to establish the identity between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have just to inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in these Babylonian Mysteries. In prosecuting such an inquiry there are considerable difficulties to be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata of the earth’s surface, so it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a complete and connected account of the system established in that country. But yet, even as the geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there, and what ”crops out” of itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and general contents of the different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean Mysteries. What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what actually ”crops out” in different directions, to a large extent necessarily determines the character of much that does not directly appear on the surface. Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian character of the ancient Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us in our researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine and practice of the two Babylons–the Babylon of the Old Testament and the Babylon of the New.

And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the unity of the Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the same. ”In the early ages of mankind,” says Wilkinson in his ”Ancient Egyptians,” ”The existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created all things, seems to have been the universal belief; and tradition taught men the same notions on this subject, which, in later times, have been adopted by all civilised nations.” ”The Gothic religion,” says Mallet, ”taught the being of a supreme God, Master of the Universe, to whom all things were submissive and obedient.” (Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) The ancient Icelandic mythology calls him ”the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the living, and awful Being; the searcher into concealed things, the Being that never changeth.” It attributeth to this deity ”an infinite power, a boundless knowledge, and incorruptible justice.” We have evidence of the same having been the faith of ancient Hindostan. Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: ”Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no image” (Veda). He ”illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live when born, and that to which all must return” (Veda). In the ”Institutes of Menu,” he is characterised as ”He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity…the soul of all beings, whom no being can comprehend.” In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far purer faith.

Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies ”The merciful or compassionate one.” But Rahm also signifies the WOMB or the bowels; as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the following words: ”The great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place my foetus, and from it is the procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the various forms which are conceived in every natural womb.” How could such language ever have been applied to ”The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being, before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord,” but from the connection between Rahm ”the womb” and Rahm ”the merciful one”? Here, then, we find that Brahm is just the same as ”Er-Rahman,” ”The all-merciful one,”–a title applied by the Turks to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now, had once known that ”the most holy, most high God,” is also ”The God of Mercy,” in other words, that he is ”a just God and a Saviour.” And proceeding on this interpretation of the name Brahm, we see how exactly their religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the account of the origin of all things, as given in Genesis. It is well known that the Brahmins, to exalt themselves as a priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for many ages taught that, while the other castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma–the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him–they alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the Vedas, speaking of Brahma, it is expressly stated that ”ALL beings” ”are created from his MOUTH.” In the passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt what was the real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty and exclusive pretensions of the Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the ”Merciful and Gracious One” (Exo 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who in the beginning ”spake and it was done,” ”commanded and all things stood fast,” who made all things by the ”Word of His power.” After what has now been said, any one who consults the ”Asiatic Researches,” may see that it is in a great measure from a wicked perversion of this Divine title of the One Living and True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men, that all those moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of India so offensive to the eye of purity. *

* While such is the meaning of Brahm, the meaning of Deva, the generic name for ”God” in India, is near akin to it. That name is commonly derived from the Sanscrit, Div, ”to shine,”–only a different form of Shiv, which has the same meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv, ”brightness or splendour” (Dan 2:31); and, no doubt, when sun-worship was engrafted on the Patriarchal faith, the visible splendour of the deified luminary might be suggested by the name. But there is reason to believe that ”Deva” has a much more honourable origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee, Thav, ”good,” which is also legitimately pronounced Thev, and in the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo, ”The Good.” The first letter, represented by Th, as shown by Donaldson in his New Cratylus, is frequently pronounced Dh. Hence, from Dheva or Theva, ”The Good,” naturally comes the Sanscrit, Deva, or, without the digamma, as it frequently is, Deo, ”God,” the Latin, Deus, and the Greek, Theos, the digamma in the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in Greek. This view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord (Matt 19:17): ”There is none good but One, that is (Theos) God”–”The Good.”

So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the Living God, severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it: ”They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of the ONLY ONE, * eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together” (Isa 66:17).

* The words in our translation are, ”behind one tree,” but there is no word in the original for ”tree”; and it is admitted by Lowth, and the best orientalists, that the rendering should be, ”after the rites of Achad,” i.e. ”The Only One.” I am aware that some object to making ”Achad” signify, ”The Only One,” on the ground that it wants the article. But how little weight is in this, may be seen from the fact that it is this very term ”Achad,” and that without the article, that is used in Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead is asserted in the most emphatic manner, ”Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,” i.e., ”only Jehovah.” When it is intended to assert the Unity of the Godhead in the strongest possible manner, the Babylonians used the term ”Adad.” Macrobii Saturnalia.

In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. *

* LAYARD’s Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their ”triform divinity.”

In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, ”To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?”

The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * 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. **

* PARKHURST’S Hebrew Lexicon, ”Cherubim.” From the following extract from the Dublin Catholic Layman, a very able Protestant paper, describing a Popish picture of the Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be seen that something akin to this mode of representing the Godhead is appearing nearer home: ”At the top of the picture is a representation of the Holy Trinity. We beg to speak of it with due reverence. God the Father and God the Son are represented as a MAN with two heads, one body, and two arms. One of the heads is like the ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the head of an old man, surmounted by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind, and repugnant to Christian feeling, to look at this figure.” (17th July, 1856)

** Babylon and Nineveh. Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.

In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of ”Eko Deva Trimurtti,” ”One God, three forms.” *

* Col. KENNEDY’S Hindoo Mythology. Col. Kennedy objects to the application of the name ”Eko Deva” to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm. But in so doing he is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that triform image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a curse is pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Seva, the three divinities represented by that image.

In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same form, under the name of ”San Pao Fuh.” All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis. *

* The threefold invocation of the sacred name in the blessing of Jacob bestowed on the sons of Joseph is very striking: ”And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads” (Gen 48:15,16). If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob could never have invoked him as on an equality with God. In Hosea 12:3-5, ”The Angel who redeemed” Jacob is expressly called God: ”He (Jacob) had power with God: yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God of Hosts; The Lord is his memorial.”

When we look at the symbols in the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely examine them, they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as signifying ”Time without bounds.” But the hieroglyphic meaning of the circle is evidently different. A circle in Chaldea was zero; * and zero also signified ”the seed.”

* In our own language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among the Chaldeans; for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently come from the Chaldee, zer, ”to encompass,” from which, also, no doubt, was derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a ”saros.” (BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great ”Seed,” was looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle (BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, ”the circle,” and zero, ”the seed,” was easily established.

Therefore, according to the genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent founded on double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, ”a circle,” was understood by the initiated to signify zero, ”the seed.” Now, viewed in this light, the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal faith. First, there is the head of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for ”the seed”; and lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove; * showing, though blasphemously, the unity of Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost.

* From the statement in Genesis 1:2, that ”the Spirit of God fluttered on the face of the deep” (for that is the expression in the original), it is evident that the dove had very early been a Divine emblem for the Holy Spirit.

While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib’s time, yet there is evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation.





The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

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

While this was the theory, the first perons 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 Brahma, according to the sacred books, is the first person of the Hindoo Triad, and the religiion of Hindostan is callec 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. 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 Isi and Iswara; ** in Asia, as Cybele and Deoius; 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 astronished 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. ****

* Osiris, as the child called most frequently Horus. BUNSEN.

