This is the continuation of Section III — The Clothing and Crowning of Images

Every one knows how thoroughly Romanist is the use of the rosary; and how the devotees of Rome mechanically tell their prayers upon their beads. The rosary, however, is no invention of the Papacy. It is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The rosary was used as a sacred instrument among the ancient Mexicans. It is commonly employed among the Brahmins of Hindustan; and in the Hindoo sacred books reference is made to it again and again. Thus, in an account of the death of Sati, the wife of Shiva, we find the rosary introduced: “On hearing of this event, Shiva fainted from grief; then, having recovered, he hastened to the banks of the river of heaven, where he beheld lying the body of his beloved Sati, arrayed in white garments, holding a rosary in her hand, and glowing with splendour, bright as burnished gold.” In Thibet it has been used from time immemorial, and among all the millions in the East that adhere to the Buddhist faith. The following, from Sir John F. Davis, will show how it is employed in China: “From the Tartar religion of the Lamas, the rosary of 108 beads has become a part of the ceremonial dress attached to the nine grades of official rank. It consists of a necklace of stones and coral, nearly as large as a pigeon’s egg, descending to the waist, and distinguished by various beads, according to the quality of the wearer. There is a small rosary of eighteen beads, of inferior size, with which the bonzes count their prayers and ejaculations exactly as in the Romish ritual. The laity in China sometimes wear this at the wrist, perfumed with musk, and give it the name of Heang-choo, or fragrant beads.” In Asiatic Greece the rosary was commonly used, as may be seen from the image of the Ephesian Diana. In Pagan Rome the same appears to have been the case. The necklaces which the Roman ladies wore were not merely ornamental bands about the neck, but hung down the breast, just as the modern rosaries do; and the name by which they were called indicates the use to which they were applied. “Monile,” the ordinary word for a necklace, can have no other meaning than that of a “Remembrancer.” Now, whatever might be the pretence, in the first instance, for the introduction of such “Rosaries” or “Remembrancers,” the very idea of such a thing is thoroughly Pagan. * It supposes that a certain number of prayers must be regularly gone over; it overlooks the grand demand which God makes for the heart, and leads those who use them to believe that form and routine are everything, and that “they must be heard for their much speaking.”

* “Rosary” itself seems to be from the Chaldee “Ro,” “thought,” and “Shareh,” “director.”

In the Church of Rome a new kind of devotion has of late been largely introduced, in which the beads play an important part, and which shows what new and additional strides in the direction of the old Babylonian Paganism the Papacy every day is steadily making. I refer to the “Rosary of the Sacred Heart.” It is not very long since the worship of the “Sacred Heart” was first introduced; and now, everywhere it is the favourite worship. It was so in ancient Babylon, as is evident from the Babylonian system as it appeared in Egypt. There also a “Sacred Heart” was venerated. The “Heart” was one of the sacred symbols of Osiris when he was born again, and appeared as Harpocrates, or the infant divinity, * borne in the arms of his mother Isis.

* The name Harpocrates, as shown by Bunsen, signifies “Horus, the child.”

Therefore, the fruit of the Egyptian Persea was peculiarly sacred to him, from its resemblance to the “HUMAN HEART.” Hence this infant divinity was frequently represented with a heart, or the heart-shaped fruit of the Persea, in one of his hands (see fig.40). The following extract, from John Bell’s criticism on the antiques in the Picture Gallery of Florence, will show that the boyish divinity had been represented elsewhere also in ancient times in the same manner. Speaking of a statue of Cupid, he says it is “a fair, full, fleshy, round boy, in fine and sportive action, tossing back a heart.” Thus the boy-god came to be regarded as the “god of the heart,” in other words, as Cupid, or the god of love. To identify this infant divinity, with his father “the mighty hunter,” he was equipped with “bow and arrows”; and in the hands of the poets, for the amusement of the profane vulgar, this sportive boy-god was celebrated as taking aim with his gold-tipped shafts at the hearts of mankind. His real character, however, as the above statement shows, and as we have seen reason already to conclude, was far higher and of a very different kind. He was the woman’s seed. Venus and her son Cupid, then, were none other than the Madonna and the child. Looking at the subject in this light, the real force and meaning of the language will appear, which Virgil puts into the mouth of Venus, when addressing the youthful Cupid:–

“My son, my strength, whose mighty power alone
Controls the thunderer on his awful throne,
To thee thy much afflicted mother flies,
And on thy succour and thy faith relies.”

From what we have seen already as to the power and glory of the Goddess Mother being entirely built on the divine character attributed to her Son, the reader must see how exactly this is brought out, when the Son is called “THE STRENGTH” of his Mother. As the boy-god, whose symbol was the heart, was recognised as the god of childhood, this very satisfactorily accounts for one of the peculiar customs of the Romans. Kennett tells us, in his Antiquities, that the Roman youths, in their tender years, used to wear a golden ornament suspended from their necks, called bulla, which was hollow, and heart-shaped. Barker, in his work on Cilicia, while admitting that the Roman bulla was heart-shaped, further states, that “it was usual at the birth of a child to name it after some divine personage, who was supposed to receive it under his care”; but that the “name was not retained beyond infancy, when the bulla was given up.” Who so likely to be the god under whose guardianship the Roman children were put, as the god under one or other of his many names whose express symbol they wore, and who, while he was recognised as the great and mighty war-god, who also exhibited himself in his favourite form as a little child?

The veneration of the “sacred heart” seems also to have extended to India, for there Vishnu, the Mediatorial god, in one of his forms, with the mark of the wound in his foot, in consequence of which he died, and for which such lamentation is annually made, is represented as wearing a heart suspended on his breast (see figure 41). It is asked, How came it that the “Heart” became the recognised symbol of the Child of the great Mother? The answer is, “The Heart” in Chaldee is “BEL”; and as, at first, after the check given to idolatry, almost all the most important elements of the Chaldean system were introduced under a veil, so under that veil they continued to be shrouded from the gaze of the uninitiated, after the first reason–the reason of fear–had long ceased to operate. Now, the worship of the “Sacred Heart” was just, under a symbol, the worship of the “Sacred Bel,” that mighty one of Babylon, who had died a martyr for idolatry; for Harpocrates, or Horus, the infant god, was regarded as Bel, born again. That this was in very deed the case, the following extract from Taylor, in one of his notes to his translation of the Orphic Hymns, will show. “While Bacchus,” says he, was “beholding himself” with admiration “in a mirror, he was miserably torn to pieces by the Titans, who, not content with this cruelty, first boiled his members in water, and afterwards roasted them in the fire; but while they were tasting his flesh thus dressed, Jupiter, excited by the steam, and perceiving the cruelty of the deed, hurled his thunder at the Titans, but committed his members to Apollo, the brother of Bacchus, that they might be properly interred. And this being performed, Dionysius [i.e., Bacchus], (whose HEART, during his laceration, was snatched away by Minerva and preserved) by a new REGENERATION, again emerged, and he being restored to his pristine life and integrity, afterwards filled up the number of the gods.” This surely shows, in a striking light, the peculiar sacredness of the heart of Bacchus; and that the regeneration of his heart has the very meaning I have attached to it–viz., the new birth or new incarnation of Nimrod or Bel. When Bel, however was born again as a child, he was, as we have seen, represented as an incarnation of the sun. Therefore, to indicate his connection with the fiery and burning sun, the “sacred heart” was frequently represented as a “heart of flame.”

So the “Sacred Heart” of Rome is actually worshipped as a flaming heart, as may be seen on the rosaries devoted to that worship. Of what use, then, is it to say that the “Sacred Heart” which Rome worships is called by the name of “Jesus,” when not only is the devotion given to a material image borrowed from the worship of the Babylonian Antichrist, but when the attributes ascribed to that “Jesus” are not the attributes of the living and loving Saviour, but the genuine attributes of the ancient Moloch or Bel?

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter V. Section V — Lamps and Wax-Candles

All chapters of The Two Babylons

After listening to ABC’s unfair support of Kamela Harris and their obvious bias and false “fact-checking” of Donald Trump’s statements during the Harris – Trump debate, I felt led to share what Christian J. Pinto of the Noise of Thunder Radio Show has to say about the liberal media and the Democratic Party. It’s an hour-long audio with lots of information you don’t want to miss! My wife and I usually listen to Noise of Thunder Radio at night just before bedtime.

Click anywhere on the image to start the audio.

Continued from Section II — Relic Worship

In the Church of Rome, the clothing and crowning of images form no insignificant part of the ceremonial. The sacred images are not represented, like ordinary statues, with the garments formed of the same material as themselves, but they have garments put on them from time to time, like ordinary mortals of living flesh and blood. Great expense is often lavished on their drapery; and those who present to them splendid robes are believed thereby to gain their signal favour, and to lay up a large stock of merit for themselves. Thus, in September, 1852, we find the duke and Duchess of Montpensier celebrated in the Tablet, not only for their charity in “giving 3000 reals in alms to the poor,” but especially, and above all, for their piety in “presenting the Virgin with a magnificent dress of tissue of gold, with white lace and a silver crown.” Somewhat about the same time the piety of the dissolute Queen of Spain was testified by a similar benefaction, when she deposited at the feet of the Queen of Heaven the homage of the dress and jewels she wore on a previous occasion of solemn thanksgiving, as well as the dress in which she was attired when she was stabbed by the assassin Merino. “The mantle,” says the Spanish journal Espana, “exhibited the marks of the wound, and its ermine lining was stained with the precious blood of Her Majesty. In the basket (that bore the dresses) were likewise the jewels which adorned Her Majesty’s head and breast. Among them was a diamond stomacher, so exquisitely wrought, and so dazzling, that it appeared to be wrought of a single stone.” This is all sufficiently childish, and presents human nature in a most humiliating aspect; but it is just copied from the old Pagan worship. The same clothing and adorning of the gods went on in Egypt, and there were sacred persons who alone could be permitted to interfere with so high a function. Thus, in the Rosetta Stone we find these sacred functionaries distinctly referred to: “The chief priests and prophets, and those who have access to the adytum to clothe the gods,…assembled in the temple at Memphis, established the following decree.” The “clothing of the gods” occupied an equally important place in the sacred ceremonial of ancient Greece. Thus, we find Pausanias referring to a present made to Minerva: “In after times Laodice, the daughter of Agapenor, sent a veil to Tegea, to Minerva Alea.” The epigram [inscription] on this offering indicates, at the same time, the origin of Laodice:–

“Laodice, from Cyprus, the divine,
To her paternal wide-extended land,
This veil–an offering to Minerva–sent.”

Thus, also, when Hecuba, the Trojan queen, in the instance already referred to, was directed to lead the penitential procession through the streets of Troy to Minverva’s temple, she was commanded not to go empty-handed, but to carry along with her, as her most acceptable offering:–

“The largest mantle your full wardrobes hold,
Most prized for art, and laboured o’er with gold.”

The royal lady punctually obeyed:–

“The Phrygian queen to her rich wardrobe went,
Where treasured odours breathed a costly scent;
There lay the vestures of no vulgar art;
Sidonian maids embroidered every part,
Whom from soft Sydon youthful Paris bore,
With Helen touching on the Tyrian shore.
Here, as the Queen revolved with careful eyes
The various textures and the various dyes,
She chose a veil that shone superior far,
And glowed refulgent as the morning star.”

There is surely a wonderful resemblance here between the piety of the Queen of Troy and that of the Queen of Spain. Now, in ancient Paganism there was a mystery couched under the clothing of the gods. If gods and goddesses were so much pleased by being clothed, it was because there had once been a time in their history when they stood greatly in need of clothing. Yes, it can be distinctly established, as has been already hinted, that ultimately the great god and great goddess of Heathenism, while the facts of their own history were interwoven with their idolatrous system, were worshipped also as incarnations of our great progenitors, whose disastrous fall stripped them of their primeval glory, and made it needful that the hand Divine should cover their nakedness with clothing specially prepared for them. I cannot enter here into an elaborate proof of this point; but let the statement of Herodotus be pondered in regard to the annual ceremony, observed in Egypt, of slaying a ram, and clothing the FATHER OF THE GODS with its skin. Compare this statement with the Divine record in Genesis about the clothing of the “Father of Mankind” in a coat of sheepskin; and after all that we have seen of the deification of dead men, can there be a doubt what it was that was thus annually commemorated? Nimrod himself, when he was cut in pieces, was necessarily stripped. That exposure was identified with the nakedness of Noah, and ultimately with that of Adam. His sufferings were represented as voluntarily undergone for the good of mankind. His nakedness, therefore, and the nakedness of the “Father of the gods,” of whom he was an incarnation, was held to be a voluntary humiliation too. When, therefore, his suffering was over, and his humiliation past, the clothing in which he was invested was regarded as a meritorious clothing, available not only for himself, but for all who were initiated in his mysteries.

In the sacred rites of the Babylonian god, both the exposure and the clothing that were represented as having taken place, in his own history, were repeated on all his worshippers, in accordance with the statement of Firmicus, that the initiated underwent what their god had undergone. First, after being duly prepared by magic rites and ceremonies, they were ushered, in a state of absolute nudity, into the innermost recesses of the temple. This appears from the following statement of Proclus: “In the most holy of the mysteries, they say that the mystics at first meet with the many-shaped genera [i.e., with evil demons], which are hurled forth before the gods: but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved and guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumination, and, DIVESTED OF THEIR GARMENTS, participate, as they would say, of a divine nature.” When the initiated, thus “illuminated” and made partakers of a “divine nature,” after being “divested of their garments,” were clothed anew, the garments with which they were invested were looked upon as “sacred garments,” and possessing distinguished virtues. “The coat of skin” with which the Father of mankind was divinely invested after he was made so painfully sensible of his nakedness, was, as all intelligent theologians admit, a typical emblem of the glorious righteousness of Christ–“the garment of salvation,” which is “unto all and upon all them that believe.” The garments put upon the initiated after their disrobing of their former clothes, were evidently intended as a counterfeit of the same. “The garments of those initiated in the Eleusinian Mysteries,” says Potter, “were accounted sacred, and of no less efficacy to avert evils than charms and incantations. They were never cast off till completely worn out.” And of course, if possible, in these “sacred garments” they were buried; for Herodotus, speaking of Egypt, whence these mysteries were derived, tells us that “religion” prescribed the garments of the dead.

The efficacy of “sacred garments” as a means of salvation and delivering from evil in the unseen and eternal world, occupies a foremost place in many religions. Thus the Parsees, the fundamental elements of whose system came from the Chaldean Zoroaster, believe that “the sadra or sacred vest” tends essentially to “preserve the departed soul from the calamities accruing from Ahriman,” or the Devil; and they represent those who neglect the use of this “sacred vest” as suffering in their souls, and “uttering the most dreadful and appalling cries,” on account of the torments inflicted on them “by all kinds of reptiles and noxious animals, who assail them with their teeth and stings, and give them not a moment’s respite.” What could have ever led mankind to attribute such virtue to a “sacred vest“? If it be admitted that it is just a perversion of the “sacred garment” put on our first parents, all is clear. This, too, accounts for the superstitious feeling in the Papacy, otherwise so unaccountable, that led so many in the dark ages to fortify themselves against the fears of the judgment to come, by seeking to be buried in a monk’s dress. “To be buried in a friar’s cast-off habit, accompanied by letters enrolling the deceased in a monastic order, was accounted a sure deliverance from eternal condemnation! In ‘Piers the Ploughman’s Creed,’ a friar is described as wheedling a poor man out of his money by assuring him that, if he will only contribute to his monastery,

‘St. Francis himself shall fold thee in his cope,
And present thee to the Trinity, and pray for thy sins.'”

In virtue of the same superstitious belief, King John of England was buried in a monk’s cowl; and many a royal and noble personage besides, “before life and immortality” were anew “brought to light” at the Reformation, could think of no better way to cover their naked and polluted souls in prospect of death, than by wrapping themselves in the garment of some monk or friar as unholy as themselves. Now, all these refuges of lies, in Popery as well as Paganism, taken in connection with the clothing of the saints of the one system, and of the gods of the other, when traced to their source, show that since sin entered the world, man has ever felt the need of a better righteousness than his own to cover him, and that the time was when all the tribes of the earth knew that the only righteousness that could avail for such a purpose was “the righteousness of God,” and that of “God manifest in the flesh.”

Intimately connected with the “clothing of the images of the saints” is also the “crowning” of them. For the last two centuries, in the Popish communion, the festivals for crowning the “sacred images” have been more and more celebrated. In Florence, a few years ago, the image of the Madonna with the child in her arms was “crowned” with unusual pomp and solemnity. Now, this too arose out of the facts commemorated in the history of Bacchus or Osiris. As Nimrod was the first king after the Flood, so Bacchus was celebrated as the first who wore a crown. *

* PLINY, Hist. Nat. Under the name of Saturn, also, the same thing was attributed to Nimrod.

When, however, he fell into the hands of his enemies, as he was stripped of all his glory and power, he was stripped also of his crown. The “Falling of the crown from the head of Osiris” was specially commemorated in Egypt. That crown at different times was represented in different ways, but in the most famous myth of Osiris it was represented as a “Melilot garland.” Melilot is a species of trefoil; and trefoil in the Pagan system was one of the emblems of the Trinity. Among the Tractarians at this day, trefoil is used in the same symbolical sense as it has long been in the Papacy, from which Puseyism has borrowed it. Thus, in a blasphemous Popish representation of what is called God the Father (of the fourteenth century), we find him represented as wearing a crown with three points, each of which is surmounted with a leaf of white clover (see figure 39). But long before Tractarianism or Romanism was known, trefoil was a sacred symbol. The clover leaf was evidently a symbol of high import among the ancient Persians; for thus we find Herodotus referring to it, in describing the rites of the Persian Magi–“If any (Persian) intends to offer to a god, he leads the animal to a consecrated spot. Then, dividing the victim into parts, he boils the flesh, and lays it upon the most tender herbs, especially TREFOIL. This done, a magus–without a magus no sacrifice can be performed–sings a sacred hymn.” In Greece, the clover, or trefoil, in some form or other, had also occupied an important place; for the rod of Mercury, the conductor of souls, to which such potency was ascribed, was called “Rabdos Tripetelos,” or “the three-leaved rod.” Among the British Druids the white clover leaf was held in high esteem as an emblem of their Triune God, and was borrowed from the same Babylonian source as the rest of their religion. The Melilot, or trefoil garland, then, with which the head of Osiris was bound, was the crown of the Trinity–the crown set on his head as the representative of the Eternal–“The crown of all the earth,” in accordance with the voice divine at his birth, “The Lord of all the earth is born.”

Now, as that “Melilot garland,” that crown of universal dominion, fell “from his head” before his death, so, when he rose to new life, the crown must be again set upon his head, and his universal dominion solemnly avouched. Hence, therefore, came the solemn crowning of the statues of the great god, and also the laying of the “chaplet” on his altar, as a trophy of his recovered “dominion.” But if the great god was crowned, it was needful also that the great goddess should receive a similar honour. Therefore it was fabled that when Bacchus carried his wife Ariadne to heaven, in token of the high dignity bestowed upon her, he set a crown upon her head; and the remembrance of this crowning of the wife of the Babylonian god is perpetuated to this hour by the well-known figure in the sphere called Ariadnoea corona, or “Ariadne’s crown.” This is, beyond question, the real source of the Popish rite of crowning the image of the Virgin.

From the fact that the Melilot garland occupied so conspicuous a place in the myth of Osiris, and that the “chaplet” was laid on his altar, and his tomb was “crowned” with flowers, arose the custom, so prevalent in heathenism, of adorning the altars of the gods with “chaplets” of all sorts, and with a gay profusion of flowers. Side by side with this reason for decorating the altars with flowers, there was also another. When in

“That fair field
Of Enna, Proserpine gathering flowers,
Herself, a fairer flower, by gloom Dis,
Was gathered;”

and all the flowers she had stored up in her lap were lost, the loss thereby sustained by the world not only drew forth her own tears, but was lamented in the Mysteries as a loss of no ordinary kind, a loss which not only stripped her of her own spiritual glory, but blasted the fertility and beauty of the earth itself. *

* OVID, Metamorphoses. Ovid speaks of the tears which Proserpine shed when, on her robe being torn from top to bottom, all the flowers which she had been gathering up in it fell to the ground, as showing only the simplicity of a girlish mind. But this is evidently only for the uninitiated. The lamentations of Ceres, which were intimately connected with the fall of these flowers, and the curse upon the ground that immediately followed, indicated something entirely different. But on that I cannot enter here.