** KENNEDY’S Hindoo Mythology. Though Iswara is the husband of Isi, he is also represnted as an infant at her breast.

*** The very name by which the Italians commonly designate the Virgin, is just the translation of one of the titles of the Babylonian goddess. As Baal or Belus was the name of the great male divinity of Babylon, so the female divinity was called Beltis. (HESYCHIUS, Lexicon) This name has been found in Nineveh applied to the ”Mother of the gods” (VAUX’S Nineveh and Persepolis); and in a speech attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, preserved in EUSEBII Proeparatio Evangelii, both titles ”Belus and Beltis” are conjoined as the titles of the great Babylonian god and goddess. The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, ”The Lord.” Beltis, therefore, as the title of the female divinity, was equivalent to ”Baalti,” which, in English, is ”My Lady,” in Latin, ”Mea Domina,” and, in Italina, is corrupted into the well known ”Madonna.” In connection with this, it may be observed, that the name of Juno, the classical ”Queen of Heaven,” which, in Greek, was Hera, also signified ”The Lady”; and that the peculiar title of Cybele or Rhea at Rome, was Domina or ”The Lady.” (OVID, Fasti) Further, there is strong reason to believe, that Athena, the well known name of Minerva at Athens, had the very same meaning. The Hebrew Adon, ”The Lord,” is, with the points, pronounced Athon. We have evidence that this name was known to the Asiatic Greeks, from whom idolatry, in a large measure, came into European Greece, as a name of God under the form of ”Athan.” Eustathius, in a note on the Periergesis of Dionysius, speaking of local names in the district of Laodicea, says the ”Athan is god.” The feminine of Athan, ”The Lord,” is Athan, ”The Lady,” which in the Attic dialect, is Athena. No doubt, Minerva is commonly represented as a virgin; but, for all that, we learn from Strabo that at Hierapytna in Crete (the coins of which city, says Muller, Dorians have the Athenian symbols of Minerva upon them), she was said to be the mother of the Corybantes by Helius, or ”The Sun.” It is certain that the Egyptian Minerva, who was the prototype of the Athenian goddess, was a mother, and was styled ”Goddess Mother,” or ”Mother of the Gods.”

**** CRABB’S Mythology. Gutzlaff thought that Shing Moo must have been borrowed from a Popish source; and there can be no doubt, that in the individual case to which he refers, the Pagan and the Christian stories had been amalgamated. But Sir. J. F. Davis shows that the Chinese of Canton find such an analogy between their own Pagan goddess Kuanyin and the Popish Madonna, that, in conversing with Europeans, they frequently call either of them indifferently by the same title. DAVIS’ China. The first Jesuit missionaries to China also wrote home to Europe, that they found mention in the Chinese sacred books–books unequivocally Pagan–of a mother and child, very similar to their own Madonna and child at home.

One of the names of the Chinese Holy Mother is Ma Tsoopo; in regard to which, see note below.



Note

Shing Moo and Ma Tsoopo of China

The name of Shing Moo, applied by the Chinese to their ”Holy Mother,” compared with another name of the same goddess in another province of China, strongly favours the conclusion that Shing Moo is just a synonym for one of the well known names of the goddess-mother of Babylon. Gillespie (in his Land of Sinim) states that the Chinese goddess-mother, or ”Queen of Heaven,” in the province of Fuh-kien, is worshipped by seafaring people under the name of Ma Tsoopo. Now, ”Ama Tzupah” signifies the ”Gazing Mother”; and there is much reason to believe that Shing Moo signifies the same; for Mu was one of the forms in which Mut or Maut, the name of the great mother, appeared in Egypt (BUNSEN’S Vocabulary); and Shngh, in Chaldee, signifies ”to look” or ”gaze.” The Egyptian Mu or Maut was symbolised either by a vulture, or an eye surrounded by a vulture’s wings (WILKINSON). The symbolic meaning of the vulture may be learned from the Scriptural expression: ”There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture’s eye hath not seen” (Job 28:7). The vulture was noted for its sharp sight, and hence, the eye surrounded by the vulture’s wings showed that, for some reason or other, the great mother of the gods in Egypt had been known as ”The gazer.” But the idea contained in the Egyptian symbol had evidently been borrowed from Chaldea; for Rheia, one of the most noted names of the Babylonian mother of the gods, is just the Chaldee form of the Hebrew Rhaah, which signifies at once ”a gazing woman” and a ”vulture.” The Hebrew Rhaah itself is also, according to a dialectical variation, legitimately pronounced Rheah; and hence the name of the great goddess-mother of Assyria was sometimes Rhea, and sometimes Rheia. In Greece, the same idea was evidently attached to Athena or Minerva, whom we have seen to have been by some regarded as the Mother of the children of the sun. For one of her distinguishing titles was Ophthalmitis (SMITH’S Classical Dictionary, ”Athena”), thereby pointing her out as the goddess of ”the eye.” It was no doubt to indicate the same thing that, as the Egyptian Maut wore a vulture on her head, so the Athenian Minerva was represented as wearing a helmet with two eyes, or eye-holes, in the front of the helmet. (VAUX’S Antiquities)

Having thus traced the gazing mother over the earth, is it asked, What can have given origin to such a name as applied to the mother of the gods? A fragment of Sanchuniathon, in regard to the Phoenician mythology, furnishes us with a satisfactory reply. There it is said that Rheia conceived by Kronos, who was her own brother, and yet was known as the father of the gods, and in consequence brought forth a son who was called Muth, that is, as Philo-Byblius correctly interprets the word, ”Death.” As Sanchuniathon expressly distinguishes this ”father of the gods” from ”Hypsistos,” The Most High, * we naturally recall what Hesiod says in regard to his Kronos, the father of the gods, who, for a certain wicked deed, was called Titan, and cast down to hell. (Theogonia)

* In reading Sanchuniathon, it is necessary to bear in mind what Philo-Byblius, his translator, states at the end of the Phenician History–viz., that history and mythology were mingled together in that work.

The Kronos to whom Hesiod refers is evidently at bottom a different Kronos from the human father of the gods, or Nimrod, whose history occupies so large a place in this work. He is plainly none other than Satan himself; the name Titan, or Teitan, as it is sometimes given, being, as we have elsewhere concluded, only the Chaldee form of Sheitan, the common name of the grand Adversary among the Arabs, in the very region where the Chaldean Mysteries were originally concocted,–that Adversary who was ultimately the real father of all the Pagan gods,–and who (to make the title of Kronos, ”the Horned One,” appropriate to him also) was symbolised by the Kerastes, or Horned serpent. All ”the brethren” of this father of the gods, who were implicated in his rebellion against his own father, the ”God of Heaven,” were equally called by the ”reproachful” name ”Titans”; but, inasmuch as he was the ringleader in the rebellion, he was, of course, Titan by way of eminence. In this rebellion of Titan, the goddess of the earth was concerned, and the result was that (removing the figure under which Hesiod has hid the fact) it became naturally impossible that the God of Heaven should have children upon earth–a plain allusion to the Fall.

Now, assuming that this is the ”Father of the gods,” by whom Rhea, whose common title is that of the Mother of the gods, and who is also identified with Ge, or the Earth-goddess, had the child called Muth, or Death, who could this ”Mother of the gods” be, but just our Mother Eve? And the name Rhea, or ”The Gazer,” bestowed on her, is wondrously significant. It was as ”the gazer” that the mother of mankind conceived by Satan, and brought forth that deadly birth, under which the world has hitherto groaned. It was through her eyes that the fatal connection was first formed between her and the grand Adversary, under the form of a serpent, whose name, Nahash, or Nachash, as it stands in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, also signifies ”to view attentively,” or ”to gaze” (Gen 3:6) ”And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes,” &c., ”she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” Here, then, we have the pedigree of sin and death; ”Lust, when it had conceived, brought forth sin; and sin, when it was finished, brought forth death” (James 1:15). Though Muth, or Death, was the son of Rhea, this progeny of hers came to be regarded, not as Death in the abstract, but as the god of death; therefore, says Philo-Byblius, Muth was interpreted not only as death, but as Pluto. (SANCHUN) In the Roman mythology, Pluto was regarded as on a level, for honour, with Jupiter (OVID, Fasti); and in Egypt, we have evidence that Osiris, ”the seed of the woman,” was the ”Lord of heaven,” and king of hell, or ”Pluto” (WILKINSON; BUNSEN); and it can be shown by a large induction of particulars (and the reader has somewhat of the evidence presented in this volume), that he was none other than the Devil himself, supposed to have become incarnate; who, though through the first transgression, and his connection with the woman, he had brought sin and death into the world, had, nevertheless, by means of them, brought innumerable benefits to mankind. As the name Pluto has the very same meaning as Saturn, ”The hidden one,” so, whatever other aspect this name had, as applied to the father of the gods, it is to Satan, the Hidden Lord of hell, ultimately that all came at last to be traced back; for the different myths about Saturn, when carefully examined, show that he was at once the Devil, the father of all sin and idolatry, who hid himself under the disguise of the serpent,–and Adam, who hid himself among the trees of the garden,–and Noah, who lay hid for a whole year in the ark,–and Nimrod, who was hid in the secrecy of the Babylonian Mysteries. It was to glorify Nimrod that the whole Chaldean system of iniquity was formed. He was known as Nin, ”the son,” and his wife as Rhea, who was called Ammas, ”The Mother.” The name Rhea, as applied to Semiramis, had another meaning from what it had when applied to her, who was really the primeval goddess, the ”mother of gods and men.” But yet, to make out the full majesty of her character, it was necessary that she should be identified with that primeval goddess; and, therefore, although the son she bore in her arms was represented as he who was born to destroy death, yet she was often represented with the very symbols of her who brought death into the world. And so was it also in the different countries where the Babylonian system spread.



The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Chapter II
Section II
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.”

* Sir H. Rawlinson having found evidence at Nineveh, of the existence of a Semiramis about six or seven centuries before the Christian era, seems inclined to regard her as the only Semiramis that ever existed. But this is subversive of all history. The fact that there was a Semiramis in the primeval ages of the world, is beyond all doubt, although some of the exploits of the latter queen have evidently been attributed to her predecessor. Mr. Layard dissents from Sir. H. Rawlinson’s opinion.

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 (Eze 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.” *

* From Bakhah ”to weep” or ”lament.” Among the Phoenicians, says Hesychius, ”Bacchos means weeping.” As the women wept for Tammuz, so did they for Bacchus.

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.

* As such Rhea was called by the Greeks, Ammas. Ammas is evidently the Greek form of the Chaldee Ama, ”Mother.”

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.

* BUNSEN. It may be observed that this very name ”Husband of the Mother,” given to Osiris, seems even at this day to be in common use among ourselves, although there is not the least suspicion of the meaning of the term, or whence it has come. Herodotus mentions that when in Egypt, he was astonished to hear the very same mournful but ravishing ”Song of Linus,” sung by the Egyptians (although under another name), which he had been accustomed to hear in his own native land of Greece. Linus was the same god as the Bacchus of Greece, or Osiris of Egypt; for Homer introduces a boy singing the song of Linus, while the vintage is going on (Ilias), and the Scholiast says that this son was sung in memory of Linus, who was torn in pieces by dogs. The epithet ”dogs,” applied to those who tore Linus in pieces, is evidently used in a mystical sense, and it will afterwards been seen how thoroughly the other name by which he is known–Narcissus–identifies him with the Greek Bacchus and Egyptian Osiris. In some places in Egypt, for the song of Linus or Osiris, a peculiar melody seems to have been used. Savary says that, in the temple of Abydos, ”the priest repeated the seven vowels in the form of hymns, and that musicians were forbid to enter it.” (Letters) Strabo, whom Savary refers to, calls the god of that temple Memnon, but we learn from Wilkinson that Osiris was the great god of Abydos, whence it is evident that Memnon and Osiris were only different names of the same divinity. Now the name of Linus or Osiris, as the ”husband of his mother,” in Egypt, was Kamut (BUNSEN). When Gregory the Great introduced into the Church of Rome what are now called the Gregorian Chants, he got them from the Chaldean mysteries, which had long been established in Rome; for the Roman Catholic priest, Eustace, admits that these chants were largely composed of ”Lydian and Phrygian tunes” (Classical Tour), Lydia and Phrygia being among the chief seats in later times of those mysteries, of which the Egyptian mysteries were only a branch. These tunes were sacred–the music of the great god, and in introducing them Gregory introduced the music of Kamut. And thus, to all appearance, has it come to pass, that the name of Osiris or Kamut, ”the husband of the mother,” is in every-day use among ourselves as the name of the musical scale; for what is the melody of Osiris, consisting of the ”seven vowels” formed into a hymn, but–the Gamut?

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.”

* The name, ”Assyrians,” as has already been noticed, has a wide latitude of meaning among the classic authors, taking in the Babylonians as well as the Assyrians proper.

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.” 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 dominions; 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 Genesis 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” (v 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 (v 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 (v 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 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.

* Nin-neveh, ”The habitation of Ninus.”

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.” **

* See GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, De rerum Franc. Gregory attributes to Cush what was said more generally to have befallen his son; but his statement shows the belief in his day, which is amply confirmed from other sources, that Cush had a pre-eminent share in leading mankind away from the true worship of God.

** The composition of Her-mes is, first, from ”Her,” which, in Chaldee, is synonymous with Ham, or Khem, ”the burnt one.” As ”her” also, like Ham, signified ”The hot or burning one,” this name formed a foundation for covertly identifying Ham with the ”Sun,” and so deifying the great patriarch, after whose name the land of Egypt was called, in connection with the sun. Khem, or Ham, in his own name was openly worshipped in later ages in the land of Ham (BUNSEN); but this would have been too daring at first. By means of ”Her,” the synonym, however, the way was paved for this. ”Her” is the name of Horus, who is identified with the sun (BUNSEN), which shows the real etymology of the name to be from the verb to which I have traced it. Then, secondly, ”Mes,” is from Mesheh (or, without the last radical, which is omissible), Mesh, ”to draw forth.” In Egyptian, we have Ms in the sense of ”to bring forth” (BUNSEN, Hieroglyphical Signs), which is evidently a different form of the same word. In the passive sense, also, we find Ms used (BUNSEN, Vocabulary). The radical meaning of Mesheh in Stockii Lexicon, is given in Latin ”Extraxit,” and our English word ”extraction,” as applied to birth or descent, shows that there is a connection between the generic meaning of this word and birth. This derivation will be found to explain the meaning of the names of the Egyptian kings, Ramesses and Thothmes, the former evidently being ”The son of Ra,” or the Sun; the latter in like manner, being ”The son of Thoth.” For the very same reason Her-mes is the ”Son of Her, or Ham,” the burnt one–that is, Cush.

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 ages 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.” *

* HYGINUS, Fab. Phoroneus is represented as king at this time.

Here there is a manifest enigma. How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the speeches of mankind when they ”all spake 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.”

* Janus was so called in the most ancient hymns of the Salii. (MACROB, Saturn.)

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, ** 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.” ***

* The name of Cush is also Khus, for sh frequently passes in Chaldee into s; and Khus, in pronunciation, legitimately becomes Khawos, or, without the digamma, Khaos.

** From Sir WM. BETHAM’S Etruscan Literature and Antiquities Investigated, 1842. The Etruscan name on the reverse of a medal–Bel-athri, ”Lord of spies,” is probably given to Janus, in allusion to his well known title ”Janus Tuens,” which may be rendered ”Janus the Seer,” or ”All-seeing Janus.”

*** In Proverbs 25:18, a maul or club is ”Mephaitz.” In Jeremiah 51:20, the same word, without the Jod, is evidently used for a club (though, in our version, it is rendered battle-axe); for the use of it is not to cut asunder, but to ”break in pieces.” See the whole passage.

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. 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 Genesis 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 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.” **

* There are many instances of a similar change. Thus Botzra becomes in Greek, Bostra; and Mitzraim, Mestraim.

** Vulcan, in the classical Pantheon, had not commonly so high a place, but in Egypt Hephaistos, or Vulcan, was called ”Father of the gods.” (AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS)

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 Jeremiah 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).

* Merodach comes from Mered, to rebel; and Dakh, the demonstrative pronoun affixed, which makes it emphatic, signifying ”That” or ”The great.”

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. *

* While the names Bel and Hephaistos had the origin above referred to, they were not inappropriate names also, though in a different sense, for the war-gods descending from Cush, from whom Babylon derived its glory among the nations. The warlike deified kings of the line of Cush gloried in their power to carry confusion among their enemies, to scatter their armies, and to ”break the earth in pieces” by their resistless power. To this, no doubt, as well as to the acts of the primeval Bel, there is allusion in the inspired denunciations of Jeremiah on Babylon. The physical sense also of these names was embodied in the club given to the Grecian Hercules–the very club of Janus–when, in a character quite different from that of the original Hercules, he was set up as the great reformer of the world, by mere physical force. When two-headed Janus with the club is represented, the two-fold representation was probably intended to represent old Cush, and young Cush or Nimrod, as combined. But the two-fold representation with other attributes, had reference also to another ”Father of the gods,” afterwards to be noticed, who had specially to do with water.

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’ 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.”