That loss, however, the wife of Nimrod, under the name of Astarte, or Venus, was believed to have more than repaired. Therefore, while the sacred “chaplet” of the discrowned god was placed in triumph anew on his head and on his altars, the recovered flowers which Proserpine had lost were also laid on these altars along with it, in token of gratitude to that mother of grace and goodness, for the beauty and temporal blessings that the earth owed to her interposition and love. In Pagan Rome especially this was the case. The altars were profusely adorned with flowers. From that source directly the Papacy has borrowed the custom of adorning the altar with flowers; and from the Papacy, Puseyism, in Protestant England, is labouring to introduce the custom among ourselves. But, viewing it in connection with its source, surely men with the slightest spark of Christian feeling may well blush to think of such a thing. It is not only opposed to the genius of the Gospel dispensation, which requires that they who worship God, who is a Spirit, “worship Him in spirit and in truth”; but it is a direct symbolising with those who rejoiced in the re-establishment of Paganism in opposition to the worship of the one living and true God. 

Continued in Chapter V. Section IV — The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart

All chapters of The Two Babylons

This is the continuation of Chapter V. Section I — Idol Processions

Nothing is more characteristic of Rome than the worship of relics. Wherever a chapel is opened, or a temple consecrated, it cannot be thoroughly complete without some relic or other of he-saint or she-saint to give sanctity to it. The relics of the saints and rotten bones of the martyrs form a great part of the wealth of the Church. The grossest impostures have been practised in regard to such relics; and the most drivelling tales have been told of their wonder-working powers, and that too by Fathers of high name in the records of Christendom. Even Augustine, with all his philosophical acuteness and zeal against some forms of false doctrine, was deeply infected with the grovelling spirit that led to relic worship. Let any one read the stuff with which he concludes his famous “City of God,” and he will in no wise wonder that Rome has made a saint of him, and set him up for the worship of her devotees.

Take only a specimen or two of the stories with which he bolsters up the prevalent delusions of his day: “When the Bishop Projectius brought the relics of St. Stephen to the town called Aquae Tibiltinae, the people came in great crowds to honour them. Amongst these was a blind woman, who entreated the people to lead her to the bishop who had the HOLY RELICS. They did so, and the bishop gave her some flowers which he had in his hand. She took them, and put them to her eyes, and immediately her sight was restored, so that she passed speedily on before all the others, no longer requiring to be guided.” In Augustine’s day, the formal “worship” of the relics was not yet established; but the martyrs to whom they were supposed to have belonged were already invoked with prayers and supplications, and that with the high approval of the Bishop of Hippo, as the following story will abundantly show: Here, in Hippo, says he, there was a poor and holy old man, by name Florentius, who obtained a living by tailoring. This man once lost his coat, and not being able to purchase another to replace it, he came to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, in this city, and prayed aloud to them, beseeching that they would enable him to get another garment. A crowd of silly boys who overheard him, followed him at his departure, scoffing at him, and asking him whether he had begged fifty pence from the martyrs to buy a coat. The poor man went silently on towards home, and as he passed near the sea, he saw a large fish which had been cast up on the sand, and was still panting. The other persons who were present allowed him to take up this fish, which he brought to one Catosus, a cook, and a good Christian, who bought it from him for three hundred pence. With this he meant to purchase wool, which his wife might spin, and make into a garment for him. When the cook cut up the fish, he found within its belly a ring of gold, which his conscience persuaded him to give to the poor man from whom he bought the fish. He did so, saying, at the same time, “Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have clothed you!” *

* De Civitate. The story of the fish and the ring is an old Egyptian story. (WILKINSON) Catosus, “the good Christian,” was evidently a tool of the priests, who could afford to give him a ring to put into the fish’s belly. The miracle would draw worshippers to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, and thus bring grist to their mill, and amply repay them.

Thus did the great Augustine inculcate the worship of dead men, and the honouring of their wonder-working relics. The “silly children” who “scoffed” at the tailor’s prayer seem to have had more sense than either the “holy old tailor” or the bishop. Now, if men professing Christianity were thus, in the fifth century, paving the way for the worship of all manner of rags and rotten bones; in the realms of Heathendom the same worship had flourished for ages before Christian saints or martyrs had appeared in the world. In Greece, the superstitious regard to relics, and especially to the bones of the deified heroes, was a conspicuous part of the popular idolatry. The work of Pausanias, the learned Grecian antiquary, is full of reference to this superstition. Thus, of the shoulder-blade of Pelops, we read that, after passing through divers adventures, being appointed by the oracle of Delphi, as a divine means of delivering the Eleans from a pestilence under which they suffered, it “was committed,” as a sacred relic, “to the custody” of the man who had fished it out of the sea, and of his posterity after him. The bones of the Trojan Hector were preserved as a precious deposit at Thebes. “They” [the Thebans], says Pausanias, “say that his [Hector’s] bones were brought hither from Troy, in consequence of the following oracle: ‘Thebans, who inhabit the city of Cadmus, if you wish to reside in your country, blest with the possession of blameless wealth, bring the bones of Hector, the son of Priam, into your dominions from Asia, and reverence the hero agreeably to the mandate of Jupiter.'” Many other similar instances from the same author might be adduced. The bones thus carefully kept and reverenced were all believed to be miracle-working bones.

From the earliest periods, the system of Buddhism has been propped up by relics, that have wrought miracles at least as well vouched as those wrought by the relics of St. Stephen, or by the “Twenty Martyrs.” In the “Mahawanso,” one of the great standards of the Buddhist faith, reference is thus made to the enshrining of the relics of Buddha: “The vanquisher of foes having perfected the works to be executed within the relic receptacle, convening an assembly of the priesthood, thus addressed them: ‘The works that were to be executed by me, in the relic receptacle, are completed. Tomorrow, I shall enshrine the relics. Lords, bear in mind the relics.'” Who has not heard of the Holy Coat of Treves, and its exhibition to the people? From the following, the reader will see that there was an exactly similar exhibition of the Holy Coat of Buddha: “Thereupon (the nephew of the Naga Rajah) by his supernatural gift, springing up into the air to the height of seven palmyra trees, and stretching out his arm brought to the spot where he was poised, the Dupathupo (or shrine) in which the DRESS laid aside by Buddho, as Prince Siddhatto, on his entering the priesthood, was enshrined…and EXHIBITED IT TO THE PEOPLE.” This “Holy Coat” of Buddha was no doubt as genuine, and as well entitled to worship, as the “Holy Coat” of Treves. The resemblance does not stop here. It is only a year or two ago since the Pope presented to his beloved son, Francis Joseph of Austria, a “TOOTH” of “St. Peter,” as a mark of his special favour and regard. The teeth of Buddha are in equal request among his worshippers. “King of Devas,” said a Buddhist missionary, who was sent to one of the principal courts of Ceylon to demand a relic or two from the Rajah, “King of Devas, thou possessest the right canine tooth relic (of Buddha), as well as the right collar bone of the divine teacher. Lord of Devas, demur not in matter involving the salvation of the land of Lanka.” Then the miraculous efficacy of these relics is shown in the following: “The Saviour of the world (Buddha) even after he had attained to Parinibanan or final emancipation (i.e., after his death), by means of a corporeal relic, performed infinite acts to the utmost perfection, for the spiritual comfort and mundane prosperity of mankind. While the Vanquisher (Jeyus) yet lived, what must he not have done?”

Now, in the Asiatic Researches, a statement is made in regard to these relics of Buddha, which marvellously reveals to us the real origin of this Buddhist relic worship. The statement is this: “The bones or limbs of Buddha were scattered all over the world, like those of Osiris and Jupiter Zagreus. To collect them was the first duty of his descendants and followers, and then to entomb them. Out of filial piety, the remembrance of this mournful search was yearly kept up by a fictitious one, with all possible marks of grief and sorrow till a priest announced that the sacred relics were at last found. This is practised to this day by several Tartarian tribes of the religion of Buddha; and the expression of the bones of the Son of the Spirit of heaven is peculiar to the Chinese and some tribes in Tartary.” Here, then, it is evident that the worship of relics is just a part of those ceremonies instituted to commemorate the tragic death of Osiris or Nimrod, who, as the reader may remember, was divided into fourteen pieces, which were sent into so many different regions infected by his apostacy and false worship, to operate in terrorem upon all who might seek to follow his example. When the apostates regained their power, the very first thing they did was to seek for these dismembered relics of the great ringleader in idolatry, and to entomb them with every mark of devotion. Thus does Plutarch describe the search: “Being acquainted with this even [viz., the dismemberment of Osiris], Isis set out once more in search of the scattered members of her husband’s body, using a boat made of the papyrus rush in order more easily to pass through the lower and fenny parts of the country…And one reason assigned for the different sepulchres of Osiris shown in Egypt is, that wherever any one of his scattered limbs was discovered she buried it on the spot; though others suppose that it was owing to an artifice of the queen, who presented each of those cities with an image of her husband, in order that, if Typho should overcome Horus in the approaching contest, he might be unable to find the real sepulchre. Isis succeeded in recovering all the different members, with the exception of one, which had been devoured by the Lepidotus, the Phagrus, and the Oxyrhynchus, for which reason these fish are held in abhorrence by the Egyptians. To make amends, she consecrated the Phallus, and instituted a solemn festival to its memory.” Not only does this show the real origin of relic worship it shows also that the multiplication of relics can pretend to the most venerable antiquity.

If, therefore, Rome can boast that she has sixteen or twenty holy coats, seven or eight arms of St. Matthew, two or three heads of St. Peter, this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred god; and many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, were exhibited in the rival burying-places for the adoration of the Egyptian faithful. Nay, not only were these Egyptian relics sacred themselves, they CONSECRATED THE VERY GROUND in which they were entombed. This fact is brought out by Wilkinson, from a statement of Plutarch: “The Temple of this deity at Abydos,” says he, “was also particularly honoured, and so holy was the place considered by the Egyptians, that persons living at some distance from it sought, and perhaps with difficulty obtained, permission to possess a sepulchre within its Necropolis, in order that, after death, they might repose in GROUND HALLOWED BY THE TOMB of this great and mysterious deity.” If the places where the relics of Osiris were buried were accounted peculiarly holy, it is easy to see how naturally this would give rise to the pilgrimages so frequent among the heathen. The reader does not need to be told what merit Rome attaches to such pilgrimages to the tombs of saints, and how, in the Middle Ages, one of the most favourite ways of washing away sin was to undertake a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Jago di Compostella in Spain, or the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Now, in the Scripture there is not the slightest trace of any such thing as a pilgrimage to the tomb of saint, martyr, prophet, or apostle. The very way in which the Lord saw fit to dispose of the body of Moses in burying it Himself in the plains of Moab, so that no man should ever known where his sepulchre was, was evidently designed to rebuke every such feeling as that from which such pilgrimages arise. And considering whence Israel had come, the Egyptian ideas with which they were infected, as shown in the matter of the golden calf, and the high reverence they must have entertained for Moses, the wisdom of God in so disposing of his body must be apparent. In the land where Israel had so long sojourned, there were great and pompous pilgrimages at certain season of the year, and these often attended with gross excesses. Herodotus tells us, that in his time the multitude who went annually on pilgrimage to Bubastis amounted to 700,000 individuals, and that then more wine was drunk than at any other time in the year. Wilkinson thus refers to a similar pilgrimage to Philae: “Besides the celebration of the great mysteries which took place at Philae, a grand ceremony was performed at a particular time, when the priests, in solemn procession, visited his tomb, and crowned it with flowers. Plutarch even pretends that all access to the island was forbidden at every other period, and that no bird would fly over it, or fish swim near this CONSECRATED GROUND.” This seems not to have been a procession merely of the priests in the immediate neighbourhood of the tomb, but a truly national pilgrimage; for, says Diodorus, “the sepulchre of Osiris at Philae is revered by all the priests throughout Egypt.” We have not the same minute information about the relic worship in Assyria or Babylon; but we have enough to show that, as it was the Babylonian god that was worshipped in Egypt under the name of Osiris, so in his own country there was the same superstitious reverence paid to his relics.

We have seen already, that when the Babylonian Zoroaster died, he was said voluntarily to have given his life as a sacrifice, and to have “charged his countrymen to preserve his remains,” assuring them that on the observance or neglect of this dying command, the fate of their empire would hinge. And, accordingly, we learn from Ovid, that the “Busta Nini,” or “Tomb of Ninus,” long ages thereafter, was one of the monuments of Babylon. Now, in comparing the death and fabled resurrection of the false Messiah with the death and resurrection of the true, when he actually appeared, it will be found that there is a very remarkable contrast. When the false Messiah died, limb was severed from limb, and his bones were scattered over the country. When the death of the true Messiah took place, Providence so arranged it that the body should be kept entire, and that the prophetic word should be exactly fulfilled–“a bone of Him shall not be broken.” When, again, the false Messiah was pretended to have had a resurrection, that resurrection was in a new body, while the old body, with all its members, was left behind, thereby showing that the resurrection was nothing but a pretence and a sham. When, however, the true Messiah was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” the tomb, though jealously watched by the armed unbelieving soldiery of Rome, was found to be absolutely empty, and no dead body of the Lord was ever afterwards found, or even pretended to have been found. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, stands on a very different footing from the resurrection of Osiris. Of the body of Christ, of course, in the nature of the case, there could be no relics. Rome, however to carry out the Babylonian system, has supplied the deficiency by means of the relics of the saints; and now the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Thomas A’Beckett and St. Lawrence O’Toole, occupy the very same place in the worship of the Papacy as the relics of Osiris in Egypt, or of Zoroaster in Babylon.

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter V. Section III — The Clothing and Crowning of Images

All chapters of The Two Babylons

Professor Dr. Major Coleman makes some excellent arguments that disprove evolution. He shares every things in this video that I didn’t know.

Transcript

Interviewer: Let me ask you this question, which is why are you so interested in this biblical story as opposed to any other biblical story?

Professor: Well, there that is because first of all Jesus believed in the flood model, and it’s the basis for the entire authenticity of the Bible. If you can prove that the Genesis story is false, you have destroyed the entire belief system on which Christianity is based. So that’s why we use this model to show people that Noah’s Ark was real and that the story is true.

Interviewer: Well, couldn’t the story have been a symbolic metaphor for other kinds of events that took place? How about Creation? Couldn’t that have been symbolic or metaphorical in the language that’s there?

Professor: Well it is possible, but when we look at the four postulates of Creation and we compare them with the four postulates of Evolution only the postulates of Creation have been observed.

Evolution is based on four major ideas. None of them have ever been observed. Number one is that life comes from non-life. We do not have one single example of life coming from non-life. Number two, that all the life forms that we have today came from single-cell life forms. Many people do not know that while we do have single-cell life forms that we call bacteria, we have no two-celled life forms, we don’t have three-cell life forms, we don’t have four-cell life forms, we don’t even have five-cell life forms. That is, we go from single-cell bacteria to complex life forms. So there’s no evidence that all life comes from single-cell life forms.

The third postulate of evolution is that time and chance drive evolution forward. Time works against evolution. The chance of one simple 100-unit protein coming together by accident is … this is a very big number. Time and chance make evolution absolutely impossible.

The fourth postulate that evolution is based on is that, what we see today, minor genetic variation in species is evidence of macroevolution. So because cats are different colors, and dogs are different sizes, that means that fish turned into cows. And of course, we know that that’s not true because Mendel proved that all the genes that exist today, you can shuffle them around, but there are no new genes that were created.

Let’s think about the four major postulates of Creation. Number one where there’s a design there must be a designer. We see codes in DNA. Codes are evidence of intelligence because you have to translate from one language to another. We have not a single example of that happening by accident. Number two, that the earth, the solar system, the universe, and the galaxy are young, measured in thousands of years not millions or billions of years. Many times people ask me, “Well Major, you believe in a young earth, a 6,000-year earth. Can you show me that that’s true without using the Bible?” And I say, absolutely. What’s the oldest living thing on the planet? Trees. How old are the oldest trees? 4,500 years. That takes us back almost exactly to the year of the flood, in 2,500 BC.

Number two, I’m saying look at the sky. We call solar nebulae a solar nebulae is what we see from a supernova when a star explodes It leaves a gas cloud because of our radio telescopes that we have now today we can look deep into space and we can actually count the number of solar nebulae that are there. And how many are there? A supernova takes place about once every 26 years. How many solar nebulae do we have? 6,000 years worth! That’s impossible in a universe that is billions and billions of years old. And we have other evidences such as alpha decay that we do in our program that most people don’t understand that also shows That the earth is 6,000 years old. So that’s the second postulate proves that the biblical story of Creation is true.

Life that we see today are the basic kinds of animals and plant life that were originally created. So we can test that. You can breed dogs. You can breed cats, but you can’t breed cats with dogs. So there are limits to how far we can go.

And lastly, that is, the earth experienced a worldwide flood in approximately 2,500 BC Sixteen hundred and fifty-six years after the world was created. The world is filled with limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock. It precipitates out of water. The entire earth was filled with water. Every mountain chain in the world including Everest has sea life on top of that mountain. The mountains rose out of the water. So we know that there was a worldwide flood.

Interviewer: Let me let me pose a question to you and Mark, and feel free to jump in. And that is this: Most people who don’t believe in God aren’t card-carrying members of the Atheist Club. They haven’t studied molecular biology. Why don’t they believe in God? What is the struggle there?

Professor: I’m gonna tell you that’s a very good question. My answer to that is probably because most of them have not actually seen the evidence that supports the Bible. And that is my job to actually show them. You’re right, most people are somewhere drifting somewhere in the middle. This is a war for ideas, and it’s my job to combat these forces of error particularly in secular campuses and in Universities, which is where I work and teach and show that the evidence supports God’s Word. God is a God of science.

Interviewer: That’s fantastic. Let me pose this question to you guys. Say someone grows up going to a Christian church. Say they have been surrounded by, you know, a church community and pastors who preach sermons. Are there wrong ideas of God that exist? Wrong ideas of the Bible that exist?

Professor: Well, certainly they do exist and they exist in the church. Many people don’t know that some of the largest Religious denominations actually support evolutionary theory, and I’m really sorry to hear that. It is important that people test any church that they go to against the Bible to make sure that it is it is accordance with the truth of the Bible. Jesus believed in the flood story, and He said that He was coming again and it would be just as in the days of Noah. So if Jesus believed it, it’s very difficult for me to understand how you could call yourself a Christian if you don’t understand or accept the story of Noah’s Flood and the Creation story. And of course, it’s important to understand the science that goes along with it.

Interviewer: You see that camera right there? There are people who are watching right now. There are people who are struggling with their faith in God. If you were to look at that camera right there and you were to talk to someone who was struggling, who is maybe a skeptic, someone wrestling with doubt. What would you say to them?

Professor: I Would say hold on. The evidence is there. God is interested in you. He respects who you are. if you read, if you study, if you seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. He has promised you that. The evidence is there and I am here to help!

My new friend Furkan an ethnic Turk and former Muslim born in Switzerland where he resides. He shared with me his testimony of conversion to Christ. He permitted me to share it on this website.

I learned that Furkan means “proof, testament”.

I’d been very depressed because nothing was working in my life, and I was seeking the point and source of this life, the Truth.

Despite taking my religion quite seriously (although not to a Jihadi level), I got no help from this hidden dude Allah. So I started to question more and more and gave up around 18ish, and distanced myself even more when this ISIS thing started. Then I looked around and jumped from one ideology to another (often totally opposing), just to feel worse and commit even more sins.

The last thing I wanted to seek was Jesus, as He seemed to be just another Abrahimite joke like Muhammad. I actually made terrible fun of Him influenced by the internet (and controlling spirits operating through my sister, see below).
I bought myself a Japanese motorbike and started quickly doing crazy, even suicidal things with barely any experience, such as riding when it was quite heavily snowing. Yet, I was protected many times by a Peaceful Power I could feel but not explain.

I also knew that this world was an intentional well-planned mess, and I watched and read quite a lot of things about the Illuminati. I just couldn’t understand how so many people were just blindly ignoring it. I even bought the book “Tranceformation of America” by Cathy O’Brien, knew that the Truth was in it, but somehow I wasn’t able to read it. God actually led me to this book very recently and I was right: Jesuits. But at the same time, you’re also right concerning the deceased Mark Phillips and her being still controlled. Likely witchcraft in my family also held me back from reading it.

Then one day in December 2016, a video popped up on the YouTube main page and I was electrified and had to open it. It was John Todd’s testimony and I listened to it. It was so convincing that I asked myself: Who’s this Jesus who can change such a satanist?

After maybe 10 up to 20 min, I was on my way to combat sports / martial arts training. I started my motorbike followed by full throttle and a quick maneuver which I usually did, but this time my motorbike slid and fell. I first fell on my hand and then on my head, both well-protected. My bike then crashed into a parked truck without me, as my sliding had stopped on time. It was beyond repair, and so would I’ve likely been. I was in shock but knew that there was someone who saved me: Jesus.

The car driver behind me thought I must have been bleeding to death or something, but I only had burning pain in one hand and basically nothing else. While being able to ride my semi-dead bike back to the garage, I saw an old woman there looking in a very evil way and speaking out loud words in a language I didn’t understand. I thought she maybe was praying or something. Only 2 years later, I understood that she was there to kill me (at least through witchcraft) and was cursing the Lord in demonic tongues when the mission failed. I suspect it was someone close to me who had demonically received a new body.

I then started to research the Life of the biblical Jesus, but did want to watch something animated instead of reading the Bible. So I prayed and God actually showed me a very appealing channel shortly after that, which I’ve been watching since then.

A few months later, I started watching a Californian street preacher on YouTube who didn’t know any sort of fear (Gabe The Street Preacher). Through both channels, I understood that I had to get baptized and be born again to receive the Power of the Holy Spirit and be guided by Him.

Gabe offered people to find local churches to get baptized and I asked him for help, and he sent me the contact address in Switzerland. I finally found a Pentecostal, American pastor in Zurich in a very small church. The day I went there in May, it started to rain and I told God that I didn’t want to get wet before my baptism and right when I arrived, the rain stopped!

Finally, I got baptized at their home, but he told me to repent first of my sins. I was confused because I didn’t know how I could overcome them and feared my future failures, but I still talked to God and told Him about all of my sins I could count (didn’t know any better back then). The pastor got a bit impatient which I can understand now, haha.

The next morning when I woke up, I was like a small child full of joy! I couldn’t believe it. I had looked many years for an escape and there it finally was. The pastor and his wife were really kind, but something felt wrong there. God finally removed me from this place only one month later through a clear answer to my prayers: Come out of Babylon, the whore.

There were a few problems: The organization (UPC) and church system, Oneness (understood that later), and claiming that I had not received the Spirit yet because I wasn’t talking in tongues (yet). It left me really confused, as I knew I had clear changes inside and something new in me but I had never mentioned it because I barely had any experience and knowledge. I wasn’t even aware that I had a testimony through my accident back then.

In the last conversation, the pastor was really disappointed and sad and actually, I was judging quite harshly through the Spirit and he was actually receiving and taking it quite seriously. Interestingly, one thing God did not let me do: I wanted to criticize Trump whom UPC was promoting on their Twitter profile.

Maybe around two weeks prior to this event, I had stupidly fallen into sin due to (weak) temptation and mostly curiosity. God had set me free from my sins which was tremendous and I asked myself if I could go back…After a few times and warnings, God let me go back to my old stand, although it wasn’t as bad.

Nevertheless, after battling and coming back strongly a year later due to Grace and taking it seriously, I started doing what God called me to do mostly on my own: Evangelism, healing the sick, and casting out demons. Switzerland is a really tough terrain to start with. The first person I baptized was an American tourist, not a coincidence.

Almost two years ago, I also started preaching in the streets, and this year, I started making music outside (mainly Bluegrass and Country Gospel) after taking some vocal lessons with an American teacher here. God led me to him and guess what, one ancestor was a protestant preacher and another (his son) a church choir leader. But due to my teacher’s quite high profile connections, I was aware that he must be a Freemason.

After a few lessons, I had to cancel it because I could feel the demonic presence more and more and I started wasting my time. Nevertheless, my musical gifts were strengthened there spiritually primarily and physically secondly, and I could preach the gospel to him and he could feel the Spirit.

I have to mention, that when I was 16 and in school, several classes were preparing for a Christmas concert in which a black American minister would appear and lead. I didn’t want to listen, let alone sing along as a Muslim. They started to sing the first song: “Welcome Holy Spirit.” Suddenly I felt a very strong feeling inside of my body which I had not experienced before. Yet it felt like I knew it from somewhere and it gave me great peace. I know I could feel great energy coming out from one particular music teacher and other students were smiling and clearly feeling the same. I was really confused. I asked myself how one could feel such a strong presence while singing a Christian song and basically no one really believed in that Christian God? I didn’t know what to do with this and just put this experience aside after that, and it was only mentioned once or twice by other students.

Regarding Freemasons: God sent me to an IT company in Zurich, a daughter of a Swiss-based group which is the leader in the entire Europe in its main branch. It was infiltrated by Freemasons, as the owner of the company is a conservative billionaire and former politician (who still has a lot to say) who seems not to belong to any occultic group. I exposed them and they were shocked. Been in a very intense spiritual warfare with them supported by my prayer group, while God almost always took care of the physical without me grasping anything most of the time.

When I was a kid, I heard a voice inside telling me during a sports lesson: You will run and nothing will catch you. I was the first to run in that new game and indeed, no ball could catch me despite everyone aiming me along the length of the hall.

At least one of them is an Illuminatus, another possibly a Rosicrucian. In my family, I had few satanic witches as well, another strong front. Especially my younger sister seems to be quite high ranked, has done terrible, unimaginable things to reach that status, and been using different sorts of demons and opposing strongholds, notably Islamic. I had to endure a lot on several fronts and am still waiting for the final breakthroughs.

A few months ago, God finally told me to quit my job completely and rely on Him alone. I’d been having considerably more time to research.

One day, a brother in Christ questioned John Todd’s testimony due to the account of the shill Fritz Springmeier. So, I wanted to know what actually happened to John Todd after he had disappeared and found your website with very useful info.

I found your website again after finding Svali, the former Illuminati (and especially Jesuit) head programmer who was interviewed by Greg Szymanski (you wrote about him).

I was excited to find this book online in PDF format because it’s one of the recommended books on the last page of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History by Baron Porcelli. It says, “The Rapture of the Saints By Rev. Duncan McDougall M.A. A discussion of the Rapture Theory with the full explanation of a Jesuit plot that made a Protestant Doctrine out of false Romanist Teaching.” It is the most comprehensive study on the subject I have ever read.

If you wish to make a hard copy of this article, it may be easier to print out from the original PDF file I got it from.

With long articles like this, I often use a text to voice app on my phone to read it back to me when resting in bed. My favorite app is @Voice Aloud Reader, a free download. Google’s voice engine has greatly improved to becoming a natural sounding voice. I like the United Kingdom male voice best.

A Documented Exposé of the Future Antichrist Story from the Lectures by the Author at the Alma Academy, Vancouver, B. C.

First Revised and Annotated Edition. 1970

FOREWORD

This First Revised Edition of Duncan McDougall’s “Rapture of the Saints” with notes has long been indicated. For at least three reasons:

The great obstacle to the acceptance of the truths in this book will lie in the tendency of readers to bridle or become resentful at what they think are libelous criticisms of undoubtedly faithful and honorable men of God, a few if whom are mentioned by name in this work.

For instance: J Wyrtzen, O Greene, O Roberts and many other gospellers. Our hats are off to their sincere endeavor in presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Salvation to a sin-degraded world. Even if their combined efforts resulted in the saving of only one sinner, the pointer on the scales indicates a positive quantity and the angels in heaven have been made joyous. An that, dear friend, is quite probably more than either of us has done!

BUT, dear critic, dear young Bible students under the thumb of some dogmatic teacher of Romanist tainted Bible Prophecy, please listen.

You do not hire a butcher to build you a house, nor a boilermaker to repair your wife’s wristwatch, do you? Why then get upset when people point to you that your favorite Gospel Preacher is a dud in the Prophecy Department?

Instead of sitting there with your mouth agape and eyes popping as he tells you of dire events to come in the Future, why not resolve to go right home to prove them. The Bereans, you know, did not trust St. Paul even, but investigated him through the Scriptures. Why should you trust Wyrtzen, Graham, and others like them, when they sneak unproved Prophetic statements into their stirring Gospel messages to ruin them?

Most certainly, “the brethren” are saved if they really believe and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, but they cannot drift into a life of ease in Zion where there is nothing for them now but psalm-singing and pleasurable anticipation of floating on clouds in Heaven. There is a work to be done – souls to be saved and brethren in the faith to be strengthened even while you are seeking lost souls. If our brethren are weak we are told to strengthen them. How? Well, if they delude themselves that a raging tiger is but a harmless pussy-cat, that is a sign of weakness -of the brain or vision. Especially if they don’t have sense enough to flee. Then, again, if our brethren delude themselves into thinking an idolatrous, Bible- hating Romanist is a loving ecumenical brother in Christ, that is a bad weakness! Especially if he talks back and tells you that you are offending him by telling him that that lovely old guy over in Rome is the Antichrist!

This sort of perverted Prophetic Vision is just what makes a weak brother! And it is an accumulation of such weak brothers that makes a WEAK CHURCH. AND WEAK CHURCHES, SO-CALLED PROTESTANT ONES, ARE JUST THE POPE’S DISH.

Moral: teach your young people the real truths of Prophecy and you will automatically ruin the Romeward Movement, and any other movement that flouts God, Law and Order. The young people of today are tomorrow’s leaders. What will they be? Hippies, Black Terrorists, or Modern Torquemadas? (Tomás de Torquemada (14 October 1420 – 16 September 1498), was a Castilian Dominican friar and first Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition).)

Whatever they become, it is quite clear that, at the rate the Protestant Reformation Prophetic Knowledge is decelerating, Protestantism will have become the next political and social minority. Once more will the country awaken to the cries of malcontents to the effect that government is unkind to minorities! Only, this time, instead of Irish, Italian, Jewish, Black, or Catholic minorities, they will be Anglo-Saxon, White and Protestant. And all this because a group of befuddled Protestant leaders flouted the warnings of Bible Prophecy when it pointed out who the enemy of the “Saints” really was the Antichrist first popularly revealed by the Reformation Prophets.

We pray that this New Revised Edition will be a blessing to you and your brethren. Yours in Christ

Rev Curtis Clair Ewing
Eric C Peters
Revision Committee

About the Author, Rev Duncan McDougall, M.A.

One of Scotland’s well-known Gaelic scholars, the Reverend Duncan McDougall graduated at Edinburgh University in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Gaelic, taking Gaelic medals, Blackie Prize and MacPherson Scholarship (twice). On leaving college he was for eleven years Examiner in Hebrew to the Free Church College, Edinburgh, in which he had taken his theological course. Posted to Holland in the First World War, Mr. McDougall had acquired a working knowledge of Dutch, and in expectation of a mission appointment in South America, which, however, did not materialize, he set himself to acquire a working knowledge of Spanish. He was therefore a linguist of very considerable repute.

A devout Christian, Mr. McDougall was ordained to the Ministry of the Free Church of Scotland, a denomination which has long been known for its firm adherence to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and its repudiation of modernistic and higher critical views. For six years he was Lecturer in Christian Evidences to the Vancouver Bible School, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Finally returning to Scotland, he was appointed Minister of the Free Church in Dunoon, a post which he held until his retirement.

Prophecy And Its Fulfillment – Historical Review

MANY PROFESSED “BIBLE TEACHERS” have been busy of late years in “Bible Studies,” “Conventions,” “revivals,” religious papers, leaflets, and books, telling with an air of authority which amount almost to a claim to Divine inspiration, all about the “secret rapture” of the saints, and what is to take place on this earth after they are gone. According to their theory the Lord is to come SECRETLY for his saints: they are to be caught up (raptured) to meet Him in the air without the world knowing that anything is happening; all who are unprepared are to be left on earth in an unsaved state; then an individual known as the “Antichrist” is to make his appearance, to assume power as a world Dictator, to revive the old Roman Empire as a ten-kingdomed confederacy, and to rule over it, to make a covenant with the Jews to allow them to set up again their temple worship in Jerusalem, and at the end of three-and-a-half years to break the covenant and persecute them. After seven years’ Christ is to come back with His saints to destroy the Antichrist and set up His reign of a thousand years on this earth. All these things are described in as much detail as if they were actually taught in the Bible, and even some good men have got the impression that the Bible does actually contain them.

It will come as a shock to many good people to be told not only that this teaching is not in the Bible, but that it was originated by the Bible’s worst enemies! If Christians would only study God’s Word, coming to the Bible with an open mind, instead of coming with their heads filled with the teachings of human and fallible men whom they treat as if inspired, they would not be so readily “carried away with very wind of doctrine.”

And if they would accept the teaching of Christ that “a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” or the warning given to Daniel that “none of the wicked shall understand,” they would know better than to expect to get a clean bird out of a foul nest. The pity is that so many choose to remain ignorant of the nest out of which the bird has come, and so, “professing themselves to be wise,” they proclaim their ignorance as it were on the house-tops. To these “blind leaders of the blind,” ignorance is a Pearl of Great Price, and to offer them any enlightenment on historical facts is an attempt to rob them of their Precious Jewel. If any of them have ever read any of the writings of the Reformers on the subject of Prophecy, they seldom by the slightest allusion betray the fact. Being neither willing to admit nor able to refute, the wisdom of all these mighty Spirit-taught men of God, our modern Bible Teachers studiously ignore them, and speak as if they themselves were the people, and wisdom had been born with them. One would never guess from the writings of these “Bible Teachers” that any expositor existed earlier than J N Darby. Naturally to tell them the truth is to become their enemy.

The Historical Interpretation

When the Bible, after being almost unknown for centuries, was suddenly made an open book at the Reformation the Reformers saw in it a full-length portrait of the great anti-Christian system known as the “Church” of Rome, with the Pope at its head. They found in the Book of Revelation a prophetic account of the fiery trials through which the True Church was to pass, and also of God’s judgements on her enemies. They recognized the Romish system as the spiritual Babylon denounced in that prophecy, and the Pope as the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of perdition. They used the prophecy as a sharp two-edged sword with which to smite the iniquitous imposture which had usurped the place of the Church of Christ. The interpretation of prophecy as a foretelling of actual history which had been and was being strikingly fulfilled, was largely blessed of God in bringing about the Reformation.

What could Rome do? She could not blot the Book of Revelation out of the Bible. She had to find some other meaning for the Book, which would provide her with an alibi and turn aside the accusing finger pointed at her. The Jesuits, the most unscrupulous body of men on earth, whose “moral theology” reeks of the bottomless pit, a body whom Loyola had formed specially to undo the work of the Reformation, set to work to find a meaning for the Revelation which would side-track the Protestant.(1)

The Praeterist Theory

Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit, started the idea that the Apostle John could not possibly foretell events which were to happen hundreds of years after his own time; that he was writing merely about what was happening in his own day, and that his Antichrist was probably the Emperor Nero or some other early persecutor. This theory has been adopted by German rationalists, and finds favour with the modernists in the churches today.

The Futurist Theory

Ribera,(2) another Spanish Jesuit, went to the other extreme and propounded the theory that the whole Book of Revelation related to events to take place just at the time of Christ’s Second Coming, and therefore still in the future. The antichrist was to be a World-Dictator who would appear at the end of this dispensation. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, instigated by the Jesuits, took place in 1572, and Ribera published his theory in or about 1580 so that the blood-stains had scarcely disappeared from the streets of Paris, and in the sight of God the hands of the Jesuits were still deep-dyed with the innocent blood of the Protestants of France, when they gave their theory to the world. It was published with a design to shift the odium of being the Antichrist away from the Pope who had held a festival and struck a medal in commemoration of the massacre. Ribera was not simply a disinterested lover of the Word of God, studying Prophecy for its own sake. God has testified: “None of the wicked shall understand;” Daniel 12:10 yet thousands of “Bible Teachers” today maintain strongly that Ribera’s ideas of a future personal Antichrist is the right interpretation, and that the reformers’ view of the papacy as the Antichrist is wrong.

For 250 years, from 1580 to 1830, the idea of an individual personal Antichrist to appear sometime in the future was the recognised teaching of the church of Rome, while the belief that the reign of Antichrist extended all through the Dark Ages, from the fourth century to the Reformation, was universally held by the Protestant Churches.

Bridging the Gulf

The Jesuits, owing to their vicious principles and their encouragement of treachery and violence making orderly and peaceable government impossible, have been expelled sooner or later from almost every civilized country in which they have set foot; their record covers about a hundred orders issued by different governments for their expulsion. When they were expelled from Chile, Emanual Lacunza (pronounced Lacuntha), a Chilean of Spanish descent, who had become a member of the order in 1747 at the age of sixteen, and had risen to be superintendent of the Noviciates, training them zealously in the principles of Jesuitry, came and settled in the north of Italy, where he devoted the remainder of his days to writing a book entitled, “The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty.” Lacunza was of course, steeped in the current Jesuit teaching that the appearance and reign of Antichrist was still in the future and to this he added a touch of his own, namely, – that in order to make room for all the events which he anticipated, at the coming of Christ there would have to be a period of time between the rapture of the saints and the actual appearance of the Messiah in His Glory. He conceived the idea that:

Here is the germ out of which sprang the whole theory that Christ was to come TWICE, once for His saints, and again some time later with His saints.

But Lacunza, though largely in bondage to Romish teaching, and vigorously asserting that the Book of Revelation “is wholly directed to the coming of the Lord”, and that it did not find its accomplishment in any sense in the facts of history during the Christian dispensation – a contention in which all Futurists and Roman Catholics are agreed – was to some extent an independent thinker, and gave expression to several views which could not but be anathema to Rome! He at least hinted that the Antichrist would appear in Rome, and that he would usurp the place of the Head of the Church. He also stated plainly that the second beast of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation signified the priesthood, not of some false religion, but of the Church of Rome, which he regarded as the true Church. This priesthood, he believed, was to apostatize on the appearance of the Antichrist, just as the Jewish priesthood apostatized when they crucified Christ, and, owing to the supposed sanctity of their office, they would be able to seduce the vast majority of the Christian world, and would persecute the true saints of God.

But most damaging of all, from the Pope’s point of view, was the fact that Lacunza ventured to call in question the teaching of his own church as to the individual personal Antichrist, with all the supernatural powers for evil which he was to exercise within his few years reign. He actually yielded the main contention of the Protestants, that the Antichrist of the Scripture was not one man, but a mighty system or body of men animated by one spirit. Speaking of the teachings of the Romish doctors on the person of the Antichrist, he refers to their ideas as “so various, so obscure, and so ill-founded,” and adds:

The childish notion that Mussolini, or any such individual Dictator, such as the accepted Romish teaching had led men to anticipate, can fulfill the Divine predictions concerning Antichrist, was condemned by Lacunza in words which modern “Bible teachers” might well take to heart:

The Reformers had unanimously pointed to the dreadful persecutions of the Bohemians in Eastern Europe, and of the Waldenses in the West, the long-drawn-out excruciating agony, the burnings, tortures, and unspeakable atrocities committed by the brutal soldiery, of one nation after another urged on to the murderous work by a line of Popes more degraded than the most bestial of the assassins, over a period of more than three centuries, and ending in the extermination of the Bible witness just before the Reformation, as the fulfillment of the prophetic description of the sufferings of the “Two Witnesses” and their death at the hands of the beast. The Jesuit doctors had vehemently asserted that the Two Witnesses were to be two men who should appear during the reign of the Antichrist just before the coming of Christ, and they were almost unanimous in predicting that the two had never tasted death. Lacunza strenuously opposed this view, and argued at length that:

Lacunza is striking at the speculations of the theologians of his own Jesuit order; but if he had lived today and been commenting on the imaginings of our “Bible teachers,” he could not have expressed himself in any other terms.

But here several pointed questions arise, which it is not so easy to answer. On a number of the main contendings of the Reformers, Lacunza appears to be deliberately giving Rome’s case away to them in the most palpable manner – an attitude in which in a Jesuit must appear peculiar; yet on other aspects he zealously maintains Rome’s point of view. In a word, what he does is to take the Reformer’s picture and try to fit it into Rome’s frame; and the two do not fit.

He agrees with the Reformers (though without giving the slightest hint that he had ever heard of their tenets or even knew of their existence):

How Lacunza could describe the events so accurately, and yet fail to see the very scene he was depicting, written in fire and blood across the page of history, must remain a riddle. But to the jaundiced view of the Jesuit, the martyrs were all heretics, while he who shed their blood was the “Vicar of Christ.”

But he maintains with all other Romish theologians of the Ribera school:

And he adds a speculation of his own, the surmise that the whole career of Antichrist will be run and all these prophecies fulfilled, within a period that will elapse between Christ’s setting out from heaven and issuing the command to His angels to go out for the saints, and His actual arrival at the earth with the saints.

There is an inconsistency between the two parts of Lacunza’s picture, which will at once strike every logical mind. If the whole prophecy were to be fulfilled in a short space of time, it would be more reasonable to suppose that it would be carried out under the control of one man, or super-man, and that the Antichrist be an individual World Dictator. If, on the other hand, what was prophesied was to be as vast world-wide organization, opposed by the witness of two churches or bodies of Christians, reason itself would indicate that these would require some time to develop, and that the prophecy must cover a considerable period of history.