* In our version, Ala Mahozim is rendered alternatively ”god of forces,” or ”gods protectors.” To the latter interpretation, there is this insuperable objection, that Ala is in the singular. Neither can the former be admitted; for Mahozim, or Mauzzim, does not signify ”forces,” or ”armies,” but ”munitions,” as it is also given in the margin–that is ”fortifications.” Stockius, in his Lexicon, gives us the definition of Mahoz in the singular, rober, arx, locus munitus, and in proof of the definition, the following examples:–Judges 6:26, ”And build an altar to the Lord thy God upon the top of this rock” (Mahoz, in the margin ”strong place”); and Daniel 11:19, ”Then shall he turn his face to the fort (Mahoz) of his own land.”

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, every one 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, 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. Now this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly identified with Semiramis. *

* A scholiast on the Periergesis of Dionysius, says Layard (Nineveh and its Remains), makes Semiramis the same as the goddess Artemis or Despoina. Now, Artemis was Diana, and the title of Despoina given to her, shows that it was in the character of the Ephesian Diana she was identified with Semiramis; for Despoina is the Greek for Domina, ”The Lady,” the peculiar title of Rhea or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, in ancient Rome. (OVID, Fasti)

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 Babylon. 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. *

* In the Greek mythology, Kronos and Rhea are commonly brother and sister. Ninus and Semiramis, according to history, are not represented as standing in any such relation to one another; but this is no objection to the real identity of Ninus and Kronos; for, 1st, the relationships of the divinities, in most countries, are peculiarly conflicting–Osiris, in Egypt, is represented at different times, not only as the son and husband of Isis, but also as her father and brother (BUNSEN); then, secondly, whatever the deified mortals might be before deification, on being deified they came into new relationships. On the apotheosis of husband and wife, it was necessary for the dignity of both that both alike should be represented as of the same celestial origin–as both supernaturally the children of God. Before the flood, the great sin that brought ruin on the human race was, that the ”Sons of God” married others than the daughters of God,–in other words, those who were not spiritually their ”sisters.” (Gen 6:2,3) In the new world, while the influence of Noah prevailed, the opposite practice must have been strongly inculcated; for a ”son of God” to marry any one but a daughter of God, or his own ”sister” in the faith, must have been a misalliance and a disgrace. Hence, from a perversion of a spiritual idea, came, doubtless, the notion of the dignity and purity of the royal line being preserved the more intact through the marriage of royal brothers and sisters. This was the case in Peru (PRESCOTT), in India (HARDY), and in Egypt (WILKINSON). Hence the relation of Jupiter to Juno, who gloried that she was ”soror et conjux”–”sister and wife”–of her husband. Hence the same relation between Isis and her husband Osiris, the former of whom is represented as ”lamenting her brother Osiris.” (BUNSEN) For the same reason, no doubt, was Rhea, made the sister of her husband Kronos, to show her divine dignity and equality.

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 scholiast upon EURIPIDES, Orest, says that ”the Cyclops were so called from Cyclops their king.” By this scholiast the Cyclops are regarded as a Thracian nation, for the Thracians had localised the tradition, and applied it to themselves; but the following statement of the scholiast on the Prometheus of Aeschylus, shows that they stood in such a relation to Kronos as proves that he was their king: ”The Cyclops…were the brethren of Kronos, the father of Jupiter.”

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 Babylon, must have been Ala mahozin, ”the god of fortifications.” (see note below)

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. *

* The name for a bull or ruler, is in Hebrew without points, Shur, which in Chaldee becomes Tur. From Tur, in the sense of a bull, comes the Latin Taurus; and from the same word, in the sense of a ruler, Turannus, which originally had no evil meaning. Thus, in these well known classical words, we have evidence of the operation of the very principle which caused the deified Assyrian kings to be represented under the form of the man-bull.

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. 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 casts a very singular light on the source from whence has come the popular superstition in regard to the grand Adversary. 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’), 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 a 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 Ethiopian 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-severed 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, 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.” By-and-by, however, another and a higher idea came in, and the expression of that idea was seen in the symbol of the three horns. A cap seems in course of time to have come to be associated with the regal horns. In Assyria the three-horned cap was one of the ”sacred emblems,” in token that the power connected with it was of celestial origin,–the three horns evidently pointing at the power of the trinity. Still, we have indications that the horned band, without any cap, was anciently the corona or royal crown. The crown borne by the Hindoo god Vishnu, in his avatar of the Fish, is just an open circle or band, with three horns standing erect from it, with a knob on the top of each horn. All the avatars are represented as crowned with a crown that seems to have been modelled from this, consisting of a coronet with three points, standing erect from it, in which Sir William Jones recognises the Ethiopian or Parthian coronet. The open tiara of Agni, the Hindoo god of fire, shows in its lower round the double horn, made in the very same way as in Assyria, proving at once the ancient custom, and whence that custom had come. Instead of the three horns, three horn-shaped leaves came to be substituted; and thus the horned band gradually passed into the modern coronet or crown with the three leaves of the fleur-de-lis, or other familiar three-leaved adornings.

Among the Red Indians of America there had evidently been something entirely analogous to the Babylonian custom of wearing the horns; for, in the ”buffalo dance” there, each of the dancers had his head arrayed with buffalo’s horns; and it is worthy of especial remark, that the ”Satyric dance,” * or dance of the Satyrs in Greece, seems to have been the counterpart of this Red Indian solemnity; for the satyrs were horned divinities, and consequently those who imitated their dance must have had their heads set off in imitation of theirs.

* BRYANT. The Satyrs were the companions of Bacchus, and ”danced along with him” (Aelian Hist.) When it is considered who Bacchus was, and that his distinguishing epithet was ”Bull-horned,” the horns of the ”Satyrs” will appear in their true light. For a particular mystic reason the Satyr’s horn was commonly a goat’s horn, but originally it must have been the same as Bacchus’.

When thus we find a custom that is clearly founded on a form of speech that characteristically distinguished the region where Nimrod’s power was wielded, used in so many different countries far removed from one another, where no such form of speech was used in ordinary life, we may be sure that such a custom was not the result of mere accident, but that it indicates the wide-spread diffusion of an influence that went forth in all directions from Babylon, from the time that Nimrod first ”began to be mighty on the earth.”

There was another way in which Nimrod’s power was symbolised besides by the ”horn.” A synonym for Gheber, ”The mighty one,” was ”Abir,” while ”Aber” also signified a ”wing.” Nimrod, as Head and Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who were the instruments of establishing his power, was ”Baal-aberin,” ”Lord of the mighty ones.” But ”Baal-abirin” (pronounced nearly in the same way) signified ”The winged one,” * and therefore in symbol he was represented, not only as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull–as showing not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast extent of his might, he was represented with great and wide-expanding wings.

* This is according to a peculiar Oriental idiom, of which there are many examples. Thus, Baal-aph, ”lord of wrath,” signifies ”an angry man”; Baal-lashon, ”lord of tongue,” ”an eloquent man”; Baal-hatsim, ”lord of arrows,” ”an archer”; and in like manner, Baal-aberin, ”lord of wings,” signifies ”winged one.”

To this mode of representing the mighty kings of Babylon and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and his successors, there is manifest allusion in Isaiah 8:6-8 ”Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even unto the neck; and the STRETCHING OUT OF HIS WINGS shall FILL the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.” When we look at such figures, with their great extent of expanded wing, as symbolising an Assyrian king, what a vividness and force does it give to the inspired language of the prophet! And how clear is it, also, that the stretching forth of the Assyrian monarch’s WINGS, that was to ”fill the breadth of Immanuel’s land,” has that very symbolic meaning to which I have referred–viz., the overspreading of the land by his ”mighty ones,” or hosts of armed men, that the king of Babylon was to bring with him in his overflowing invasion! The knowledge of the way in which the Assyrian monarchs were represented, and of the meaning of that representation, gives additional force to the story of the dream of Cyrus the Great, as told by Herodotus. Cyrus, says the historian, dreamt that he saw the son of one of his princes, who was at the time in a distant province, with two great ”wings on his shoulders, the one of which overshadowed Asia, and the other Europe,” from which he immediately concluded that he was organising rebellion against him. The symbols of the Babylonians, whose capital Cyrus had taken, and to whose power he had succeeded, were entirely familiar to him; and if the ”wings” were the symbols of sovereign power, and the possession of them implied the lordship over the might, or the armies of the empire, it is easy to see how very naturally any suspicions of disloyalty affecting the individual in question might take shape in the manner related, in the dreams of him who might harbour these suspicions.