Thus Lacunza’s half-way house is an untenable position. From whichever direction it is approached, the reasoning mind can not stop there. If he could have influenced the Church of Rome to accept the view that the Antichrist was a world-power animated by one Spirit, the inexorable force of logic would compel Roman Catholics to acknowledge that history had already produced one world-power, and only one, to answer the description; in other words, Rome would be driven to accept the Protestant position. But if he could induce the Protestant world to accept the view that the antichrist was to appear only for a few years at the end of this dispensation, logic would equally force Protestants to picture that Antichrist as an individual person, in other words Protestantism would be compelled to accept Rome’s alibi. WHICH OF THESE TWO was LACUNZA’S OBJECTIVE?

It stood to reason that Lacunza’s book would not affect the beliefs of his own Church. It would not, it could not, be read by faithful Roman Catholics. It differed just so widely from the accepted teaching of Rome that it was certain to be placed by the Vatican on the “Index” of prohibited books as soon as it made its last appearance, and none knew it better than the author. This indeed may well have been part of his plan. But if it was not to be read by his own Church, for whom was it written? Did he expect that a book written by a Jesuit would be read and accepted by Protestants, even if it came with the commendation of having been condemned by the Pope? That is a question. Let us see.

For four centuries before the Reformation, the Church of Rome built up her pretensions on what are known as the “Decretals of Isidore”(7), a fictitious collection of Bulls and Rescripts supposed to have been issued by the Bishops of Rome during the first three centuries of the Christian Era, showing the authority of the popes of that early age, and alleged to have been the fruit of the researches of Isidore of Seville, one of the most learned bishops of the ninth century, though only given to the world two centuries after Isidore’s death. In the general ignorance that characterized the Golden Age of the Church of Rome, the Decretals were everywhere accepted as authentic, and men beheld with awe the autocratic power wielded by Peter and his immediate followers. At the Reformation the genuine history of these centuries was examined, the forgery was discovered. and the “Decretals of Isidore” exposed as the most audacious imposture ever palmed off on an unsuspecting world. But for four centuries they did their work, and Rome reaped the benefit. What Rome has done once, she always expects to be able to do again.

It may seem a hard thing to suggest that a book written as a solemn meditation on “The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” was produced with the intention of imposing on the world in the same way. Yet the facts point that way. Lacunza wrote under the name of “Rabbi Ben Ezra,”(8) supposedly a learned Jew who had accepted Christ as his Saviour and was writing with a view to the conversion of his Jewish brethren. I see some of you pricking up your ears at this. You thought I was talking to you about a complete stranger! You had never heard the name of Lacunza before, and you did not know who he was. But you have heard about “Ben Ezra” before. You have come across some Futurist writers quoting, frequently with approval from “Ben Ezra.” Only, you always thought he was a Christian Jew; you never had any idea he was a Jesuit. Exactly. That is just what Lacunza intended you should think. How else could he expect his teaching to gain a hearing, not to speak of being accepted, in the Protestant world? With Jesuit cunning and Jesuit thoroughness the cloak of the converted Jew is worn throughout the work. Even the dedicatory prayer at the opening of the book is the prayer of “Juan Josafat Ben Ezra,” the converted Jew, pleading with the Almighty to use the book for the enlightenment of his Jewish brethren; and this Jewish Rabbi does not placate the priesthood when he adds in his prayer the petition that his work would “oblige the priests to shake off the dust from their Bibles,” which appear “in these times to have become, to not a few of them, the most useless of all books.”

We might feel impelled to throw the cloak of charity over Lacunza, and suppose that, fearing the displeasure of his own Church for his “errors,” he merely wished to hide his identity under a non de plume. But one has only to glance at any account of the fierce persecution of the Jews by the Church of Rome in Spain – a vivid picture of the awful sufferings inflicted on the Jews in the name of Christ is given in Dr. Grattan Guinness’ Light for the Last Days(9) – to see that with such bitter hatred existing between the Jews and the Roman Catholics, this guise of a Jewish Rabbi was the one best suited to secure the absolute exclusion of the book from the Roman Church. Lacunza’s views might be tolerated if coming from a Jesuit, for the Jesuits within the bosom of the Church were allowed to air all kinds of views; but coming from a Jewish Rabbi the book was certain to be put on the “Index” of prohibited books.

And did Lacunza really expect to reach the Jews by pretending that the author of his work was a Jewish Rabbi? It is very unlikely that he did. The Jew, even the converted Jew, has a mentality of his own, which it would be futile for any Gentile to try to impersonate and Lacunza either was ignorant of, or did not attempt to copy, the peculiar workings of the Jewish mind; he was certainly ignorant of the writings of the genuine Jewish Rabbis, which any learned Jew would have made reference to. Moreover, the Jewish world is too compact, and the records of all its Rabbis too well known, for any fake Rabbi to go far among them without detection. The unbelieving Jews would only smile at any attempt to influence them in favour of Christianity by foisting a fictitious Jewish Rabbi upon them. It would have the opposite of the desired effect.

There remain only the Protestants, and there can be little doubt that it was for their consumption that this elaborate forgery was prepared. To get them to begin dabbling in the theory of a future Antichrist, was worth a vast amount of time and labour to the Church of Rome.

Had Lacunza lived to see his work given to the public, he might have so managed it that the world would never have discovered the secret of its authorship. That evidently was the intention. But alas, for the best laid schemes of mice and men!

Lacunza was found dead by the river-side, where he was accustomed to go for a walk, on the morning of the 17th of June, 1801. There is no record of what caused his death. His book, or rather what appears to have been an abridgement of it, was first printed in two small volumes at the Isle of Leon, of Spain, in 1812, during the short period of the Cortez, Spain’s ill-starred bid for freedom. As soon as the monarchy and papacy regained power, it was suppressed. It was also placed, as might have been expected, on Rome’s Index of prohibited books, and denounced as such by the Inquisition. This was the best advertisement it could have got in those days. Immediately after the extinction of the Cortez, there were formed in Spain numbers of societies of young men and women, the object of which was “to procure, and read those books expressly prohibited by the Inquisition,” of which they had got a taste under the government of the Cortez. Finding the work of “Ben Ezra” mentioned in the list, they made it their business to secure copies, which they read with delight. Soon copies or extracts made their way into France, and were read by members of the Gallican Church.

In 1816, a complete edition (apparently the first complete edition) of Lacunza’s work, in four volumes, was published in London by the Diplomatic Agent of the Republic of Buenos Aires. The secret of the real authorship of the work, though still hidden from the world under its disguise, must have been known to those concerned in this publication. Otherwise, how would the Diplomatic Agent of a South American Republic be interested in the work of “Rabbi Ben Ezra”, a converted Jew? But, at a time when ninety-five per cent of the whole population of South America were still illiterate, when its infant republics were struggling to lift their heads out of the primordial slime of Romish depravity, and to crawl toward the cherished goal of the terra firma of civilization an important theological work by a Native Son was something for all South America to be proud of. True, the Author’s identity could not be divulged – as yet. Protestant England could not be trusted to give an unbiased opinion of a book known to have been written by a Jesuit. The Author must go before the British public in the disguise of the converted Jewish Rabbi, as he had himself planned. When a sufficient number of the leaders of Religious thought in England had committed themselves to approval of the work, or acceptance of its teaching, and it was too late for them to reverse their verdict, then would be time enough to reveal the identity of the author, and give “honour to whom honour was due.”

At that time, when everything in a printer’s shop: type setting, press work, folding, binding – all had to be done by hand and the output of books in London was but a mere fraction of what it is today, the production of a theological work in Spanish, in four volumes, was an important undertaking, liable to attract much attention. Though Spanish is a simple language, one of the simplest in Europe to master, the number of people in England who would be qualified to read this work was necessarily limited; the number of copies required would be small, and the cost per set correspondingly high. Today, a copy of these four volumes, from an art dealer’s point of view, might well be worth their weight in gold. When they were published, to possess, and be able to read the work of this wonderful Jewish Rabbi, would be quite a mark of distinction among the learned in London.

There was one library in London which could not well afford to be without a copy of the new publication, a theological library which was, and still is, second to none in England with the possible exception of the Great University Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. That was the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained not for his private use only, but for the whole Church and people of England. We may be sure that if the Archbishop or his librarian did not take care to secure a copy, the Diplomatic Agent would be diplomatic enough to place a copy at their disposal. It must be available to any who wish to consult it at this centre of sacred learning.

Here then, on the library shelves of the official head of the Anglican Church, at the very heart’s core of British Protestantism, we leave these four volumes. Rome has done her work well. She has drilled the hole in the Rock of Reformed Theology; she, has driven home the charge; she has laid the fuse; all is set for the blast which is to rend the Rock in pieces. How long will it be till the explosion takes place? It may take years. But Rome has infinite patience. She is willing to wait.

It took ten years. A long time, do you say? What are ten years in the life of the Church of Rome? Ten years are not a very long time to produce a radical change in the thinking of a seasoned scholar and theologian, to get the man who had the care of these volumes so saturated with their teachings, that he was himself precipitated into authorship.

In 1826, ten years after the publication of Lacunza’s work, Dr. Maitland, librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, startled the Protestant world with the first of a series of pamphlets on prophecy,(10) in which he propounded the theory, already taught for 250 years by the Jesuits,(11) that the whole book of Revelation refers only to the future, and is to be fulfilled in a short period at the return of Christ. Rev. E. P. Cachemaille, of Cambridge, describes these pamphlets as:

But what Cachemaille failed to notice was that Dr. Maitland was borrowing, not from Ribera direct, but from Lacunza. This argument about “the day of the Lord” is Lacunza’s. And in fairness to Dr. Maitland we must believe that he was quite unaware that he was using the ideas of a Jesuit; he could only have known the work as that of “Rabbi Ben Ezra,” a converted Jew. The disguise had done its work. But the force of logic drove Dr. Maitland back to Ribera’s position about the personal Antichrist. Having accepted the Futurist teaching that the whole book of Revelation was to be fulfilled in a short period of a few years, the idea that the Antichrist was to be one individual World-Dictator followed naturally.

Seeing that Cachemaille has selected the argument of Dr. Maitland on the first chapter of Revelation as one point on which he seems to show some originality, we might take it as a test, and see whether the idea did not really originate with Lacunza. Listen to what Lacunza has to say on this subject:

These extracts should be sufficient to dispel any reasonable doubt as to the source from whence Dr. Maitland drew his inspiration. If the most original idea he had to put forward was this one as to the first chapter of Revelation referring to the day of the Lord’s second coming; we find that this was argued at length by “Rabbi Ben Ezra,” and published in London ten years before Dr. Maitland used it. Dr. Maitland’s argument bears the imprint of the master-hand of Lacunza.

The Tractarian Movement – Landslide Towards Rome

Almost immediately after the appearance of the first of Dr. Maitland’s pamphlets a Mr. Burgh(16) in Ireland published a book on the Futurist Antichrist, along exactly similar lines, and evidently drawn from the same source. But other seven years were to elapse before the disintegration of Protestant Christianity would begin in earnest. These seven years were needed both in England and in Ireland, for the idea to take root that the Reformers had done the papacy an injustice in regarding it as the Antichrist of Scripture; and that Rome was really a “sister church,” and should be so regarded by the Protestants of Britain. In 1833 was the crucial year in which was to begin to be fulfilled the vision of the Seer of Patmos:

Cardinal Newman(17) long afterward stated in his Apologia(18) that he never considered and kept July 14th, 1833 as the start of the Tractarian Movement.(19) Newman’s work on the Arians of the Fourth century, published early in October of that year, appears to have been the first publication of the new movement for Reunion with Rome, the fore-runner of the Tracts for the Times which gave the movement its name. It is important to remember that date, July, 1833. Even Pusey,(20) most advanced Romanizer of all, did not join the movement till near the close of this year. The only publications preparing the minds of the people of England for a return to Rome, prior to July 1833, and which might be said to belong to the Tractarian Movement, were Maitland’s and Burgh’s pamphlets on the Future Antichrist.

It would take us too long to follow all the ramifications of the Oxford(21) or Tractarian, or, as it is now called, the Anglo-Catholic Movement – that is, Anglican in name and Romish at heart. We need only to note that Dr. Maitland’s theory of a future Antichrist was one of one of the main weapons used in the Tractarian defence of the papacy from the charges levelled against it by the Reformers. It was part of the kindly light which “amid the encircling gloom” that clouded Newman’s soul, “led him on” into the arms of the Pope. It was part of the “Faith of our fathers, holy faith,” which Romish apologists are fond of pitting against the teaching of Scripture, and which Faber enshrined in a hymn which he left behind,(22) to be invoked by “Protestant” congregations when he himself, with seven of his monkish brotherhood, flopped over into the Church of Rome. The Romish monasteries and convents, confessionals, candles, incense, adoration of the host, and other ritualistic practices smuggled into the Church of England; the Society of the Holy Cross, Order of Corporate Re-Union, Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and all the other paraphernalia of the Oxford Movement, still reaping its deadly harvest in the engulfing of precious souls in Rome’s pit of perdition; all are the fruits of this teaching that the Antichrist is still in the Future, that the papacy is not the Antichrist but the true Vicar of Christ, and that the papal system is a sister Church and not the Babylon of Revelation – AND THE END IS NOT YET.

Another Fish on the Hook

But we must go back to Lacunza. This wonderful Spanish Work of “Rabbi Ben Ezra” had attracted so much attention in London that it must be translated into English. And here the slimy trail of the Jesuit branches off in another direction. The work of translation was undertaken by a young Scottish Presbyterian minister, brilliant but erratic, who had been assistant to the great Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow, and had come to London as minister of the Scots Church there. This was Edward Irving, founder of the “lrvingites,”(23) or as they now call themselves, the “Catholic Apostolic Church,” a body whose beliefs and practices are among the most peculiar in Christendom. Some at least of these vagaries are distinctly traceable to the views Irving imbibed from Lacunza.

It is to Irving we are indebted for all that we know of Lacunza’s life. In connection with his work of translation, Irving took pains to search for some information about the life of Rabbi Ben Ezra, the supposed author. The sponsors of the Spanish edition of 1816, must have thought the reputation of the book sufficiently securely established to make it safe to divulge the real authorship, for Irving was able to secure details of Lacunza’s career and published them in the preface, although the work was still given out under the name of “Rabbi Ben Ezra.”

Irving was more inexcusable than Dr. Maitland. He knew that he was giving to the world the teaching of a Jesuit, and with his Scottish Presbyterian training, he knew enough of the morality of the Jesuits to be aware of the suicidal folly, of such an undertaking.

When Irving began his translation, or when he finished it, might not seem of much interest, but in this case, the date is of vital importance. I have not seen the original edition, but it was a voluminous and expensive work and some time after it was published some parties, who like most of the Tractarians chose to remain anonymous, made an abridgement of it in order to publish a cheap popular edition which would give it a much wider circulation. Irving refused to allow this cheap Edition to be published until his own first edition was sold out. I have here a copy of this cheap edition, published in 1833, the year in which the Tractarian Movement began; and judging from the editor’s apology for the delay in getting it out, I gather that there were some parties waiting to use it is soon as it appeared. This is significant. On the title page are the words:

Beneath is this wish:

Thus Irving must have been absorbed in Lacunza at the very time when Dr. Maitland was busy on his pamphlet! A coincidence?

And at this very time Irving heard what he believed to be a Voice from heaven commanding him to preach the Secret Rapture of the Saints. Obeying this Voice, he began to preach that Christ was to come TWICE; first, secretly FOR His saints: then, after an interval of seven years – the reign of Antichrist gloriously WITH His saints, to destroy Antichrist and to reign. Protestants had always believed, as taught in I Thessalonians 4:16-17, that the saints would be “caught up” (raptured) when Christ would appear in glory; and Irving’s is commonly supposed to have been the first mention in the whole history of the Church of a SECRET rapture of the saints prior to Christ’s appearing in glory.

But I have already shown where this idea originated. As the point is of such importance, let me quote again the suggestion of Lacunza, that:

The words: “He will give His orders, and send forth His command,” in this passage, refer to the ‘rapture’ or gathering of the saints; and Lacunza says this is to happen ‘much before His arrival at the earth,’ so much before, in fact, that the whole reign of Antichrist and all the other events foretold in the Book of Revelation, are to take place between the rapture and Christ’s arrival with His saints. This is exactly the order of events as described by Irving.

Please remember that I am quoting these words from Irving’s own English translation of Lacunza’s work, so that there can be no question that Irving had seen and studied this Jesuit doctrine before he gave out his own teaching on the subject.

The Oxford Movement

The Oxford Movement was founded on falsehood, cold-blooded and deliberate. This may seem a hard thing for me to say about the conduct of professedly Christian men. But I don’t have to say it; the leaders of the Movement say it for themselves. Newman claims Clement of Alexandria as his authority for his own rule that a Christian both thinks and speaks the truth, except when careful treatment is necessary, and then, as a physician for the good of his patients, he will LIE, or rather utter a LIE, as the Sophists say. Ward, who became leader when Newman went over to Rome, is quoted by his own son, in his biography of his father as holding that:

The son says that his father expressed his rule thus:

Hurrell Froude, another of the first leaders as early is 1834, referred to the whole Movement as “The Conspiracy” a term which accurately defines it. Pusey(25) describes their method as

– so that

Their whole campaign was run according to that truly Jesuitic maxim stated by Newman in his Apologia:

It might be supposed that a movement professing such a low moral standard would find little support among the clergy of the Church of England. But the movement swept England like a prairie fire. The publication of Newman’s Tracts was like the sowing of the dragon’s teeth, which immediately sprang up into a host of armed warriors. The founders of the movement were so amazed at the result that they were convinced that behind it all there must be a mighty spiritual power of which they were merely the instrument. Some of them, like the Witch of Endor, were startled by the spirit which they had aroused.

There can be no question that there was a supernatural power at work. WHAT WAS THAT MIGHTY SPIRIT POWER? It is our duty to TRY THE SPIRITS. Would the Spirit of God, the God of Truth, teach the leaders of the movement to LIE? Surely not. This must be a LYING SPIRIT, bringing on men –

Dr. Maitland’s teaching of a Future Personal Antichrist had created in the minds of those who accepted it, a bitter revulsion of feeling against the Reformers who charged the papacy with being the Antichrist, which prepared their minds for the reception, of other teaching favourable to the Church of Rome. Hence the readiness with which the strong delusion took root.

As in the case of Dr. Maitland and the Tractarians, so in the case of Irving.(26) His obedience to the “Voice” which commanded him to preach the Secret Rapture seems to have been the signal for the loosing of a veritable deluge of “spirit manifestations” upon him and his poor deluded congregation. The result was a fanatical outbreak which scandalized the whole Church. Led by a Mr. Robert Baxter, who is described as

– who gave utterance to the most extraordinary prophecies and angel communications, which were accepted as truths by the infatuated people, the congregation went from one fanatical extreme to another, till what had been a Presbyterian congregation formally applied for admission to the Church of Rome.

Cachemaille gives this further information, which sums up the whole connection of the “Secret Rapture” theory:

As Irving’s followers had shown such fanatical tendencies, his influence would be confined to a comparatively narrow circle. This would not suit the delusive spirit who had initiated the work, and so, as in the case of Dr. Maitland, the teaching had to be passed on to a body filled with misguided zeal, who would create among the dissenting bodies the same confusion as the Tractarians were to create within the Anglican communion.

The Brethren Movement

And so we must cross over to Ireland, to witness the formation of just such a body. In the “Brethren” movement(28) the seed sown by Lacunza was to find the most congenial soil in which to spread rapidly over the whole Protestant world.

It may surprise some of you to be told that there is anything in common between Tractarianism, with its hankering after everything Romish, and Brethrenism, which appears to be a deeply spiritual and evangelical movement. I have long worked in the closest harmony with many earnest men among the Brethren, for whose sincerity and piety I have the utmost respect, and I should be sorry to give offence to any of them. But in the matter of prophecy, it cannot be denied that if you scratch a Brethren skin you will draw Tractarian blood.(29) Just try it for yourself, if you doubt my words. Suggest to any one of the Brethren that the Pope is the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition, and that Rome is the Babylon of Revelation, the Scarlet Woman, and you will see him bridling up as if the Pope were a personal friend of his, and as if he held a brief for the defence of Rome. Tractarians couldn’t be more zealous in the Pope’s behalf. It will be stoutly asserted, of course, that the Brethren and Tractarian movements will never come together. That may be true. It is also true that parallel straight lines will never meet, for the simple reason that they are proceeding in exactly the same direction. These two have attacked the citadel of evangelical Protestantism from opposite sides, but the effect on the citadel is largely the same in either case.