Now, the understanding of this equivocal sense of ”Baal-aberin” can alone explain the remarkable statement of Aristophanes, that at the beginning of the world ”the birds” were first created, and then after their creation, came the ”race of the blessed immortal gods.” This has been regarded as either an atheistical or nonsensical utterance on the part of the poet, but, with the true key applied to the language, it is found to contain an important historical fact. Let it only be borne in mind that ”the birds”–that is, the ”winged ones”–symbolised ”the Lords of the mighty ones,” and then the meaning is clear, viz., that men first ”began to be mighty on the earth”; and then, that the ”Lords” or Leaders of ”these mighty ones” were deified. The knowledge of the mystic sense of this symbol accounts also for the origin of the story of Perseus, the son of Jupiter, miraculously born of Danae, who did such wondrous things, and who passed from country to country on wings divinely bestowed on him. This equally casts light on the symbolic myths in regard to Bellerophon, and the feats which he performed on his winged horse, and their ultimate disastrous issue; how high he mounted in the air, and how terrible was his fall; and of Icarus, the son of Daedalus, who, flying on wax-cemented wings over the Icarian Sea, had his wings melted off through his too near approach to the sun, and so gave his name to the sea where he was supposed to have fallen. The fables all referred to those who trode, or were supposed to have trodden, in the steps of Nimrod, the first ”Lord of the mighty ones,” and who in that character was symbolised as equipped with wings.

Now, it is remarkable that, in the passage of Aristophanes already referred to, that speaks of the birds, or ”the winged ones,” being produced before the gods, we are informed that he from whom both ”mighty ones” and gods derived their origin, was none other than the winged boy Cupid. *

* Aristophanes says that Eros or Cupid produced the ”birds” and ”gods” by ”mingling all things.” This evidently points to the meaning of the name Bel, which signifies at once ”the mingler” and ”the confounder.” This name properly belonged to the father of Nimrod, but, as the son was represented as identified with the father, we have evidence that the name descended to the son and others by inheritance.

Cupid, the son of Venus, occupied, as will afterwards be proved, in the mystic mythology the very same position as Nin, or Ninus, ”the son,” did to Rhea, the mother of the gods. As Nimrod was unquestionably the first of ”the mighty ones” after the Flood, this statement of Aristophanes, that the boy-god Cupid, himself a winged one, produced all the birds or ”winged ones,” while occupying the very position of Nin or Ninus, ”the son,” shows that in this respect also Ninus and Nimrod are identified. While this is the evident meaning of the poet, this also, in a strictly historical point of view, is the conclusion of the historian Apollodorus; for he states that ”Ninus is Nimrod.” And then, in conformity with this identity of Ninus and Nimrod, we find, in one of the most celebrated sculptures of ancient Babylon, Ninus and his wife Semiramis represented as actively engaged in the pursuits of the chase,–”the quiver-bearing Semiramis” being a fit companion for ”the mighty Hunter before the Lord.”



Note

Ala-Mahozim

The name ”Ala-Mahozim” is never, as far as I know, found in any ancient uninspired author, and in the Scripture itself it is found only in a prophecy. Considering that the design of prophecy is always to leave a certain obscurity before the event, though giving enough of light for the practical guidance of the upright, it is not to be wondered at that an unusual word should be employed to describe the divinity in question. But, though this precise name be not found, we have a synonym that can be traced home to Nimrod. In Sanchuniathon, ”Astarte, traveling about the habitable world,” is said to have found ”a star falling through the air, which she took up and consecrated in the holy island Tyre.” Now what is this story of the falling star but just another version of the fall of Mulciber from heaven, or of Nimrod from his high estate? for as we have already seen, Macrobius shows (Saturn.) that the story of Adonis–the lamented one–so favourite a theme in Phoenicia, originally came from Assyria. The name of the great god in the holy island of Tyre, as is well known, was Melkart (KITTO’S Illus. Comment.), but this name, as brought from Tyre to Carthage, and from thence to Malta (which was colonised from Carthage), where it is found on a monument at this day, cast no little light on the subject. The name Melkart is thought by some to have been derived from Melek-eretz, or ”king of the earth” (WILKINSON); but the way in which it is sculptured in Malta shows that it was really Melek-kart, ”king of the walled city.” Kir, the same as the Welsh Caer, found in Caer-narvon, &c., signifies ”an encompassing wall,” or a ”city completely walled round”; and Kart was the feminine form of the same word, as may be seen in the different forms of the name of Carthage, which is sometimes Car-chedon, and sometimes Cart-hada or Cart-hago. In the Book of Proverbs we find a slight variety of the feminine form of Kart, which seems evidently used in the sense of a bulwark or a fortification. Thus (Prov 10:15) we read: ”A rich man’s wealth is his strong city (Karit), that is, his strong bulwark or defence.” Melk-kart, then, ”king of the walled city,” conveys the very same idea as Ala-Mahozim. In GRUTER’S Inscriptions, as quoted by Bryant, we find a title also given to Mars, the Roman war-god, exactly coincident in meaning with that of Melkart. We have elsewhere seen abundant reason to conclude that the original of Mars was Nimrod. The title to which I refer confirms this conclusion, and is contained in a Roman inscription on an ancient temple in Spain. This title shows that the temple was dedicated to ”Mars Kir-aden,” the lord of ”The Kir,” or ”walled city.” The Roman C, as is well known, is hard, like K; and Adon, ”Lord,” is also Aden. Now, with this clue to guide us, we can unravel at once what has hitherto greatly puzzled mythologists in regard to the name of Mars Quirinus as distinguished from Mars Gradivus. The K in Kir is what in Hebrew or Chaldee is called Koph, a different letter from Kape, and is frequently pronounced as a Q. Quir-inus, therefore, signifies ”belonging to the 93 walled city,” and refers to the security which was given to cities by encompassing walls. Gradivus, on the other hand, comes from ”Grah,” ”conflict,” and ”divus,” ”god”–a different form of Deus, which has been already shown to be a Chaldee term; and therefore signifies ”God of battle.” Both these titles exactly answer to the two characters of Nimrod as the great city builder and the great warrior, and that both these distinctive characters were set forth by the two names referred to, we have distinct evidence in FUSS’S Antiquities. ”The Romans,” says he, ”worshipped two idols of the kind [that is, gods under the name of Mars], the one called Quirinus, the guardian of the city and its peace; the other called Gradivus, greedy of war and slaughter, whose temple stood beyond the city’s boundaries.”



The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Chapter II
Section II
Sub-Section II
The Child In Egypt

When we turn to Egypt we find remarkable evidence of the same thing there also. Justin, as we have already seen, says that ”Ninus subdued all nations, as far as Lybia,” and consequently Egypt. The statement of Diodorus Siculus is to the same effect, Egypt being one of the countries that, according to him, Ninus brought into subjection to himself. In exact accordance with these historical statements, we find that the name of the third person in the primeval triad of Egypt was Khons. But Khons, in Egyptian, comes from a word that signifies ”to chase.” Therefore, the name of Khons, the son of Maut, the goddess-mother, who was adorned in such a way as to identify her with Rhea, the great goddess-mother of Chaldea, * properly signifies ”The Huntsman,” or god of the chase.

* The distinguishing decoration of Maut was the vulture head-dress. Now the name of Rhea, in one of its meanings, signifies a vulture.