“Serving-and-Waiting,” the magazine of the Philadelphia School of the Bible, during 1925 ran a series of articles by Harry A. Ironside, now Dr. Ironside, pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago,(30) on “The Brethren Movement.” Dr. Ironside had been for years, nearly thirty, associated with assemblies of the “Brethren” and had access to documents and sources of information available to very few. He was therefore peculiarly fitted to present the world with an authentic account of Brethrenism, as it was and is; and as he was, and I believe still is, a sincere believer in the “Secret Rapture” theory, and appears to regard J. N. Darby as God’s chosen instrument – eighteen centuries after the time of Christ – for first revealing this “precious” truth to the Church, we shall not do the Brethren much wrong in following his version.

Dr. Ironside mentions seven leaders of the first Brethren assembly formed in Dublin, and adds:

In other words, it was Cronin who started the meeting, and thus was the real founder of Brethrenism. Again I quote Ironside:

Now, strange as it may seem to some, it is nevertheless true, that there are, and always have been, true children of God within the Church of Rome; souls that have passed through the experience of conversion which Ironside here describes, and yet have not seen enough of the light to come out from Rome and be separate. Cronin came out of Rome, but he never came into the full light of Protestantism; he came far enough to form a half-way house -Brethrenism – combining the pietism of such Romanists as Thomas a Kempis with an instinctive dislike to many of the fruits of the Reformation. Such a Halfway house could not have been founded by anyone who was in full sympathy with the battle waged by the Reformers.

As I have been accused of making a false charge on this head, I must, at the risk of being a little longer than usual, give a few points of Brethrenism.

First: Cronin adhered to the Romish definition of the word Church, as meaning one thing, and only one, namely, the whole body of the faithful, a body every member of which is a true child of God, and outside of which there is no salvation. Luther’s discovery of the distinction between the visible church and the Church invisible was never understood by Cronin or his followers. Luther discovered that all the separate Churches mentioned in the New Testament were outwardly visible organisations, each and all of which contained members who were not truly born again, and therefore not members of the true body of Christ. None of these, nor all of them put together, were identical with the true Church, the mystic Body, which were invisible to the world and known to God alone. Cronin thought the wheat and tares should be separated here and now, and the mystic Body be identified as a visible organisation. In this boast of doing what the Apostles failed to accomplish, Brethrenism and Rome are unanimous. But the Brethren are more Romish than Rome herself, in that they carefully avoid the New Testament use of the word Church as referring to a local congregation, knowing that to use Church in this sense would spoil their whole argument.

Second: Cronin and his followers carefully copied Rome in the exclusiveness and arrogance of its claim to “THE CHURCH,” and even in the subtlety of the language embodying the claim. Rome arrogates to herself the title “Catholic” (Universal) but disliked the word “Roman” as that may seem to imply that she is only one of several Churches, and that there are other branches of the True Church besides herself. In the same way, Cronin and his followers avoided the use of any term that would seem to imply that there were any other Christians on earth besides themselves. Ironside apologizes for having to use even the term “Brethren” as if it were merely the name of a sect, adding:

Just as Rome takes a name that belongs to the whole body of Christ. Anyone who likes can draw the inference that there are no believers, Christians, saints, outside the ranks of those to whom they apply the names. Sometimes it suits to draw it, and again, sometimes it does not.

Third: Cronin had all a bigoted Romanist’s contempt for the Protestant “sects” and before forming a sect of his own tried to achieve the Romish ideal of “unity” by breaking down the bulwarks of Church membership and discipline which the Churches had erected for their own preservation. He claimed that having professed to be converted he had a right to sit at the Lord’s Table in any and every Church in the city, without becoming a member of any. John Calvin nearly lost his life in Geneva when he stood guard over the Lord’s Table and refused to allow the Libertines to partake, claiming that it was his duty as the minister of God to judge the lives of those who made this profession, and to keep out those who were unworthy. Cronin’s plan, if it had succeeded, would have broken down all such rule and discipline, giving the pastors or elders no “oversight” (1 Peter 5:2) over the membership of the Church. I myself, have had a teacher of “Brethren” doctrine attempt to sit at the Lord’s Table in my church without being a member of any Church; but let any of you try, and go in and “break bread” as they call it, in any Brethren meeting, and see how far you will get. Would they tolerate what Cronin tried to force upon the Churches? Certainly not!

Fourth: Cronin “also found growing up within himself a feeling of repugnance to a one-man ministry, for it seemed to him that there was no place for this in the New Testament Church.” The spirit of the French Revolution was abroad in the world, and men everywhere were inclined to rebel against all authority in both church and state. The “true saying” of Paul that “if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1) would be reserved by Cronin, who apparently did not see why any man should be set apart to “labour in the Word and doctrine,” and be “worthy of double honour” (1 Timothy 5:17). The cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity” had gone forth, and who should be on a footing of perfect equality more than the disciples of Christ? Christ had siid, “All ye are brethren” but there was a vast difference between the “brotherhood” of the New Testament, where some were set apart as elders to “feed the flock of God . . . taking the oversight thereof,” and others were commanded to “obey them that have the rule over you,” and the “Fraternity” of the Revolution, which aimed at obliterating all such distinctions. This is “the gainsaying of Core” (Jude 11), for the protest of Jorah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses and Aaron, “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” expresses exactly the idea underlying the title “Brethren” – absolute Equality.

Finally: Rome’s dread weapon of excommunication once more assumed all the terrors of the Middle Ages, and was as ruthlessly applied. To those who really believed that the little assemblies of “Brethren” were THE CHURCH, the Body of Christ, excommunication or cutting off from “fellowship” was a terrible calamity. The Reformed Churches of all embodied what they considered fundamental articles of faith in creeds or confessions of faith, and so long as a preacher did not violate any of these fundamentals he was allowed full liberty in expounding the Scriptures as he was led of the Spirit. But all these creeds were anathema to the Brethren. They had therefore no standard to determine what was fundamental and what was not. The Churches had some kind of ruling body regularly constituted, which could determine questions of doctrine and form a court of appeal in the event of any member being unjustly dealt with in the congregation to which he belonged, as the Jerusalem Council in the Apostolic Church settled the question of circumcision, but such a Council as the Apostles held was contrary to the “Brethren” ideas of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Each little “Assembly” was therefore a law unto itself. And as there was no ministry to govern according to fixed laws, those in each assembly who loved to have the pre-eminence lorded it over God’s heritage, ruling them with a rod of iron. The result was a riot of wrangling and hair-splitting over points of doctrine or interpretation, followed by excommunications to right and left, seldom if ever elsewhere witnessed in the history of the Church. Ironside’s History from start to finish is such a melancholy record as could scarcely be equalled in Christian annals, filled with pictures of little “assemblies like Soviets” excommunicating other “assemblies” or individuals. There was no appeal, no higher court. The only and natural reply that an assembly could give when excommunicated was to return the compliment. Time will not allow me to go into the case of Newton of Plymouth, of whom Ironside writes:

Newton’s preaching drew together what was the largest congregation in the pastoral work of the Brethren movement – so large that he was compelled to devote his whole time to the pastoral work, and so became a mere “hireling” according to Brethren views. He recognized the Scriptural injunction to ordain elders sand deacons in each assembly – another grave fault. He even recognized that there were Christians in the “denominations,” and was willing to have fellowship with them – an unpardonable sin in Brethren eyes, as his assembly thus ceased to claim to be THE CHURCH, the WHOLE Body of Christ in Plymouth, and became on its admission a mere branch or “sect” of the Church; this is what Brethren called “Sectarianism,” the opposite of the ordinary dictionary meaning of that word. He unfortunately fell into the usual Brethren snare of injudicious speculations about the person and work of Christ, seeking, like many of them, to be wise above what is written: a plague has caused continual doctrinal controversies between Brethren leaders, and made charges of “heresy” fly thick and fast all through the movement. The excommunication of this eminent saint split the whole movement in two. Ironside says: “In the minds of many he is to this day the very incarnation of iniquitous teaching,” which would alone justify the words of Dr. John Kennedy of Dingwall, that prince of Scottish preachers, who described Brethrenism as “broad in its creedlessness, narrow in its sectarianism, and lofty in its self-conceit.”

But I must give one more sample of this spirit which shines out of page upon page of Ironside’s story; and with this we must leave Cronin, the founder of the movement. In his old age, he came to reap the fruits of the system he had sown. In the Brethren assembly at Ryde there was a member who had married his deceased wife’s sister. This was the same degree of relationship as the marriage of Herod to his brother’s wife, which John Baptist declared unlawful, and owing to which lie became a martyr. All churches, both Romish and Protestant, were agreed that it was unlawful, and it was also contrary to the law of England. This member had gone across to France, where since the Revolution many Bible laws had been set aside, and got married there. he had enough influence in the Brethren assembly to retain his “fellowship” in it, an unhallowed fellowship which soon brought the assembly to a condition which Mr. Darby emphatically describes as “rotten.” It happened that an Anglican clergymen in Ryde, a personal friend of Cronin’s, wished to join the Brethren movement with his whole congregation. They had already withdrawn from the Anglican Church, but the rules of the Brethren required that the “rotten” assembly be recognized as THE CHURCH of Christ in Ryde, and that this other congregation be dissolved and all apply as individuals for admission to the “rotten” assembly. Knowing the condition of that assembly, they refused to do this, and began to “break bread” as a separate assembly. Dr. Cronin visited Ryde, and after trying in vain to help the “rotten” assembly to cleanse themselves, he notified them that he was perfectly free to break bread with the new company, which he did; an action that was looked upon as Ironside adds: “as a fearful sin in the eyes of those who put the new game above the souls of saints.”

I must finish the story in the words of Ironside:

Poor Cronin! According to his own teaching, the assembly at Ryde who shielded the incestuous person and kept him in their fellowship, and his own assembly who became partakers in their guilt, were “the Body of Christ,” THE CHURCH! If the Rapture were now to take place, they would be caught up, and he, having been cast out of the Church, would be left behind! No wonder he wept! It is dangerous thing to be too logical. if we start out from false premises: the force of logic may lead us to most absurd conclusions. As if the usurper Diotrephes had power over the saints who befriended the Apostle John, to separate them from the Body of Christ, because he “cast them out of the Church” (3 John 8, 9, 10). But if “the Church” which John there mentions was the body of Christ, as Rome and the Brethren maintain it always is, then Diotrophes had that power. Which is absurd!

It would be a weariness to follow all the divisions and excommunications, the charges and counter- charges, which resulted from the expulsion of Dr. Cronin.

Could anything be more grotesque and ridiculous? The fact that the incestuous person had been retained in fellowship was considered a mild offence in comparison with Cronin’s crime in having fellowship with an assembly of Christians who were outside “the body of Christ.” But to put the fool’s cap on the whole proceedings; this little body in Ramsgate who refused to join in condemning Cronin were considered outside the “Body of Christ” because they had forgotten to get the key to their hall in time to “break bread” on the Lord’s Day!

Yes, VAINLY. Dr. Cronin was out, and he was out TO STAY OUT. The London meeting with which Darby was connected was split in the same way in spite of Darby’s pleadings, and its leader, William Kelly, a man of whom Spurgeon said that he had “a mind for universe narrowed by Darbyism,” was also “cast out.” Such was the beginning of similar splits all over the country. The celebrated George Muller of Bristol was excommunicated because he differed from Darby on some points of doctrine so fine that most of you would not even understand what it was all about. And so it went on, till finally there were in almost every city two or more rival “assemblies” of Brethren, each claiming to be THE church of Christ, and refusing to have any fellowship – not only with all the other churches – but also with each other.

Here was Satan’s chosen method of breaking down the strong bulwark of evangelical religion, the “united front” which our Reforming forefathers had established against Rome, and under which the Protestant Churches had carried the Gospel to every corner of the globe.

1. Tractarianism was to awaken sympathy for Rome, and to eliminate the distinction between the Church of England and Rome by clandestinely introducing Romish practices into the Anglican services, so as to make it appear that the Churches of England and Rome were to all intents and purposes, one.

2. Brethrenism was to weaken the resistance to Rome by enticing the most spiritually-minded members to withdraw their support from the Protestant Churches to turn aside and waste their energies in vain jangling: obliterating as far as possible the distinction between the evangelical churches and Rome and falsely applying to the evangelical churches the warning which the Lord gave in regard to the idolatries of Babylon:

And the very doctrine which the Tractarians were to use to awaken sympathy for Rome, the Brethren were to acclaim as a Divine Revelation placing them on a pedestal above all the saints of past ages, and above all the Protestant Churches in particular.

THAT DOCTRINE WAS THE FUTURE INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL ANTICHRIST TO APPEAR AFTER THE RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS!

The Hour and the Man

Let us glance at the man whom Brethrenism venerates as the revealer of this wonderful secret. J. N. Darby(36) came of a good Irish family, was educated for the bar, took high honours at the Dublin University, then turned aside, to his father’s disgust, and became an Anglican Curate. A brother of Cardinal Newman,(37) who became very intimate with him, thus describes his first impression of him:

He had all the hallmarks of the religious zealot, and the description reminds one forcibly of the appearance of Ignatius Loyola after he had seen in a trance a vision of the Virgin Mary and had dedicated himself to founding the “Society of Jesus.”

Ironside says:

This statement is illuminating. Ironside may seem to be a little out in the use of the word “Tractarianism,” for he is referring to a period prior to 1827, the year in which Darby became definitely identified with Cronin’s meeting in Dublin, and the Tractarian movement, according to Newman, was only founded in 1833. But the spirit of that movement was already abroad in the land, and although we are obliged to Ironside for the information, it would not have taken a great deal of discernment to guess that that spirit had taken a strong hold on Darby before ever he met Cronin. Brethrenism, in fact, was rocked in the cradle of Tractarianism, and if we had been looking for words in which to describe the attitude of Darby and all his followers towards all the other professing Christians we could not have any more suitably chosen than these of Ironside’s.

Newman gives us another interesting sidelight:

You will say these are the words of a real fanatic. No man with a well-balanced mind would want to see his children breaking stones on the road if he could secure for them a good education with all the advantages it would bring them in their life’s work. Having an education that would relieve them of life’s drudgery would have no necessary bearing on their having or not having “the Gospel and the grace of God.” In fact the education would enlarge their opportunities and usefulness in the Gospel.

But we do not see the true significance of Darby’s revolt against general reading and study, if we look at it only as the fanaticism of the man. There was method in the madness of the monks who laid down the principle that IGNORANCE IS THE MOTHER OF DEVOTION. There is a kind of pietism which thrives in a hotbed of ignorance, and like a mushroom will flourish in a darkness that may be felt. It is of a subjective and emotional nature, akin to auto-suggestion, easily captivated by any wind of doctrine with an emotional appeal, and averse to being trammelled by the cold facts of history or experience. Romanism, Anglo-Catholicism, and Brethrenism alike breed this kind of pietism in abundance. Rome protects it by placing all kinds of “dangerous” books (including the Bible) on the “Index.” There was a logical necessity forcing both Anglo-Catholicism and Brethrenism to do the same, and Darby – or the spirit whose tool he was – was keen enough to see it. Ignorance of Church history was essential to the success of these movement. Men who knew the career of the Popes over centuries, their lewdness, blasphemies, cruelties, the millions of the saints of God whose blood they had shed, could not accept a puppet Antichrist of the future and call his reign of a few years “the great Tribulation.” Men who had studied the contendings of the noble army of martyrs, and read the soul-satisfying expositions of Scripture by the Puritans, could not accept the necessity of “coming out from among” the followers of these saints and martyrs in order to join THE CHURCH, the Body of Christ. Those who were to be swept into this movement MUST be kept ignorant of the Church’s whole past history. Mary Baker Eddy and others who have started a new brand of faith at variance with the contendings of the saints in the past, hive seen this same necessity and prohibited their followers as far as possible from reading any other religious works but their own.

Some of you will find it hard to believe that “no small part of (Darby’s) movement soon took the form of dissuasion from all other voluntary study.” Darby was quite a writer himself, and his followers have turned out a vast quantity of tracts and other Christian literature. Surely he did not want people to refrain from reading his own writings! Of course not! The little book-shelf which every Christian home in Britain, no matter how poor, possessed at that time, contained as a rule Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, The Great Cloud of Witnesses, and some of the writings of lives of the Reformers and Puritans. It was to consign these to oblivion that Darby’s “dissuasion from all other voluntary study” was directed. But an even surer way of displacing them was to supply other reading material to take their place. The Tractarian Movement was so called on account of the “Tracts” of one man, Newman. But the real Tractarian Movement was Brethrenism, whose writers were legion. The objective of the two was the same: NOT to bring the Gospel to the unsaved (that is a secondary subject which is never allowed to interfere with the “Breaking of Bread” Meeting which is the kernel of the movement) BUT to entice out of the Churches those who were already followers of Christ. These, being under the care of their own pastors, could not be reached by preaching: the new doctrine must be slipped under their notice otherwise, and tracts and other religious literature was the most effective method. Here was “a tree to be desired to make one wise,” the foretelling of future events which Christians could never have discovered for themselves by the most diligent study of the Bible, for the simple reason that they were not in the Bible. This detailed story of the coming Antichrist and all that he was to do, had all the subtle attraction of clairvoyancy or crystal-gazing. It enabled people to read between the lines of their Bible many things that their own ministers had never discovered, and so to become wise, very wise, above that which is written. It placed them on a pedestal from which they could look down with disdain on the very pastors who had led them to Christ. Well might the godly Dr. Kennedy refer to Brethrenism as “the slimiest of all isms.” Not only is this new theory spread in tracts and magazines; it is dressed up in the form of novels: and in the Scofield Bible, the most subtle propaganda of all, the whole theory is incorporated in notes on the text of Scripture, in such a way that many simple souls read the notes as if they were a part of the Inspired Word of God. The Bible thus acquires a new meaning to them. They find in it new doctrines, of which their fathers never dreamt. Is it not because they are accepting the teaching of new gods, whom their fathers knew not?

Darby and the “Secret Rapture”

I have left to the last the crucial question of all – Was the “Secret Rapture of the Saints” given as a special revelation of the Holy Spirit to Darby, and through him to the Brethren Movement or did Darby simply borrow it from Irving, and through him from Lacunza, the Jesuit? In other words:

Ironside is a believer in the “Secret Rapture.” Let us read very carefully what he has to say on this point:

Now just what does Ironside tell us? He DOES NOT say that it was Darby who first announced the “Secret Rapture,” though he obviously intends to convey that impression, and that is as far as any Futurist who is not a very, rash one will venture to go. But Ironside is writing nearly a century after the event. Let us hear a witness who lived through this period. Dr. Tregelles,(44) the well-known Greek scholar and editor of the Greek New Testament, was a member of Mr. Newman’s flock in Plymouth, and accepted the Futurist theory. You will notice that his name is included by Ironside in his list of those who helped to spread the “Secret Rapture” theory. He was probably the most learned man that has ever adorned the ranks of Brethrenism, and his name would be an asset to any cause. He may have been carried away with the new teaching for a time – long enough for Ironside to claim his name for it but when he learned the facts of its origin he gave a clear ringing testimony against it. Here is his verdict:

“To the testimony of Dr. Tregelles is added that of Mr. Robert Baxter, the principal actor in the Irving scandals,” says Cachemaille,(45) who was able to refer to Baxter’s ‘Narrative of the Facts.’

With this apparently conflicting evidence before us, what conclusions may we safely draw?

We must assume that Ironside was ignorant of this testimony of Dr. Tregelles otherwise he could not honestly have included the name of Tregelles as he does among the supporters of the theory.

We may assume also, that Tregelles was ignorant of Irving’s work in translating Lacunza, or at least had never examined this translation for himself, as his keen mind would at once have detected the connection between it and Irving’s other vagaries, and in particular he would have discovered and pointed out that the origin of the “Secret Rapture” in the work of the Jesuit.

When Newton and his flock were cast out of the ranks of Brethrenism, Dr. Tregelles was of course excommunicated along with the rest. Among the many doctrinal differences between Darby and Newton, we can be sure that Tregelles’ exposure of the “Secret Rapture” though not mentioned by Ironside, would be accounted not the least serious.

Let us now analyse the information Ironside has given, and see what it contains.

In this statement Ironside is guilty, of the serious misuse of words common among the Brethren: he speaks of “the rapture” when he means “the secret rapture,” an entirely different thing. “The Rapture” or the taking up of the Church was first “brought to light” by Paul in 1st Thessalonians, the very earliest of his epistles, and was cherished by the saints as part of the blessed hope of Christ’s glorious appearing for about eighteen centuries before the Powerscourt meetings. But the SECRET “rapture” was (as we may correctly infer from Ironside) unknown to either Paul or any of the apostles or saints or martyrs, being only “brought to light” (so far as he knows) at these meetings.

Were the Powerscourt meetings started for the express purpose of “bringing to light” the “secret rapture?” The theory had been in print for six years in Irving’s TRANSLATION of Lacunza. It had been preached by Irving in his own church, and was regarded as one of the distinctive tenets of his own Irvingite sect. But the spirit manifestations in connection with his preaching of the new doctrine had put the Christian public on their guard, so that it took him six years to dispose of the first edition of his translation. Then, in this fateful 1833, in which Newman floated the Tractarian Movement, appeared the cheap popular edition of Lacunza, and about the same time the Powerscourt meetings were opened “for the study of prophecy.” Would it be a very wild guess to surmise that the anonymous editors of Lactunza were among the promoters of the Powerscourt meetings?

Here are one or two points to notice:

The result proves the correctness of these conclusions. Ironside says the presence of these Irvingites at the Powerscourt meetings (though there is nothing to show that they were “Brethren” meetings at all) gave rise to the erroneous impression that the Brethren Movement was more or less linked with the ‘Catholic Apostolic Church.’ But the public do not form their “impression” on such slight grounds as Ironside would have us believe. No one would jump to the conclusion, merely because a series of special studies taken part in by members of his church were attended by some members of another church, that there is some link between his church and that other. The public would not pry into who was attending some semi-private meetings in Powerscourt Castle. But when Darby and the other Brethren leaders came out from these meetings and began zealously to publish all over the country some of the “precious truth,” as Ironside calls it that had been first announced during the fanatical outbreak in Irving’s church, the Christian public could come to only one conclusion, and who shall say that their impression was an erroneous one? The facts all pointed in the one direction.

Ironside hastens to point out that the Irvingites “soon dropped out, because the teaching was so contrary to what they held.”(47) What teaching? Certainly not the teaching as to the “Secret Rapture” followed by the reign of Antichrist. It is probable, of course, that the Irvingites, would maintain the position taken by Lacunza who as we have seen made concessions to the Protestant viewpoint so far as to allow that the Antichrist was not merely one individual, but a vast system under one official head; and that as the usurper of the prerogatives of Christ, the Antichrist would occupy the seat of the papacy. Darby and his followers, as the Brethren teachings show, were not satisfied, with any such half-way house, but went right over to the undiluted teaching of the Jesuit school of Ribera as to an individual personal Antichrist. On this point there might be some disagreement, but it is not likely that it was this alone which caused the withdrawal of the Irvingites. Darby was keen on a belief of his own, which the Brethren lovingly refer to as “Dispensational Truth,” but which Newton called “speculative nonsense.” The Irvingites had a number of “revelations” equally speculative and equally nonsensical. It was not to be expected that either party would accept all the speculations of the other; and in a conflict of speculations the dogmatism of Darby made it a foregone conclusion that the Brethren leaders, though only there by invitation, would finally be left in possession of the field.

So much for the withdrawal of the Irvingites, of which much has been made by the Brethren by way of showing that they and the Irvingites had nothing in common. But whatever the differences between them – and they were neither few nor small – on the matter of the “Secret Rapture” they were

Or to adopt a homely metaphor, Darby had swallowed the Irvingite bait, “hook, line and sinker:” and on seeing this, it may have been policy on their part to retire and leave him free to spread the new doctrine in his own way, unhampered by the stigma that was attached to their sect.

It is now over a hundred years;(48) since the Powerscourt Castle meetings, and in all that has been spoken and written on this subject in that time, no one appears to have been able to explain how a belief which was known to be a Jesuit invention and had for two-and-a-half centuries been confined to the Church of Rome, suddenly began to spread like wild-fire among evangelical Christians. I believe that I have submitted satisfactory proof that this fire did not originate, as has been supposed by spontaneous combustion at Powerscourt. Lacunza, alias “Rabbi Ben Ezra”, was the mysterious “missing link” who has escaped notice right up until now. I have shown how by a subtle approach to the Reformers’ position, and by being put on Rome’s “Index,” his work was gilded to gain the favour of Protestants; then, how the sugar-coated pill was thrust under the noses of the Protestant British, by being published in London; how Maitland and Irving fell into the trap; and finally how in 1833 the spreading of the new teaching was formally undertaken by Tractarianism on the one hand and Brethernism on the other. At every stage the evidence is sufficient to satisfy any unbiased mind.

God in many marvellous ways brings good out of evil, if only we know how to appreciate and use His good gifts. In 1837, Rev. E. B. Elliott began his monumental “Horae Apocalypticae,” which he published in 1844, bringing together such a mass of evidence to prove from the pages of History that the Book of Revelation had up to date been fulfilled in all its minutest details, as is startling and overwhelming in all its force. No one can read it without standing in awe of the Divine Majesty, revealing before in sublime symbolism to the saints every event among the nations that was to affect the Church’s welfare. The preparation of this inexhaustible storehouse of facts, which has confirmed the faith of so many in “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God,” was suggested to Elliott by the increasing prevalence among Christian men in our country of the futurist system of Apocalyptic interpretation – a system which involved the abandonment of the opinion held by all the chief fathers and doctors of our church, respecting the Roman Popes and Popedom as the great intended anti-Christian power of Scripture prophecy. We ought to thank God for over-ruling even the wiles of the Jesuits to bestow on the Church such a masterly vindication of “the faith once delivered to the saints.”

Elliott was not the only Defender of the Faith. In 1839, there appeared the “Key to the Prophecies,” by Rev. David Simpson – a little volume which is now very rare. (I hope to make it less rare. I found it online! A well-known evangelist recently showed me a copy which he had picked up at the bookstall in the States for 25 cents, and said he would not sell it for a thousand dollars; he had learnt more about prophecy from that one little book than from all he ever read on the subject. Dr. Cumming of London had to leave his own church and take the Albert Hall, and even that was packed to hear his “Apocalyptic Sketches,” which afterwards had a wide circulation, reviving the interest in the remarkable fulfillment of prophecy in history as brought out by Elliott. Even Darby’s friend William Kelly, though a leader of the Futurist school, finally renounced many of their dogmas and accepted the Historical fulfillment of prophecy.

I have at times been confronted with an imposing array of names of Bible teachers – Gaebelein, Panton, Scofield, etc.,(49) who believe in the “secret rapture” and the Future Personal Antichrist. How can I dare to assert that these men are all wrong? I dare to go further than that. I will venture to assert that THERE IS NOT A BIBLE TEACHER NOR ANYONE ELSE LIVING IN THE WORLD TODAY WHO HAS FOUND A SECRET RAPTURE IN THE BIBLE BY HIS OWN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF THE BIBLE ITSELF. These teachers all come to the Bible with cut-and-dried theories which they have learnt elsewhere, and twist and torture texts to fit the theory. If the spiritual pedigree of these Futurist Bible Teachers could be traced back, they would all be found to spring from one source – LACUNZA – THE JESUIT.

Be not deceived! God is not the Author of confusion. He has not given us the Book of Revelation to put our minds in a muddle, nor yet as a Happy Hunting Ground for our imagination. We should be very careful how we speculate or dogmatize about any prophecy that is as yet unfulfilled.(50) When a prophecy is fulfilled, then we can see and understand the meaning of every detail of the symbolism used, and what we know of this must be our main guide to the meaning of prophecies still in the future: the average Futurist cannot put his finger on a single prophecy in the Book of Revelation which has proved itself to him, by its actual fulfillment to be the Word of the Living God. I hope in this series of studies to show how verses and even whole chapters have been torn from their proper setting and twisted into the most fantastic shapes, to prove theories equally far-fetched: even after the prophecy had been fulfilled in the most exact detail. But in case any of you should miss the other lectures, I shall close with one word of advice.

Many even of our Futurist friends are constrained to admit that the world is AT THIS MOMENT hastening towards the great Battle(51) of Armageddon, mention in Revelation 16:16. The three unclean spirits like frogs (v. 13-14) have now been at work in the world for a whole century, and their deceptions are rapidly coming to a head in preparing the nations for battle against God Almighty. One of the results as might have been expected under the sway of these spirits of devils has been the rise of many antichrists of every shape and colour. Our Bible teachers have plenty of material to work on. First Mussolini was the antichrist; they were all sure of it. But Mussolini ordered the Bible to be taught in all schools in Italy , and our prophets grew a little less positive about him. Stalin, Hitler, and even Roosevelt, have shared the honour of being singled out as the Antichrist, or at least, his forerunner.

This is mere trifling with a solemn subject. If we are approaching the Battle of Armageddon, we are well on through chapter 16 of Revelation. But the career of Antichrist occurs in chapter 13, and no man has any authority or right to tear chapter 13 out of its place and thrust it into the middle of chapter 16. A historian records the fact of History in chronologic order. He never leaves the natural order of events except for some reason which he makes clear to his readers; otherwise all would be confusion. God does not produce such confusion. He has given us a record of events that were to come to pass, that is, History Written Beforehand, for the guidance of the Church. It is divided into three great periods in which God’s judgments are foretold under the symbols of Seven Seals (clearly before the reign of Antichrist); and seven Vials (clearly, after the reign of Antichrist). All the nations are now rushing their preparations for the last of these judgments;

Keep your eye on that word. John knew nothing of the horrors of war in the AIR as we know it will be. Radio, fighting and bombing airplanes, poison gas, disease germs, infrared rays – all the means for carrying on war in the air that can wipe out a whole population in a few hours or even minutes – such diabolical weapons of destruction were undreamed of by our own grandfathers, let alone the simple fishermen of Galilee. But John, seeing in his Vision the final crash that would bring the present system of civilization toppling in ruin, wrote nearly nineteen hundred years ago:

That is the Grand Climax, so far as God’s judgments on this age are concerned. It not only bring down “the cities of the nations”: it will bring suddenly to remembrance the career of Antichrist and the war which he made against the saints, which our Futurist Bible teachers(52) are so feverishly trying to help the world to forget. The Babylonish system of Antichrist, described by John in chapter 17, is still in existence, still “drunken with the blood of the saints,” gloating over the “war” and massacre of the saints described in chapter 13. All that remains of Antichrist in the future is the final and complete destruction of his whole system, which though occupying the whole of chapters 17 and 18, is part of the immediate result of the pouring out of the Seventh Vial.

The “Rapture of the Saints” occurs in chapter 19, and nowhere else in the Book of Revelation. Don’t be misled! John saw the saints who are already in heaven, (there have been saints and martyrs in heaven ever since Abel went home to glory); but there is but one “Rapture,” and that will be when Christ shall come in the Glory of the Father with his Holy Angels.

NOTES

1. Definitions of Historicist, Futurist and Praeterist; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, XXIII, 213c-iii & iv. English New Testament, Alford (1872); Vol. II, Part II, 348a, b, c. Revelation of Jesus Christ, (1966), J F Walvoord; pp. 17-22. Halley’s Bible Handbook, 19th Edition; pp. 614-615.

2. RIBERA: Jesuit author of the Future Antichrist concept – Old Fashioned Prophecy Magazine Dec., 1965, p. 10. Revelation of St John (1644), Thomas Brightman (Ribera’s Contemporary); pp A-4, 181. 188. etc. Ency. Brit 11th Ed; XXIII, 213c. Greek New Testament, Alford (1866); IV, 248. Horae Apocalypticae, E. B. Elliott (1851); IV, 465. The Beasts and the Little Horn, G. S. Hitchcock (Roman Catholic); p. 7. (published 1911 by the Roman Catholic Truth Society).

3. The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, by Juan Josafat Ben Ezra; Dublin, 1833, Wm Curry Jun., & Co. Pages 10 & 11.

4. Ibid, page 92.

5. Ibid, page 113,114. 6. Ibid, but could not locate page due to delicate condition of book.

7. Encyc. /pit., 11th Edition; VII, 915-917.

8. Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Leroy Froom (1946); III. 303-324.

9. 1892 Edition, p. 98 et seq.

10.Prophetic Faith, Froom; II. 657. History Unveiling Prophecy, Guiness (1905); pp. 285-289.

11.See note 2.

12.Historicism, Preterism, Futurism; What Are These? E. P. Cachemaille (1929); p.44.

13.Ibid.

14.The Coming of Messiah, but could not locate page due to delicate condition of book.

15.Ibid.

16.Prophetic Faith, Froom; III, 258. Horae, Elliott; IV, 554. 17.History Unveiling Prophecy, Guiness; pp. 281-295.

18.On page 48 of his Apologia, in reference to his close friendship with Froude, Cardinal Newman said, “He made me look with admiration towards the Church of Rome, and, in the same degree, to dislike the Reformation.” Everyman’s Library. 19.Secret History of the Oxford Movement, Walter Ealsh (1899); 5th Edition, p.1.

20.Pusey; Hater of Protestantism, eulogizer of Jesuitry and “frightened at calling Rome Antichrist.” – Ibid, pp. 289-292. See Puseyism; Puseyite in Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, (1935).

21.Walsh’s book is a thorough exposure of this hellish movement; see also The Oxford Movement Exposed, Rev. Thomas Houghton (1932).

22.Faber: famous writer of hymns “largely used in Protestant collections,” who was converted to Romanism. He was already a Romanist for five years when he wrote “Faith of Our Fathers.” Encyc. Brit., 11th Edition, X, 111-112. Another music-coated Romanist pill that Protestants have long been swallowing is “Ave Maria” -Hail Mary. Just what is the matter with Protestants?

23.Prophetic Faith, Froom; III, 514-526: IV, 420-422. Hist. Unv. Prophecy, Guinness; p. 240. Horae, Elliott; IV, 552.

24.The Coming of Messiah, Ben Ezra, PP. 10 and 11.

25.Pusey, Keble, Newman and Froude mentioned as “chief leaders.” Oxford Movement Exposed, Houghton, p. 8.

26.See note No. 3 reference; also page 19 of note No. 27 reference – “the VOICE.”

27.The Prophetic Outlook Today, E. P. Cachemaille (1918); p.20.

28.Plymouth Brethren: Encyc. Brit., 11th Edition, XXI, p. 864.

29.Or to modernize the thought – “Scratch a Futurist-Fundamentalist and you still draw Tractarian blood.” My! My! How the Brethren have blossomed!

30.Written when Dr. Ironside was still alive.

31.Prophetic Faith, Froom; IV, p. 223, note 6.

32.A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement, Harry Ironside, p. 10.

33.Prophetic Faith, Froom; IV, 1223-1225. Ironside, p. 23.

34.Ironside, p. 84-85.

35.Ironside, p. 9.

36.Prophetic Faith, Froom; IV, 1223, 1225, 1226 and footnotes.

37.Francis William Newman: Ironside, p.13.

38.Francis William Newman quotes: Ironside, p.13.

39.Ironside, p. 13.

40.Francis William Newman quotes: Ironside, p.14.

41.Powerscourt: Prophetic Faith, Froom; IV, 1223-1225 and footnotes.

42.Ironside, p. 23.

43.Ironside, p. 23.

44.Tregelles: Prophetic Faith, Froom; IV, 442, 1223 and 1225 note.

45.The Prophetic Outlook Today, E. P. Cachemaille; p.19.

46.Ironside, p. 23.

47.Ironside, p. 23.

48.About 140 years at this printing.

49.PLUS many, names fearlessly mentioned in Old Fashioned Prophecy Magazine often, such as Seiss, Stearns, Pettingill, Panton, McBirnie, Winrod, Estep, Barnhouse, the Joneses, the Beirneses, Oliver Greene, Oral Roberts, Schiffner, Gilpin, John Douglas, Billy Graham, G. L. K. Smith, Wilber Smith, Oswald Smith, Noel Smith, V. Sears, Herbert Armstrong, Walvoord, and scores of big-name evangelists and thousands of lesser lights orating and prating false prophecy over pulpit tops and the airwaves ad nauseam!

50.The great sin of the Futurists! Of such is one named above, Oliver Greene, who broadcasts all over the world. Even at this writing he is teaching Revelation over the air, Futurist style, and hoodwinking thousands of trusting souls and placing them all in the ranks of the deceived elect. Of what use is 100% sound Gospel when, with a flick of a finger and just one error in Prophecy, you sluice multitudes of saved Christians back into the Church of Rome? With that Romanized version of a prophecy, originally intended to scare Christians away from Rome, but which now entices them back? (Notice: Oliver Greene’s Gospel is our Gospel too! Our quarrel is not with his Gospel. No!).

51.Should be “war” according to Alford and the A.V.R. – Revelation 16:14 note. Some expositors with good reason, expound this “war” as beginning with World War I, which never terminated in a peace. The world is still in a state of war! This is sound logic and truth and we must therefore be in the midst of Armageddon and have been at least 56 years. It is no more “Future” than a lot of other “Future” things of the Futurists. The BIG THING certain to be future is our Lord’s Second Coming IN ONE COMPLETE ACT – not a DIVIDED ACT stipulated as “a coming for” and a later “coming with” His saints, as is popularly taught by the deceived elect Protestant Clergy today! The “Great Tribulation” is 99% behind us, friends, and our King is coming soon to end it, bringing our rewards with Him! – Revelation 22:12 and Luke 19:13.

52.The Futurist Prophetic Beagle is so busy sniffing at things Future and Negative that he fails to concern himself with the remarkable events of the Present and Positive which are the fulfillments of Apocalyptic Prophecy NOW. He has rammed his sniffer so deeply into the Future Jesuitic Mud that even his eyes and ears are buried in the Future, and “HAVING EYES HE SEES NOT AND HAVING EARS HE HEARS NOT.”

This is the next chapter after Chapter IV. Section V — Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

Section I — Idol Processions

Those who have read the account of the last idol procession in the capital of Scotland, in John Knox’s History of the Reformation, cannot easily have forgot the tragi-comedy with which it ended. The light of the Gospel had widely spread, the Popish idols had lost their fascination, and popular antipathy was everywhere rising against them. “The images,” says the historian, “were stolen away in all parts of the country; and in Edinburgh was that great idol called Sanct Geyle [the patron saint of the capital], first drowned in the North Loch, after burnt, which raised no small trouble in the town.” The bishops demanded of the Town Council either “to get them again the old Sanct Geyle, or else, upon their (own) expenses, to make a new image.” The Town Council could not do the one, and the other they absolutely refused to do; for they were now convinced of the sin of idolatry. The bishops and priests, however, were still made upon their idols; and, as the anniversary of the feast of St. Giles was approaching, when the saint used to be carried in procession through the town, they determined to do their best, that the accustomed procession should take place with as much pomp as possible. For this purpose, “a marmouset idole” was borrowed from the Grey friars, which the people, in derision, called “Young Sanct Geyle,” and which was made to do service instead of the old one. On the appointed day, says Know, “there assembled priests, friars, canons…with taborns and trumpets, banners, and bagpipes; and who was there to lead the ring but the Queen Regent herself, with all her shavelings, for honour of that feast. West about goes it, and comes down the High Street, and down to the Canno Cross.” As long as the Queen was present, all went to the heart’s content of the priests and their partisans. But no sooner had majesty retired to dine, than some in the crowd, who had viewed the whole concern with an evil eye, “drew nigh to the idol, as willing to help to bear him, and getting the fertour (or barrow) on their shoulders, began to shudder, thinking that thereby the idol should have fallen. But that was provided and prevented by the iron nails [with which it was fastened to the fertour]; and so began one to cry, ‘Down with the idol, down with it’; and so without delay it was pulled down. Some brag made the priests’ patrons at the first; but when they saw the feebleness of their god, for one took him by the heels, and dadding [knocking] his head to the calsay [pavement], left Dagon without head or hands, and said, ‘Fye upon thee, thou young Sanct Geyle, thy father would have tarried [withstood] four such [blows]’; this considered, we say, the priests and friars fled faster than they did at Pinkey Cleuch. There might have been seen so sudden a fray as seldom has been seen amongst that sort of men within this realm; for down goes the crosses, off goes the surplice, round caps corner with the crowns. The Grey friars gaped, the Black friars blew, the priests panted and fled, and happy was he that first gat the house; for such ane sudden fray came never amongst the generation of Antichrist within this realm before.”

Such an idol procession among a people who had begun to study and relish the Word of God, elicited nothing but indignation and scorn. But in Popish lands, among a people studiously kept in the dark, such processions are among the favourite means which the Romish Church employs to bind its votaries to itself. The long processions with images borne on men’s shoulders, with the gorgeous dresses of the priests, and the various habits of different orders of monks and nuns, with the aids of flying banners and the thrilling strains of instrumental music, if not too closely scanned, are well fitted “plausibly to amuse” the worldly mind, to gratify the love for the picturesque, and when the emotions thereby called forth are dignified with the names of piety and religion, to minister to the purposes of spiritual despotism. Accordingly, Popery has ever largely availed itself of such pageants. On joyous occasions, it has sought to consecrate the hilarity and excitement created by such processions to the service of its idols; and in seasons of sorrow, it has made use of the same means to draw forth the deeper wail of distress from the multitudes that throng the procession, as if the mere loudness of the cry would avert the displeasure of a justly offended God.