As Khons stands in the very same relation to the Egyptian Maut as Ninus does to Rhea, how does this title of ”The Huntsman” identify the Egyptian god with Nimrod? Now this very name Khons, brought into contact with the Roman mythology, not only explains the meaning of a name in the Pantheon there, that hitherto has stood greatly in need of explanation, but causes that name, when explained, to reflect light back again on this Egyptian divinity, and to strengthen the conclusion already arrived at. The name to which I refer is the name of the Latin god Consus, who was in one aspect identified with Neptune, but who was also regarded as ”the god of hidden counsels,” or ”the concealer of secrets,” who was looked up to as the patron of horsemanship, and was said to have produced the horse. Who could be the ”god of hidden counsels,” or the ”concealer of secrets,” but Saturn, the god of the ”mysteries,” and whose name as used at Rome, signified ”The hidden one”? The father of Khons, or Ohonso (as he was also called), that is, Amoun, was, as we are told by Plutarch, known as ”The hidden God”; and as father and son in the same triad have ordinarily a correspondence of character, this shows that Khons also must have been known in the very same character of Saturn, ”The hidden one.” If the Latin Consus, then, thus exactly agreed with the Egyptian Khons, as the god of ”mysteries,” or ”hidden counsels,” can there be a doubt that Khons, the Huntsman, also agreed with the same Roman divinity as the supposed producer of the horse? Who so likely to get the credit of producing the horse as the great huntsman of Babel, who no doubt enlisted it in the toils of the chase, and by this means must have been signally aided in his conflicts with the wild beasts of the forest? In this connection, let the reader call to mind that fabulous creature, the Centaur, half-man, half-horse, that figures so much in the mythology of Greece. That imaginary creation, as is generally admitted, was intended to commemorate the man who first taught the art of horsemanship. *

* In illustration of the principle that led to the making of the image of the Centaur, the following passage may be given from PRESCOTT’S Mexico, as showing the feelings of the Mexicans on first seeing a man on horseback: ”He [Cortes] ordered his men [who were cavalry] to direct their lances at the faces of their opponents, who, terrified at the monstrous apparition–for they supposed the rider and the horse, which they had never before seen, to be one and the same–were seized with a panic.”

But that creation was not the offspring of Greek fancy. Here, as in many other things, the Greeks have only borrowed from an earlier source. The Centaur is found on coins struck in Babylonia, showing that the idea must have originally come from that quarter. The Centaur is found in the Zodiac, the antiquity of which goes up to a high period, and which had its origin in Babylon. The Centaur was represented, as we are expressly assured by Berosus, the Babylonian historian, in the temple of Babylon, and his language would seem to show that so also it had been in primeval times. The Greeks did themselves admit this antiquity and derivation of the Centaur; for though Ixion was commonly represented as the father of the Centaurs, yet they also acknowledge that the primitive Centaurus was the same as Kronos, or Saturn, the father of the gods. *

* Scholiast in Lycophron, BRYANT. The Scholiast says that Chiron was the son of ”Centaurus, that is, Kronos.” If any one objects that, as Chiron is said to have lived in the time of the Trojan war, this shows that his father Kronos could not be the father of gods and men, Xenophon answers by saying ”that Kronos was the brother of Jupiter.” De Venatione

But we have seen that Kronos was the first King of Babylon, or Nimrod; consequently, the first Centaur was the same. Now, the way in which the Centaur was represented on the Babylonian coins, and in the Zodiac, viewed in this light, is very striking. The Centaur was the same as the sign Sagittarius, or ”The Archer.” If the founder of Babylon’s glory was ”The mighty Hunter,” whose name, even in the days of Moses, was a proverb–(Gen 10:9, ”Wherefore, it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord”)–when we find the ”Archer” with his bow and arrow, in the symbol of the supreme Babylonian divinity, and the ”Archer,” among the signs of the Zodiac that originated in Babylon, I think we may safely conclude that this Man-horse or Horse-man Archer primarily referred to him, and was intended to perpetuate the memory at once of his fame as a huntsman and his skill as a horse-breaker. (see note below)

Now, when we thus compare the Egyptian Khons, the ”Huntsman,” with the Latin Consus, the god of horse-races, who ”produced the horse,” and the Centaur of Babylon, to whom was attributed the honour of being the author of horsemanship, while we see how all the lines converge in Babylon, it will be very clear, I think, whence the primitive Egyptian god Khons has been derived.

Khons, the son of the great goddess-mother, seems to have been generally represented as a full-grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented very frequently in Egypt in the very same way as in the land of his nativity–i.e., as a child in his mother’s arms. *

* One of the symbols with which Khons was represented, shows that even he was identified with the child-god; ”for,” says Wilkinson, ”at the side of his head fell the plaited lock of Harpocrates, or childhood.”

This was the way in which Osiris, ”the son, the husband of his mother,” was often exhibited, and what we learn of this god, equally as in the case of Khons, shows that in his original he was none other than Nimrod. It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother, or wife of Osiris. But what could have led to the union of a Masonic body with these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to architecture, and had the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in perfecting the arts of fortification and building? Now, if such were the case, considering the relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to Babylon, who would naturally be looked up to there as the great patron of the Masonic art? The strong presumption is, that Nimrod must have been the man. He was the first that gained fame in this way. As the child of the Babylonian goddess-mother, he was worshipped, as we have seen, in the character of Ala mahozim, ”The god of fortifications.” Osiris, in like manner, the child of the Egyptian Madonna, was equally celebrated as ”the strong chief of the buildings.” This strong chief of the buildings was originally worshipped in Egypt with every physical characteristic of Nimrod. I have already noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a Negro. Now, there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that ”Osiris was black,” which, in a land where the general complexion was dusky, must have implied something more than ordinary in its darkness. Plutarch also states that Horus, the son of Osiris, ”was of a fair complexion,” and it was in this way, for the most part, that Osiris was represented. But we have unequivocal evidence that Osiris, the son and husband of the great goddess-queen of Egypt, was also represented as a veritable Negro. In Wilkinson may be found a representation of him with the unmistakable features of the genuine Cushite or Negro. Bunsen would have it that this is a mere random importation from some of the barbaric tribes; but the dress in which this Negro god is arrayed tells a different tale. That dress directly connects him with Nimrod. This Negro-featured Osiris is clothed from head to foot in a spotted dress, the upper part being a leopard’s skin, the under part also being spotted to correspond with it. Now the name Nimrod * signifies ”the subduer of the leopard.”

* ”Nimr-rod”; from Nimr, a ”leopard,” and rada or rad ”to subdue.” According to invariable custom in Hebrew, when two consonants come together as the two rs in Nimr-rod, one of them is sunk. Thus Nin-neveh, ”The habitation of Ninus,” becomes Nineveh. The name Nimrod is commonly derived from Mered, ”to rebel”; but a difficulty has always been found in regard to this derivation, as that would make the name Nimrod properly passive not ”the rebel,” but ”he who was rebelled against.” There is no doubt that Nimrod was a rebel, and that his rebellion was celebrated in ancient myths; but his name in that character was not Nimrod, but Merodach, or, as among the Romans, Mars, ”the rebel”; or among the Oscans of Italy, Mamers (SMITH), ”The causer of rebellion.” That the Roman Mars was really, in his original, the Babylonian god, is evident from the name given to the goddess, who was recognised sometimes as his ”sister,” and sometimes as his ”wife”–i.e., Bellona, which, in Chaldee, signifies, ”The Lamenter of Bel” (from Bel and onah, to lament). The Egyptian Isis, the sister and wife of Osiris, is in like manner represented, as we have seen, as ”lamenting her brother Osiris.” (BUNSEN)

This name seems to imply, that as Nimrod had gained fame by subduing the horse, and so making use of it in the chase, so his fame as a huntsman rested mainly on this, that he found out the art of making the leopard aid him in hunting the other wild beasts. A particular kind of tame leopard is used in India at this day for hunting; and of Bagajet I, the Mogul Emperor of India, it is recorded that in his hunting establishment he had not only hounds of various breeds, but leopards also, whose ”collars were set with jewels.” Upon the words of the prophet Habakkuk 1:8, ”swifter than leopards,” Kitto has the following remarks:–”The swiftness of the leopard is proverbial in all countries where it is found. This, conjoined with its other qualities, suggested the idea in the East of partially training it, that it might be employed in hunting…Leopards are now rarely kept for hunting in Western Asia, unless by kings and governors; but they are more common in the eastern parts of Asia. Orosius relates that one was sent by the king of Portugal to the Pope, which excited great astonishment by the way in which it overtook, and the facility with which it killed, deer and wild boars. Le Bruyn mentions a leopard kept by the Pasha who governed Gaza, and the other territories of the ancient Philistines, and which he frequently employed in hunting jackals. But it is in India that the cheetah, or hunting leopard, is most frequently employed, and is seen in the perfection of his power.” This custom of taming the leopard, and pressing it into the service of man in this way, is traced up to the earliest times of primitive antiquity. In the works of Sir William Jones, we find it stated from the Persian legends, that Hoshang, the father of Tahmurs, who built Babylon, was the ”first who bred dogs and leopards for hunting.” As Tahmurs, who built Babylon, could be none other than Nimrod, this legend only attributes to his father what, as his name imports, he got the fame of doing himself. Now, as the classic god bearing the lion’s skin is recognised by that sign as Hercules, the slayer of the Nemean lion, so in like manner, the god clothed in the leopard’s skin would naturally be marked out as Nimrod, the ”leopard-subduer.” That this leopard skin, as appertaining to the Egyptian god, was no occasional thing, we have clearest evidence. Wilkinson tells us, that on all high occasions when the Egyptian high priest was called to officiate, it was indispensable that he should do so wearing, as his robe of office, the leopard’s skin. As it is a universal principle in all idolatries that the high priest wears the insignia of the god he serves, this indicates the importance which the spotted skin must have had attached to it as a symbol of the god himself. The ordinary way in which the favourite Egyptian divinity Osiris was mystically represented was under the form of a young bull or calf–the calf Apis–from which the golden calf of the Israelites was borrowed. There was a reason why that calf should not commonly appear in the appropriate symbols of the god he represented, for that calf represented the divinity in the character of Saturn, ”The HIDDEN one,” ”Apis” being only another name for Saturn. *