Gregory, commonly called the Great, seems to have been the first who, on a large scale, introduced those religious processions into the Roman Church. In 590, when Rome was suffering under the heavy hand of God from the pestilence, he exhorted the people to unite publicly in supplication to God, appointing that they should meet at daybreak in SEVEN DIFFERENT COMPANIES, according to their respective ages, SEXES, and stations, and walk in seven different processions, reciting litanies or supplications, till they all met at one place. They did so, and proceeded singing and uttering the words, “Lord, have mercy upon us,” carrying along with them, as Baronius relates, by Gregory’s express command, an image of the Virgin. The very idea of such processions was an affront to the majesty of heaven; it implied that God who is a Spirit “saw with eyes of flesh,” and might be moved by the imposing picturesqueness of such a spectacle, just as sensuous mortals might. As an experiment it had but slender success. In the space of one hour, while thus engaged, eighty persons fell to the ground, and breathed their last. Yet this is now held up to Britons as “the more excellent way” for deprecating the wrath of God in a season of national distress. “Had this calamity,” says Dr. Wiseman, referring to the Indian disasters, “had this calamity fallen upon our forefathers in Catholic days, one would have seen the streets of this city [London] trodden in every direction by penitential processions, crying out, like David, when pestilence had struck the people.” If this allusion to David has any pertinence or meaning, it must imply that David, in the time of pestilence, headed some such “penitential procession.” But Dr. Wiseman knows, or ought to know, that David did nothing of the sort, that his penitence was expressed in no such way as by processions, and far less by idol processions, as “in the Catholic days of our forefathers,” to which we are invited to turn back. This reference to David, then, is a mere blind, intended to mislead those who are not given to Bible reading, as if such “penitential processions” had something of Scripture warrant to rest upon. The Times, commenting on this recommendation of the Papal dignitary, has hit the nail on the head. “The historic idea,” says that journal, “is simple enough, and as old as old can be. We have it in Homer–the procession of Hecuba and the ladies of Troy to the shrine of Minerva, in the Acropolis of that city.” It was a time of terror and dismay in Troy, when Diomede, with resistless might, was driving everything before him, and the overthrow of the proud city seemed at hand. To avert the apparently inevitable doom, the Trojan Queen was divinely directed.

“To lead the assembled train
Of Troy’s chief matron’s to Minerva’s fane.”

And she did so:–

“Herself…the long procession leads;
The train majestically slow proceeds.
Soon as to Ilion’s topmost tower they come,
And awful reach the high Palladian dome,
Antenor’s consort, fair Theano, waits
As Pallas’ priestess, and unbars the gates.
With hands uplifted and imploring eyes,
They fill the dome with supplicating cries.”

Here is a precedent for “penitential processions” in connection with idolatry entirely to the point, such as will be sought for in vain in the history of David, or any of the Old Testament saints. Religious processions, and especially processions with images, whether of a jubilant or sorrowful description, are purely Pagan. In the Word of God we find two instances in which there were processions practised with Divine sanction; but when the object of these processions is compared with the avowed object and character of Romish processions, it will be seen that there is no analogy between them and the processions of Rome. The two cases to which I refer are the seven days’ encompassing of Jericho, and the procession at the bringing up of the ark of God from Kirjath-jearim to the city of David. The processions, in the first case, though attended with the symbols of Divine worship, were not intended as acts of religious worship, but were a miraculous mode of conducting war, when a signal interposition of Divine power was to be vouchsafed. In the other, there was simply the removing of the ark, the symbol of Jehovah’s presence, from the place where, for a long period, it had been allowed to lie in obscurity, to the place which the Lord Himself had chosen for its abode; and on such an occasion it was entirely fitting and proper that the transference should be made with all religious solemnity. But these were simply occasional things, and have nothing at all in common with Romish processions, which form a regular part of the Papal ceremonial. But, though Scripture speaks nothing of religious processions in the approved worship of God, it refers once and again to Pagan processions, and these, too, accompanied with images; and it vividly exposes the folly of those who can expect any good from gods that cannot move from one place to another, unless they are carried. Speaking of the gods of Babylon, thus saith the prophet Isaiah (46:6),

“They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship. They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place he shall not remove.“

In the sculptures of Nineveh these processions of idols, borne on men’s shoulders, are forcibly represented, and form at once a striking illustration of the prophetic language, and of the real origin of the Popish processions. In Egypt, the same practice was observed. In “the procession of shrines,” says Wilkinson, “it was usual to carry the statue of the principal deity, in whose honour the procession took place, together with that of the king, and the figures of his ancestors, borne in the same manner, on men’s shoulders.” But not only are the processions in general identified with the Babylonian system. We have evidence that these processions trace their origin to that very disastrous event in the history of Nimrod, which has already occupied so much of our attention. Wilkinson says “that Diodorus speaks of an Ethiopian festival of Jupiter, when his statue was carried in procession, probably to commemorate the supposed refuge of the gods in that country, which,” says he, “may have been a memorial of the flight of the Egyptians with their gods.” The passage of Diodorus, to which Wilkinson refers, is not very decisive as to the object for which the statues of Jupiter and Juno (for Diodorus mentions the shrine of Juno as well as of Jupiter) were annually carried into the land of Ethiopia, and then, after a certain period of sojourn there, were brought back to Egypt again. But, on comparing it with other passages of antiquity, its object very clearly appears. Eustathius says, that at the festival in question, “according to some, the Ethiopians used to fetch the images of Zeus, and other gods from the great temple of Zeus at Thebes. With these images they went about at a certain period in Libya, and celebrated a splendid festival for twelve gods.” As the festival was called an Ethiopian festival; and as it was Ethiopians that both carried away the idols and brought them back again, this indicates that the idols must have been Ethiopian idols; and as we have seen that Egypt was under the power of Nimrod, and consequently of the Cushites or Ethiopians, when idolatry was for a time put down in Egypt, what would this carrying of the idols into Ethiopia, the land of the Cushites, that was solemnly commemorated every year, be, but just the natural result of the temporary suppression of the idol-worship inaugurated by Nimrod.

In Mexico, we have an account of an exact counterpart of this Ethiopian festival. There, at a certain period, the images of the gods were carried out of the country in a mourning procession, as if taking their leave of it, and then, after a time, they were brought back to it again with every demonstration of joy. In Greece, we find a festival of an entirely similar kind, which, while it connects itself with the Ethiopian festival of Egypt on the one hand, brings that festival, on the other, into the closest relation to the penitential procession of Pope Gregory. Thus we find Potter referring first to a “Delphian festival in memory of a JOURNEY of Apollo”; and then under the head of the festival called Apollonia, we thus read: “To Apollo, at Aegialea on this account: Apollo having obtained a victory over Python, went to Aegialea, accompanied with his sister Diana; but, being frightened from thence, fled into Crete. After this, the Aegialeans were infected with an epidemical distemper; and, being advised by the prophets to appease the two offended deities, sent SEVEN boys and as many virgins to entreat them to return. [Here is the typical germ of ‘The Sevenfold Litany’ of Pope Gregory.] Apollo and Diana accepted their piety,…and it became a custom to appoint chosen boys and virgins, to make a solemn procession, in show, as if they designed to bring back Apollo and Diana, which continued till Pausanias’ time.” The contest between Python and Apollo, in Greece, is just the counterpart of that between Typho and Osiris in Egypt; in other words, between Shem and Nimrod. Thus we see the real meaning and origin of the Ethiopian festival, when the Ethiopians carried away the gods from the Egyptian temples. That festival evidently goes back to the time when Nimrod being cut off, idolatry durst not show itself except among the devoted adherents of the “Mighty hunter” (who were found in his own family–the family of Cush), when, with great weepings and lamentations, the idolaters fled with their gods on their shoulders, to hide themselves where they might. In commemoration of the suppression of idolatry, and the unhappy consequences that were supposed to flow from that suppression, the first part of the festival, as we get light upon it both from Mexico and Greece, had consisted of a procession of mourners; and then the mourning was turned into joy, in memory of the happy return of these banished gods to their former exaltation. Truly a worthy origin for Pope Gregory’s “Sevenfold Litany” and the Popish processions.

Section II — Relic Worship

Nothing is more characteristic of Rome than the worship of relics. Wherever a chapel is opened, or a temple consecrated, it cannot be thoroughly complete without some relic or other of he-saint or she-saint to give sanctity to it. The relics of the saints and rotten bones of the martyrs form a great part of the wealth of the Church. The grossest impostures have been practised in regard to such relics; and the most drivelling tales have been told of their wonder-working powers, and that too by Fathers of high name in the records of Christendom. Even Augustine, with all his philosophical acuteness and zeal against some forms of false doctrine, was deeply infected with the grovelling spirit that led to relic worship. Let any one read the stuff with which he concludes his famous “City of God,” and he will in no wise wonder that Rome has made a saint of him, and set him up for the worship of her devotees.

Take only a specimen or two of the stories with which he bolsters up the prevalent delusions of his day: “When the Bishop Projectius brought the relics of St. Stephen to the town called Aquae Tibiltinae, the people came in great crowds to honour them. Amongst these was a blind woman, who entreated the people to lead her to the bishop who had the HOLY RELICS. They did so, and the bishop gave her some flowers which he had in his hand. She took them, and put them to her eyes, and immediately her sight was restored, so that she passed speedily on before all the others, no longer requiring to be guided.” In Augustine’s day, the formal “worship” of the relics was not yet established; but the martyrs to whom they were supposed to have belonged were already invoked with prayers and supplications, and that with the high approval of the Bishop of Hippo, as the following story will abundantly show: Here, in Hippo, says he, there was a poor and holy old man, by name Florentius, who obtained a living by tailoring. This man once lost his coat, and not being able to purchase another to replace it, he came to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, in this city, and prayed aloud to them, beseeching that they would enable him to get another garment. A crowd of silly boys who overheard him, followed him at his departure, scoffing at him, and asking him whether he had begged fifty pence from the martyrs to buy a coat. The poor man went silently on towards home, and as he passed near the sea, he saw a large fish which had been cast up on the sand, and was still panting. The other persons who were present allowed him to take up this fish, which he brought to one Catosus, a cook, and a good Christian, who bought it from him for three hundred pence. With this he meant to purchase wool, which his wife might spin, and make into a garment for him. When the cook cut up the fish, he found within its belly a ring of gold, which his conscience persuaded him to give to the poor man from whom he bought the fish. He did so, saying, at the same time, “Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have clothed you!” *

* De Civitate. The story of the fish and the ring is an old Egyptian story. (WILKINSON) Catosus, “the good Christian,” was evidently a tool of the priests, who could afford to give him a ring to put into the fish’s belly. The miracle would draw worshippers to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, and thus bring grist to their mill, and amply repay them.

Thus did the great Augustine inculcate the worship of dead men, and the honouring of their wonder-working relics. The “silly children” who “scoffed” at the tailor’s prayer seem to have had more sense than either the “holy old tailor” or the bishop. Now, if men professing Christianity were thus, in the fifth century, paving the way for the worship of all manner of rags and rotten bones; in the realms of Heathendom the same worship had flourished for ages before Christian saints or martyrs had appeared in the world. In Greece, the superstitious regard to relics, and especially to the bones of the deified heroes, was a conspicuous part of the popular idolatry. The work of Pausanias, the learned Grecian antiquary, is full of reference to this superstition. Thus, of the shoulder-blade of Pelops, we read that, after passing through divers adventures, being appointed by the oracle of Delphi, as a divine means of delivering the Eleans from a pestilence under which they suffered, it “was committed,” as a sacred relic, “to the custody” of the man who had fished it out of the sea, and of his posterity after him. The bones of the Trojan Hector were preserved as a precious deposit at Thebes. “They” [the Thebans], says Pausanias, “say that his [Hector’s] bones were brought hither from Troy, in consequence of the following oracle: ‘Thebans, who inhabit the city of Cadmus, if you wish to reside in your country, blest with the possession of blameless wealth, bring the bones of Hector, the son of Priam, into your dominions from Asia, and reverence the hero agreeably to the mandate of Jupiter.'” Many other similar instances from the same author might be adduced. The bones thus carefully kept and reverenced were all believed to be miracle-working bones.

From the earliest periods, the system of Buddhism has been propped up by relics, that have wrought miracles at least as well vouched as those wrought by the relics of St. Stephen, or by the “Twenty Martyrs.” In the “Mahawanso,” one of the great standards of the Buddhist faith, reference is thus made to the enshrining of the relics of Buddha: “The vanquisher of foes having perfected the works to be executed within the relic receptacle, convening an assembly of the priesthood, thus addressed them: ‘The works that were to be executed by me, in the relic receptacle, are completed. Tomorrow, I shall enshrine the relics. Lords, bear in mind the relics.'” Who has not heard of the Holy Coat of Treves, and its exhibition to the people? From the following, the reader will see that there was an exactly similar exhibition of the Holy Coat of Buddha: “Thereupon (the nephew of the Naga Rajah) by his supernatural gift, springing up into the air to the height of seven palmyra trees, and stretching out his arm brought to the spot where he was poised, the Dupathupo (or shrine) in which the DRESS laid aside by Buddho, as Prince Siddhatto, on his entering the priesthood, was enshrined…and EXHIBITED IT TO THE PEOPLE.” This “Holy Coat” of Buddha was no doubt as genuine, and as well entitled to worship, as the “Holy Coat” of Treves. The resemblance does not stop here. It is only a year or two ago since the Pope presented to his beloved son, Francis Joseph of Austria, a “TOOTH” of “St. Peter,” as a mark of his special favour and regard. The teeth of Buddha are in equal request among his worshippers. “King of Devas,” said a Buddhist missionary, who was sent to one of the principal courts of Ceylon to demand a relic or two from the Rajah, “King of Devas, thou possessest the right canine tooth relic (of Buddha), as well as the right collar bone of the divine teacher. Lord of Devas, demur not in matter involving the salvation of the land of Lanka.” Then the miraculous efficacy of these relics is shown in the following: “The Saviour of the world (Buddha) even after he had attained to Parinibanan or final emancipation (i.e., after his death), by means of a corporeal relic, performed infinite acts to the utmost perfection, for the spiritual comfort and mundane prosperity of mankind. While the Vanquisher (Jeyus) yet lived, what must he not have done?”

Now, in the Asiatic Researches, a statement is made in regard to these relics of Buddha, which marvellously reveals to us the real origin of this Buddhist relic worship. The statement is this: “The bones or limbs of Buddha were scattered all over the world, like those of Osiris and Jupiter Zagreus. To collect them was the first duty of his descendants and followers, and then to entomb them. Out of filial piety, the remembrance of this mournful search was yearly kept up by a fictitious one, with all possible marks of grief and sorrow till a priest announced that the sacred relics were at last found. This is practised to this day by several Tartarian tribes of the religion of Buddha; and the expression of the bones of the Son of the Spirit of heaven is peculiar to the Chinese and some tribes in Tartary.” Here, then, it is evident that the worship of relics is just a part of those ceremonies instituted to commemorate the tragic death of Osiris or Nimrod, who, as the reader may remember, was divided into fourteen pieces, which were sent into so many different regions infected by his apostacy and false worship, to operate in terrorem upon all who might seek to follow his example. When the apostates regained their power, the very first thing they did was to seek for these dismembered relics of the great ringleader in idolatry, and to entomb them with every mark of devotion. Thus does Plutarch describe the search: “Being acquainted with this even [viz., the dismemberment of Osiris], Isis set out once more in search of the scattered members of her husband’s body, using a boat made of the papyrus rush in order more easily to pass through the lower and fenny parts of the country…And one reason assigned for the different sepulchres of Osiris shown in Egypt is, that wherever any one of his scattered limbs was discovered she buried it on the spot; though others suppose that it was owing to an artifice of the queen, who presented each of those cities with an image of her husband, in order that, if Typho should overcome Horus in the approaching contest, he might be unable to find the real sepulchre. Isis succeeded in recovering all the different members, with the exception of one, which had been devoured by the Lepidotus, the Phagrus, and the Oxyrhynchus, for which reason these fish are held in abhorrence by the Egyptians. To make amends, she consecrated the Phallus, and instituted a solemn festival to its memory.” Not only does this show the real origin of relic worship it shows also that the multiplication of relics can pretend to the most venerable antiquity.

If, therefore, Rome can boast that she has sixteen or twenty holy coats, seven or eight arms of St. Matthew, two or three heads of St. Peter, this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred god; and many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, were exhibited in the rival burying-places for the adoration of the Egyptian faithful. Nay, not only were these Egyptian relics sacred themselves, they CONSECRATED THE VERY GROUND in which they were entombed. This fact is brought out by Wilkinson, from a statement of Plutarch: “The Temple of this deity at Abydos,” says he, “was also particularly honoured, and so holy was the place considered by the Egyptians, that persons living at some distance from it sought, and perhaps with difficulty obtained, permission to possess a sepulchre within its Necropolis, in order that, after death, they might repose in GROUND HALLOWED BY THE TOMB of this great and mysterious deity.” If the places where the relics of Osiris were buried were accounted peculiarly holy, it is easy to see how naturally this would give rise to the pilgrimages so frequent among the heathen. The reader does not need to be told what merit Rome attaches to such pilgrimages to the tombs of saints, and how, in the Middle Ages, one of the most favourite ways of washing away sin was to undertake a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Jago di Compostella in Spain, or the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Now, in the Scripture there is not the slightest trace of any such thing as a pilgrimage to the tomb of saint, martyr, prophet, or apostle. The very way in which the Lord saw fit to dispose of the body of Moses in burying it Himself in the plains of Moab, so that no man should ever known where his sepulchre was, was evidently designed to rebuke every such feeling as that from which such pilgrimages arise. And considering whence Israel had come, the Egyptian ideas with which they were infected, as shown in the matter of the golden calf, and the high reverence they must have entertained for Moses, the wisdom of God in so disposing of his body must be apparent. In the land where Israel had so long sojourned, there were great and pompous pilgrimages at certain season of the year, and these often attended with gross excesses. Herodotus tells us, that in his time the multitude who went annually on pilgrimage to Bubastis amounted to 700,000 individuals, and that then more wine was drunk than at any other time in the year. Wilkinson thus refers to a similar pilgrimage to Philae: “Besides the celebration of the great mysteries which took place at Philae, a grand ceremony was performed at a particular time, when the priests, in solemn procession, visited his tomb, and crowned it with flowers. Plutarch even pretends that all access to the island was forbidden at every other period, and that no bird would fly over it, or fish swim near this CONSECRATED GROUND.” This seems not to have been a procession merely of the priests in the immediate neighbourhood of the tomb, but a truly national pilgrimage; for, says Diodorus, “the sepulchre of Osiris at Philae is revered by all the priests throughout Egypt.” We have not the same minute information about the relic worship in Assyria or Babylon; but we have enough to show that, as it was the Babylonian god that was worshipped in Egypt under the name of Osiris, so in his own country there was the same superstitious reverence paid to his relics.

We have seen already, that when the Babylonian Zoroaster died, he was said voluntarily to have given his life as a sacrifice, and to have “charged his countrymen to preserve his remains,” assuring them that on the observance or neglect of this dying command, the fate of their empire would hinge. And, accordingly, we learn from Ovid, that the “Busta Nini,” or “Tomb of Ninus,” long ages thereafter, was one of the monuments of Babylon. Now, in comparing the death and fabled resurrection of the false Messiah with the death and resurrection of the true, when he actually appeared, it will be found that there is a very remarkable contrast. When the false Messiah died, limb was severed from limb, and his bones were scattered over the country. When the death of the true Messiah took place, Providence so arranged it that the body should be kept entire, and that the prophetic word should be exactly fulfilled–“a bone of Him shall not be broken.” When, again, the false Messiah was pretended to have had a resurrection, that resurrection was in a new body, while the old body, with all its members, was left behind, thereby showing that the resurrection was nothing but a pretence and a sham. When, however, the true Messiah was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” the tomb, though jealously watched by the armed unbelieving soldiery of Rome, was found to be absolutely empty, and no dead body of the Lord was ever afterwards found, or even pretended to have been found. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, stands on a very different footing from the resurrection of Osiris. Of the body of Christ, of course, in the nature of the case, there could be no relics. Rome, however to carry out the Babylonian system, has supplied the deficiency by means of the relics of the saints; and now the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Thomas A’Beckett and St. Lawrence O’Toole, occupy the very same place in the worship of the Papacy as the relics of Osiris in Egypt, or of Zoroaster in Babylon.