* The name of Apis in Egyptian is Hepi or Hapi, which is evidently from the Chaldee ”Hap,” ”to cover.” In Egyptian Hap signifies ”to conceal.” (BUNSEN)

The cow of Athor, however, the female divinity corresponding to Apis, is well known as a ”spotted cow,” (WILKINSON) and it is singular that the Druids of Britain also worshipped ”a spotted cow” (DAVIES’S Druids). Rare though it be, however, to find an instance of the deified calf or young bull represented with the spots, there is evidence still in existence, that even it was sometimes so represented. When we find that Osiris, the grand god of Egypt, under different forms, was thus arrayed in a leopard’s skin or spotted dress, and that the leopard-skin dress was so indispensable a part of the sacred robes of his high priest, we may be sure that there was a deep meaning in such a costume. And what could that meaning be, but just to identify Osiris with the Babylonian god, who was celebrated as the ”Leopard-tamer,” and who was worshipped even as he was, as Ninus, the CHILD in his mother’s arms?



Note

Meaning of the Name Centaurus

The ordinary classical derivation of this name gives little satisfaction; for, even though it could be derived from words that signify ”Bull-killers” (and the derivation itself is but lame), such a meaning casts no light at all on the history of the Centaurs. Take it as a Chaldee word, and it will be seen at once that the whole history of the primitive Kentaurus entirely agrees with the history of Nimrod, with whom we have already identified him. Kentaurus is evidently derived from Kehn, ”a priest,” and Tor, ”to go round.” ”Kehn-Tor,” therefore, is ”Priest of the revolver,” that is, of the sun, which, to appearance, makes a daily revolution round the earth. The name for a priest, as written, is just Khn, and the vowel is supplied according to the different dialects of those who pronounce it, so as to make it either Kohn, Kahn, or Kehn. Tor, ”the revolver,” as applied to the sun, is evidently just another name for the Greek Zen or Zan applied to Jupiter, as identified with the sun, which signifies the ”Encircler” or ”Encompasser,”–the very word from which comes our own word ”Sun,” which, in Anglo-Saxon, was Sunna (MALLET, Glossary), and of which we find distinct traces in Egypt in the term snnu (BUNSEN’S Vocab.), as applied to the sun’s orbit. The Hebrew Zon or Zawon, to ”encircle,” from which these words come, in Chaldee becomes Don or Dawon, and thus we penetrate the meaning of the name given by the Boeotians to the ”Mighty hunter,” Orion. That name was Kandaon, as appears from the following words of the Scholiast on Lycophron, quoted in BRYANT: ”Orion, whom the Boeotians call also Kandaon.” Kahn-daon, then, and Kehn-tor, were just different names for the same office–the one meaning ”Priest of the Encircler,” the other, ”Priest of the revolver”–titles evidently equivalent to that of Bol-kahn, or ”Priest of Baal, or the Sun,” which, there can be no doubt, was the distinguishing title of Nimrod. As the title of Centaurus thus exactly agrees with the known position of Nimrod, so the history of the father of the Centaurs does the same. We have seen already that, though Ixion was, by the Greeks, made the father of that mythical race, even they themselves admitted that the Centaurs had a much higher origin, and consequently that Ixion, which seems to be a Grecian name, had taken the place of an earlier name, according to that propensity particularly noticed by Salverte, which has often led mankind ”to apply to personages known in one time and one country, myths which they have borrowed from another country and an earlier epoch” (Des Sciences). Let this only be admitted to be the case here–let only the name of Ixion be removed, and it will be seen that all that is said of the father of the Centaurs, or Horsemen-archers, applies exactly to Nimrod, as represented by the different myths that refer to the first progenitor of these Centaurs. First, then, Centaurus is represented as having been taken up to heaven (DYMOCK ”Ixion”), that is, as having been highly exalted through special favour of heaven; then, in that state of exaltation, he is said to have fallen in love with Nephele, who passed under the name of Juno, the ”Queen of Heaven.” The story here is intentionally confused, to mystify the vulgar, and the order of events seems changed, which can easily be accounted for. As Nephele in Greek signifies ”a cloud,” so the offspring of Centaurus are said to have been produced by a ”cloud.” But Nephele, in the language of the country where the fable was originally framed, signified ”A fallen woman,” and it is from that ”fallen woman,” therefore, that the Centaurs are really said to have sprung. Now, the story of Nimrod, as Ninus, is, that he fell in love with Semiramis when she was another man’s wife, and took her for his own wife, whereby she became doubly fallen–fallen as a woman *– and fallen from the primitive faith in which she must have been brought up; and it is well known that this ”fallen woman” was, under the name of Juno, or the Dove, after her death, worshipped among the Babylonians.

* Nephele was used, even in Greece, as the name of a woman, the degraded wife of Athamas being so called. (SMITH’S Class. Dict., ”Athamas”)

Centaurus, for his presumption and pride, was smitten with lightning by the supreme God, and cast down to hell (DYMOCK, ”Ixion”). This, then, is just another version of the story of Phaethon, Aesculapius, and Orpheus, who were all smitten in like manner and for a similar cause. In the infernal world, the father of the Centaurs is represented as tied by serpents to a wheel which perpetually revolves, and thus makes his punishment eternal (DYMOCK). In the serpents there is evidently reference to one of the two emblems of the fire-worship of Nimrod. If he introduced the worship of the serpent, as I have endeavoured to show, there was poetical justice in making the serpent an instrument of his punishment. Then the revolving wheel very clearly points to the name Centaurus itself, as denoting the ”Priest of the revolving sun.” To the worship of the sun in the character of the ”Revolver,” there was a very distinct allusion not only in the circle which, among the Pagans, was the emblem of the sun-god, and the blazing wheel with which he was so frequently represented (WILSON’S Parsi Religion), but in the circular dances of the Bacchanalians. Hence the phrase, ”Bassaridum rotator Evan”–”The wheeling Evan of the Bacchantes” (STATIUS, Sylv.). Hence, also, the circular dances of the Druids as referred to in the following quotation from a Druidic song: ”Ruddy was the sea beach whilst the circular revolution was performed by the attendants and the white bands in graceful extravagance” (DAVIES’S Druids). That this circular dance among the Pagan idolaters really had reference to the circuit of the sun, we find from the distinct statement of Lucian in his treatise On Dancing, where, speaking of the circular dance of the ancient Eastern nations, he says, with express reference to the sun-god, ”it consisted in a dance imitating this god.” We see then, here, a very specific reason for the circular dance of the Bacchae, and for the ever-revolving wheel of the great Centaurus in the infernal regions.

continue in part 2

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar

Luther on ecumenism and papacy

History of the Papacy by J.A. Wylie: "...the Church (so-called) of Rome has no right to rank amongst Christian Churches. She is not a Church, neither is her religion the Christian religion. We are accustomed to speak of Popery as a corrupt form of Christianity. We concede too much. The Church of Rome bears the same relation to the Church of Christ which the hierarchy of Baal bore to the institute of Moses; and Popery stands related to Christianity only in the same way in which Paganism stood related to primeval Revelation. Popery is not a corruption simply, but a transformation. It may be difficult to fix the time when it passed from the one into the other; but the change is incontestible. Popery is the gospel transubstantiated into the flesh and blood of Paganism, under a few of the accidents of Christianity."

Martin Luther

Just as in the days of the Apostles, so at this day we are forced to hear from certain denominations that we (by our obstinacy to adhere to the truth) do offend against love and unity in the churches, because we reject their doctrine. It would be better (they say) that we should let it pass, especially since the doctrine in dispute is what they call non-essential, and, therefore (they say) to stir up so great a discord and contention in the church over one or two doctrines (and those not the most important ones) is unfruitful and unnecessary.

To this I reply: Cursed be that love and unity which cannot be preserved except at the peril of the word of God.

Just as in the days of the Apostles, so at this day we are forced to hear from certain denominations that we (by our obstinacy to adhere to the truth) do offend against love and unity in the churches, because we reject their doctrine. It would be better (they say) that we should let it pass, especially since the doctrine in dispute is what they call non-essential, and, therefore (they say) to stir up so great a discord and contention in the church over one or two doctrines (and those not the most important ones) is unfruitful and unnecessary.

To this I reply: Cursed be that love and unity which cannot be preserved except at the peril of the word of God.

The negotiation about doctrinal agreement displeases me altogether, for this is utterly impossible unless the pope has his papacy abolished. Therefore avoid and flee those who seek the middle of the road. Think of me after I am dead and such middle-of-the-road men arise, for nothing good will come of it. There can be no compromise. (What Luther Says, II: 1019)

Ah, my dear brother in Christ, bear with me if here or elsewhere I use such coarse language when speaking of the wretched, confronted, atrocious monster at Rome! He who knows my thoughts must say that I am much, much, much too lenient and have neither words nor thought adequately to describe the shameful, abominable blasphemy to which he subjects the Word and name of Christ, our dear Lord and Savior. There are some Christians, wicked Christians indeed, who now would gloss things over to make the pope appear against in a good light and who, after he does so and has been dragged out of the mud, would like to reinstate him on the altar. But they are wicked people, whoever they may be, who defend the pope and want me to be quiet about the means whereby he has done harm. Truly, I cannot do this. All true, pious Christians, who love Christ and His Word, should, as said, be sincerely hostile to the pope. They should persecute him and injure him…. All should do this in their several calling, to the best of their ability, with all faithfulness and diligence. (What Luther Says, II: 1072)

What kind of a church is the pope’s church? It is an uncertain, vacillating and tottering church. Indeed, it is a deceitful, lying church, doubting and unbelieving, without God’s Word. For the pope with his wrong keys teaches his church to doubt and to be uncertain. If it is a vacillating church, then it is not the church of faith, for the latter is founded upon a rock, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Matt.16:18). If it is not the church of faith, then it is not the Christian church, but it must be an unchristian, anti-Christian, and faithless church which destroys and ruins the real, holy, Christian church. (Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Church and Ministry II, The Keys, p.348)

All this is to be noted carefully, so that we can treat with contempt the filthy, foolish twaddle that the popes present in their decrees about their Roman church, that is, about their devil’s synagogue (Rev.2:9), which separates itself from common Christendom and the spiritual edifice built up on this stone, and instead invents for itself a fleshly worldly, worthless, lying, blasphemous, idolatrous authority over all of Christendom. One of these two things must be true: if the Roman church is not built on this rock along with the other churches, then it is the devil’s church; but if it is built, along with all the other churches, on this rock, then it cannot be lord or head over the other churches. For Christ the cornerstone knows nothing of two unequal churches, but only of one church alone, just as the Children’s Faith, that is, the faith of all of Christendom, says, ”I believe in one holy, Christian church,” and does not say, ”I believe in one holy Roman church.” The Roman church is and should be one portion or member of the holy Christian church, not the head, which befits solely Christ the cornerstone. If not, it is not a Christian but an UN-Christian and anti-Christian church, that is, a papal school of scoundrels. (Luther’s Works, Volume 41, Church and Ministry III, Against The Roman Papacy, An Institution Of The Devil, p.311)



I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist. As Christ is God incarnate, so the Antichrist is the devil incarnate. The words are really spoken of the pope when its said that hes a mixed god, an earthly god, that is , a god of the earth. Here god is understood as god of this world. Why does he call himself an earthly god, as if the one, almighty God werent also on the earth? The kingdom of the pope really signifies the terrible wrath of God, namely, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. (Luthers Works, vol.54, Table Talks, No.4487, p.346)


C. H. Spurgeon on Popery


"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. It wounds Christ, robs Christ of His glory, puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread in the place of the Saviour....If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls, though we loathe and detest their dogmas...."

-- C. H. Spurgeon


A Wideness in Gods Mercy? (Billy Graham)

Loading...

Feeding sheeps or amusing goats Christian Entertainment An Evangelic Heresy

Loading...

Charles Spurgeon Apostasy mixed religion!

Loading...

Google Translate

Search The Bible.

Choose a Bible Book or Range
Type your text here
Ignore Case
Highlight Results

Pray for Uganda Africa

Pray for Uganda, Africa

Frälsningens väg!

Heb 11:25 Han ville hellre utstå lidande med Guds folk än för en kort tid leva i syndig njutning;
Heb 12:2 Och må vi därvid se på Jesus, trons hövding och fullkomnare, på honom, som i stället för att taga den glädje som låg framför honom, utstod korsets lidande och aktade smäleken för intet, och som nu sitter på högra sidan om Guds tron.
Heb 12:3 Ja, på honom, som har utstått så mycken gensägelse av syndare, på honom mån I tänka, så att I icke tröttnen och uppgivens i edra själar.
Heb 12:15 Och sen till, att ingen går miste om Guds nåd, och att ingen giftig rot skjuter skott och bliver till fördärv, så att menigheten därigenom bliver besmittad;
Heb 12:16 sen till, att ingen är en otuktig människa eller ohelig såsom Esau, han som för en enda maträtt sålde sin förstfödslorätt.
Heb 12:17 I veten ju att han ock sedermera blev avvisad, när han på grund av arvsrätt ville få välsignelsen; han kunde nämligen icke vinna någon ändring, fastän han med tårar sökte därefter.
Heb 10:36 I behöven nämligen ståndaktighet för att kunna göra Guds vilja och få vad utlovat är.
Heb 10:37 Ty "ännu en helt liten tid, så kommer den som skall komma, och han skall icke dröja;
Heb 10:38 och min rättfärdige skall leva av tro. Men om någon drager sig undan, så finner min själ icke behag i honom".
Heb 10:39 Dock, vi höra icke till dem som draga sig undan, sig själva till fördärv; vi höra till dem som tro och så vinna sina själar.

Ord 25:26 Såsom en grumlad källa och en fördärvad brunn, så är en rättfärdig som vacklar inför den ogudaktige.

Upp 3:16 Men nu, då du är ljum och varken varm eller kall, skall jag utspy dig ur min mun.

Se Ljum, sammanblandad, mixad, förväxlad, utbytt, utväxlad, ersatt, avlöst, efterträdd, liknöjd, likgiltig!

2Ti 4:7 Jag har kämpat den goda kampen, jag har fullbordat mitt lopp, jag har bevarat tron.
2Ti 4:8 Nu ligger rättfärdighetens segerkrans tillreds åt mig, och Herren, den rättfärdige domaren, skall giva den åt mig på "den dagen", och icke åt mig allenast, utan åt alla som hava älskat hans tillkommelse.

The Dangers Of Pragmatism vad din pastor borde veta innan han uttalar sig

Loading...

Deception In The Last Days

Loading...

Faith and confession Hindu style

Loading...

Book of Rememberance

Loading...

Judgment Seat of Christ

Loading...

The Adulation of Man in the Purpose Driven Life.

Loading...

The Mindset of Catholicism Permeating Evangelicalism

Loading...

The Trojan Church

Loading...

Twisting the Word

Loading...

De ska ha ett och samma sinne Det stora Babylon moder till alla skökorna och till styggelserna

Loading...

Jesus HATES the deeds of the Nicolaitiane, which I also hate.

Rev. 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitianes, which I also hate. Nicolaitianes -To conquer the people or laity, these "deeds" had become in Pergamos a "doctrine" (Rev. 2:15)

Nicolaitians, to conquer the laity !

Loading...

Counter

Website counter