Section III — The Clothing and Crowning of Images

In the Church of Rome, the clothing and crowning of images form no insignificant part of the ceremonial. The sacred images are not represented, like ordinary statues, with the garments formed of the same material as themselves, but they have garments put on them from time to time, like ordinary mortals of living flesh and blood. Great expense is often lavished on their drapery; and those who present to them splendid robes are believed thereby to gain their signal favour, and to lay up a large stock of merit for themselves. Thus, in September, 1852, we find the duke and Duchess of Montpensier celebrated in the Tablet, not only for their charity in “giving 3000 reals in alms to the poor,” but especially, and above all, for their piety in “presenting the Virgin with a magnificent dress of tissue of gold, with white lace and a silver crown.” Somewhat about the same time the piety of the dissolute Queen of Spain was testified by a similar benefaction, when she deposited at the feet of the Queen of Heaven the homage of the dress and jewels she wore on a previous occasion of solemn thanksgiving, as well as the dress in which she was attired when she was stabbed by the assassin Merino. “The mantle,” says the Spanish journal Espana, “exhibited the marks of the wound, and its ermine lining was stained with the precious blood of Her Majesty. In the basket (that bore the dresses) were likewise the jewels which adorned Her Majesty’s head and breast. Among them was a diamond stomacher, so exquisitely wrought, and so dazzling, that it appeared to be wrought of a single stone.” This is all sufficiently childish, and presents human nature in a most humiliating aspect; but it is just copied from the old Pagan worship. The same clothing and adorning of the gods went on in Egypt, and there were sacred persons who alone could be permitted to interfere with so high a function. Thus, in the Rosetta Stone we find these sacred functionaries distinctly referred to: “The chief priests and prophets, and those who have access to the adytum to clothe the gods,…assembled in the temple at Memphis, established the following decree.” The “clothing of the gods” occupied an equally important place in the sacred ceremonial of ancient Greece. Thus, we find Pausanias referring to a present made to Minerva: “In after times Laodice, the daughter of Agapenor, sent a veil to Tegea, to Minerva Alea.” The epigram [inscription] on this offering indicates, at the same time, the origin of Laodice:–

“Laodice, from Cyprus, the divine,
To her paternal wide-extended land,
This veil–an offering to Minerva–sent.”

Thus, also, when Hecuba, the Trojan queen, in the instance already referred to, was directed to lead the penitential procession through the streets of Troy to Minverva’s temple, she was commanded not to go empty-handed, but to carry along with her, as her most acceptable offering:–

“The largest mantle your full wardrobes hold,
Most prized for art, and laboured o’er with gold.”

The royal lady punctually obeyed:–

“The Phrygian queen to her rich wardrobe went,
Where treasured odours breathed a costly scent;
There lay the vestures of no vulgar art;
Sidonian maids embroidered every part,
Whom from soft Sydon youthful Paris bore,
With Helen touching on the Tyrian shore.
Here, as the Queen revolved with careful eyes
The various textures and the various dyes,
She chose a veil that shone superior far,
And glowed refulgent as the morning star.”

There is surely a wonderful resemblance here between the piety of the Queen of Troy and that of the Queen of Spain. Now, in ancient Paganism there was a mystery couched under the clothing of the gods. If gods and goddesses were so much pleased by being clothed, it was because there had once been a time in their history when they stood greatly in need of clothing. Yes, it can be distinctly established, as has been already hinted, that ultimately the great god and great goddess of Heathenism, while the facts of their own history were interwoven with their idolatrous system, were worshipped also as incarnations of our great progenitors, whose disastrous fall stripped them of their primeval glory, and made it needful that the hand Divine should cover their nakedness with clothing specially prepared for them. I cannot enter here into an elaborate proof of this point; but let the statement of Herodotus be pondered in regard to the annual ceremony, observed in Egypt, of slaying a ram, and clothing the FATHER OF THE GODS with its skin. Compare this statement with the Divine record in Genesis about the clothing of the “Father of Mankind” in a coat of sheepskin; and after all that we have seen of the deification of dead men, can there be a doubt what it was that was thus annually commemorated? Nimrod himself, when he was cut in pieces, was necessarily stripped. That exposure was identified with the nakedness of Noah, and ultimately with that of Adam. His sufferings were represented as voluntarily undergone for the good of mankind. His nakedness, therefore, and the nakedness of the “Father of the gods,” of whom he was an incarnation, was held to be a voluntary humiliation too. When, therefore, his suffering was over, and his humiliation past, the clothing in which he was invested was regarded as a meritorious clothing, available not only for himself, but for all who were initiated in his mysteries.

In the sacred rites of the Babylonian god, both the exposure and the clothing that were represented as having taken place, in his own history, were repeated on all his worshippers, in accordance with the statement of Firmicus, that the initiated underwent what their god had undergone. First, after being duly prepared by magic rites and ceremonies, they were ushered, in a state of absolute nudity, into the innermost recesses of the temple. This appears from the following statement of Proclus: “In the most holy of the mysteries, they say that the mystics at first meet with the many-shaped genera [i.e., with evil demons], which are hurled forth before the gods: but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved and guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumination, and, DIVESTED OF THEIR GARMENTS, participate, as they would say, of a divine nature.” When the initiated, thus “illuminated” and made partakers of a “divine nature,” after being “divested of their garments,” were clothed anew, the garments with which they were invested were looked upon as “sacred garments,” and possessing distinguished virtues. “The coat of skin” with which the Father of mankind was divinely invested after he was made so painfully sensible of his nakedness, was, as all intelligent theologians admit, a typical emblem of the glorious righteousness of Christ–“the garment of salvation,” which is “unto all and upon all them that believe.” The garments put upon the initiated after their disrobing of their former clothes, were evidently intended as a counterfeit of the same. “The garments of those initiated in the Eleusinian Mysteries,” says Potter, “were accounted sacred, and of no less efficacy to avert evils than charms and incantations. They were never cast off till completely worn out.” And of course, if possible, in these “sacred garments” they were buried; for Herodotus, speaking of Egypt, whence these mysteries were derived, tells us that “religion” prescribed the garments of the dead.

The efficacy of “sacred garments” as a means of salvation and delivering from evil in the unseen and eternal world, occupies a foremost place in many religions. Thus the Parsees, the fundamental elements of whose system came from the Chaldean Zoroaster, believe that “the sadra or sacred vest” tends essentially to “preserve the departed soul from the calamities accruing from Ahriman,” or the Devil; and they represent those who neglect the use of this “sacred vest” as suffering in their souls, and “uttering the most dreadful and appalling cries,” on account of the torments inflicted on them “by all kinds of reptiles and noxious animals, who assail them with their teeth and stings, and give them not a moment’s respite.” What could have ever led mankind to attribute such virtue to a “sacred vest“? If it be admitted that it is just a perversion of the “sacred garment” put on our first parents, all is clear. This, too, accounts for the superstitious feeling in the Papacy, otherwise so unaccountable, that led so many in the dark ages to fortify themselves against the fears of the judgment to come, by seeking to be buried in a monk’s dress. “To be buried in a friar’s cast-off habit, accompanied by letters enrolling the deceased in a monastic order, was accounted a sure deliverance from eternal condemnation! In ‘Piers the Ploughman’s Creed,’ a friar is described as wheedling a poor man out of his money by assuring him that, if he will only contribute to his monastery,

‘St. Francis himself shall fold thee in his cope,
And present thee to the Trinity, and pray for thy sins.'”

In virtue of the same superstitious belief, King John of England was buried in a monk’s cowl; and many a royal and noble personage besides, “before life and immortality” were anew “brought to light” at the Reformation, could think of no better way to cover their naked and polluted souls in prospect of death, than by wrapping themselves in the garment of some monk or friar as unholy as themselves. Now, all these refuges of lies, in Popery as well as Paganism, taken in connection with the clothing of the saints of the one system, and of the gods of the other, when traced to their source, show that since sin entered the world, man has ever felt the need of a better righteousness than his own to cover him, and that the time was when all the tribes of the earth knew that the only righteousness that could avail for such a purpose was “the righteousness of God,” and that of “God manifest in the flesh.”

Intimately connected with the “clothing of the images of the saints” is also the “crowning” of them. For the last two centuries, in the Popish communion, the festivals for crowning the “sacred images” have been more and more celebrated. In Florence, a few years ago, the image of the Madonna with the child in her arms was “crowned” with unusual pomp and solemnity. Now, this too arose out of the facts commemorated in the history of Bacchus or Osiris. As Nimrod was the first king after the Flood, so Bacchus was celebrated as the first who wore a crown. *

* PLINY, Hist. Nat. Under the name of Saturn, also, the same thing was attributed to Nimrod.

When, however, he fell into the hands of his enemies, as he was stripped of all his glory and power, he was stripped also of his crown. The “Falling of the crown from the head of Osiris” was specially commemorated in Egypt. That crown at different times was represented in different ways, but in the most famous myth of Osiris it was represented as a “Melilot garland.” Melilot is a species of trefoil; and trefoil in the Pagan system was one of the emblems of the Trinity. Among the Tractarians at this day, trefoil is used in the same symbolical sense as it has long been in the Papacy, from which Puseyism has borrowed it. Thus, in a blasphemous Popish representation of what is called God the Father (of the fourteenth century), we find him represented as wearing a crown with three points, each of which is surmounted with a leaf of white clover (see figure 39). But long before Tractarianism or Romanism was known, trefoil was a sacred symbol. The clover leaf was evidently a symbol of high import among the ancient Persians; for thus we find Herodotus referring to it, in describing the rites of the Persian Magi–“If any (Persian) intends to offer to a god, he leads the animal to a consecrated spot. Then, dividing the victim into parts, he boils the flesh, and lays it upon the most tender herbs, especially TREFOIL. This done, a magus–without a magus no sacrifice can be performed–sings a sacred hymn.” In Greece, the clover, or trefoil, in some form or other, had also occupied an important place; for the rod of Mercury, the conductor of souls, to which such potency was ascribed, was called “Rabdos Tripetelos,” or “the three-leaved rod.” Among the British Druids the white clover leaf was held in high esteem as an emblem of their Triune God, and was borrowed from the same Babylonian source as the rest of their religion. The Melilot, or trefoil garland, then, with which the head of Osiris was bound, was the crown of the Trinity–the crown set on his head as the representative of the Eternal–“The crown of all the earth,” in accordance with the voice divine at his birth, “The Lord of all the earth is born.”

Now, as that “Melilot garland,” that crown of universal dominion, fell “from his head” before his death, so, when he rose to new life, the crown must be again set upon his head, and his universal dominion solemnly avouched. Hence, therefore, came the solemn crowning of the statues of the great god, and also the laying of the “chaplet” on his altar, as a trophy of his recovered “dominion.” But if the great god was crowned, it was needful also that the great goddess should receive a similar honour. Therefore it was fabled that when Bacchus carried his wife Ariadne to heaven, in token of the high dignity bestowed upon her, he set a crown upon her head; and the remembrance of this crowning of the wife of the Babylonian god is perpetuated to this hour by the well-known figure in the sphere called Ariadnoea corona, or “Ariadne’s crown.” This is, beyond question, the real source of the Popish rite of crowning the image of the Virgin.

From the fact that the Melilot garland occupied so conspicuous a place in the myth of Osiris, and that the “chaplet” was laid on his altar, and his tomb was “crowned” with flowers, arose the custom, so prevalent in heathenism, of adorning the altars of the gods with “chaplets” of all sorts, and with a gay profusion of flowers. Side by side with this reason for decorating the altars with flowers, there was also another. When in

“That fair field
Of Enna, Proserpine gathering flowers,
Herself, a fairer flower, by gloom Dis,
Was gathered;”

and all the flowers she had stored up in her lap were lost, the loss thereby sustained by the world not only drew forth her own tears, but was lamented in the Mysteries as a loss of no ordinary kind, a loss which not only stripped her of her own spiritual glory, but blasted the fertility and beauty of the earth itself. *

* OVID, Metamorphoses. Ovid speaks of the tears which Proserpine shed when, on her robe being torn from top to bottom, all the flowers which she had been gathering up in it fell to the ground, as showing only the simplicity of a girlish mind. But this is evidently only for the uninitiated. The lamentations of Ceres, which were intimately connected with the fall of these flowers, and the curse upon the ground that immediately followed, indicated something entirely different. But on that I cannot enter here.

That loss, however, the wife of Nimrod, under the name of Astarte, or Venus, was believed to have more than repaired. Therefore, while the sacred “chaplet” of the discrowned god was placed in triumph anew on his head and on his altars, the recovered flowers which Proserpine had lost were also laid on these altars along with it, in token of gratitude to that mother of grace and goodness, for the beauty and temporal blessings that the earth owed to her interposition and love. In Pagan Rome especially this was the case. The altars were profusely adorned with flowers. From that source directly the Papacy has borrowed the custom of adorning the altar with flowers; and from the Papacy, Puseyism, in Protestant England, is labouring to introduce the custom among ourselves. But, viewing it in connection with its source, surely men with the slightest spark of Christian feeling may well blush to think of such a thing. It is not only opposed to the genius of the Gospel dispensation, which requires that they who worship God, who is a Spirit, “worship Him in spirit and in truth”; but it is a direct symbolising with those who rejoiced in the re-establishment of Paganism in opposition to the worship of the one living and true God. 

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

Every one knows how thoroughly Romanist is the use of the rosary; and how the devotees of Rome mechanically tell their prayers upon their beads. The rosary, however, is no invention of the Papacy. It is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The rosary was used as a sacred instrument among the ancient Mexicans. It is commonly employed among the Brahmins of Hindustan; and in the Hindoo sacred books reference is made to it again and again. Thus, in an account of the death of Sati, the wife of Shiva, we find the rosary introduced: “On hearing of this event, Shiva fainted from grief; then, having recovered, he hastened to the banks of the river of heaven, where he beheld lying the body of his beloved Sati, arrayed in white garments, holding a rosary in her hand, and glowing with splendour, bright as burnished gold.” In Thibet it has been used from time immemorial, and among all the millions in the East that adhere to the Buddhist faith. The following, from Sir John F. Davis, will show how it is employed in China: “From the Tartar religion of the Lamas, the rosary of 108 beads has become a part of the ceremonial dress attached to the nine grades of official rank. It consists of a necklace of stones and coral, nearly as large as a pigeon’s egg, descending to the waist, and distinguished by various beads, according to the quality of the wearer. There is a small rosary of eighteen beads, of inferior size, with which the bonzes count their prayers and ejaculations exactly as in the Romish ritual. The laity in China sometimes wear this at the wrist, perfumed with musk, and give it the name of Heang-choo, or fragrant beads.” In Asiatic Greece the rosary was commonly used, as may be seen from the image of the Ephesian Diana. In Pagan Rome the same appears to have been the case. The necklaces which the Roman ladies wore were not merely ornamental bands about the neck, but hung down the breast, just as the modern rosaries do; and the name by which they were called indicates the use to which they were applied. “Monile,” the ordinary word for a necklace, can have no other meaning than that of a “Remembrancer.” Now, whatever might be the pretence, in the first instance, for the introduction of such “Rosaries” or “Remembrancers,” the very idea of such a thing is thoroughly Pagan. * It supposes that a certain number of prayers must be regularly gone over; it overlooks the grand demand which God makes for the heart, and leads those who use them to believe that form and routine are everything, and that “they must be heard for their much speaking.”

* “Rosary” itself seems to be from the Chaldee “Ro,” “thought,” and “Shareh,” “director.”

In the Church of Rome a new kind of devotion has of late been largely introduced, in which the beads play an important part, and which shows what new and additional strides in the direction of the old Babylonian Paganism the Papacy every day is steadily making. I refer to the “Rosary of the Sacred Heart.” It is not very long since the worship of the “Sacred Heart” was first introduced; and now, everywhere it is the favourite worship. It was so in ancient Babylon, as is evident from the Babylonian system as it appeared in Egypt. There also a “Sacred Heart” was venerated. The “Heart” was one of the sacred symbols of Osiris when he was born again, and appeared as Harpocrates, or the infant divinity, * borne in the arms of his mother Isis.

* The name Harpocrates, as shown by Bunsen, signifies “Horus, the child.”

Therefore, the fruit of the Egyptian Persea was peculiarly sacred to him, from its resemblance to the “HUMAN HEART.” Hence this infant divinity was frequently represented with a heart, or the heart-shaped fruit of the Persea, in one of his hands (see fig.40). The following extract, from John Bell’s criticism on the antiques in the Picture Gallery of Florence, will show that the boyish divinity had been represented elsewhere also in ancient times in the same manner. Speaking of a statue of Cupid, he says it is “a fair, full, fleshy, round boy, in fine and sportive action, tossing back a heart.” Thus the boy-god came to be regarded as the “god of the heart,” in other words, as Cupid, or the god of love. To identify this infant divinity, with his father “the mighty hunter,” he was equipped with “bow and arrows”; and in the hands of the poets, for the amusement of the profane vulgar, this sportive boy-god was celebrated as taking aim with his gold-tipped shafts at the hearts of mankind. His real character, however, as the above statement shows, and as we have seen reason already to conclude, was far higher and of a very different kind. He was the woman’s seed. Venus and her son Cupid, then, were none other than the Madonna and the child. Looking at the subject in this light, the real force and meaning of the language will appear, which Virgil puts into the mouth of Venus, when addressing the youthful Cupid:–

“My son, my strength, whose mighty power alone
Controls the thunderer on his awful throne,
To thee thy much afflicted mother flies,
And on thy succour and thy faith relies.”

From what we have seen already as to the power and glory of the Goddess Mother being entirely built on the divine character attributed to her Son, the reader must see how exactly this is brought out, when the Son is called “THE STRENGTH” of his Mother. As the boy-god, whose symbol was the heart, was recognised as the god of childhood, this very satisfactorily accounts for one of the peculiar customs of the Romans. Kennett tells us, in his Antiquities, that the Roman youths, in their tender years, used to wear a golden ornament suspended from their necks, called bulla, which was hollow, and heart-shaped. Barker, in his work on Cilicia, while admitting that the Roman bulla was heart-shaped, further states, that “it was usual at the birth of a child to name it after some divine personage, who was supposed to receive it under his care”; but that the “name was not retained beyond infancy, when the bulla was given up.” Who so likely to be the god under whose guardianship the Roman children were put, as the god under one or other of his many names whose express symbol they wore, and who, while he was recognised as the great and mighty war-god, who also exhibited himself in his favourite form as a little child?

The veneration of the “sacred heart” seems also to have extended to India, for there Vishnu, the Mediatorial god, in one of his forms, with the mark of the wound in his foot, in consequence of which he died, and for which such lamentation is annually made, is represented as wearing a heart suspended on his breast (see figure 41). It is asked, How came it that the “Heart” became the recognised symbol of the Child of the great Mother? The answer is, “The Heart” in Chaldee is “BEL”; and as, at first, after the check given to idolatry, almost all the most important elements of the Chaldean system were introduced under a veil, so under that veil they continued to be shrouded from the gaze of the uninitiated, after the first reason–the reason of fear–had long ceased to operate. Now, the worship of the “Sacred Heart” was just, under a symbol, the worship of the “Sacred Bel,” that mighty one of Babylon, who had died a martyr for idolatry; for Harpocrates, or Horus, the infant god, was regarded as Bel, born again. That this was in very deed the case, the following extract from Taylor, in one of his notes to his translation of the Orphic Hymns, will show. “While Bacchus,” says he, was “beholding himself” with admiration “in a mirror, he was miserably torn to pieces by the Titans, who, not content with this cruelty, first boiled his members in water, and afterwards roasted them in the fire; but while they were tasting his flesh thus dressed, Jupiter, excited by the steam, and perceiving the cruelty of the deed, hurled his thunder at the Titans, but committed his members to Apollo, the brother of Bacchus, that they might be properly interred. And this being performed, Dionysius [i.e., Bacchus], (whose HEART, during his laceration, was snatched away by Minerva and preserved) by a new REGENERATION, again emerged, and he being restored to his pristine life and integrity, afterwards filled up the number of the gods.” This surely shows, in a striking light, the peculiar sacredness of the heart of Bacchus; and that the regeneration of his heart has the very meaning I have attached to it–viz., the new birth or new incarnation of Nimrod or Bel. When Bel, however was born again as a child, he was, as we have seen, represented as an incarnation of the sun. Therefore, to indicate his connection with the fiery and burning sun, the “sacred heart” was frequently represented as a “heart of flame.”

So the “Sacred Heart” of Rome is actually worshipped as a flaming heart, as may be seen on the rosaries devoted to that worship. Of what use, then, is it to say that the “Sacred Heart” which Rome worships is called by the name of “Jesus,” when not only is the devotion given to a material image borrowed from the worship of the Babylonian Antichrist, but when the attributes ascribed to that “Jesus” are not the attributes of the living and loving Saviour, but the genuine attributes of the ancient Moloch or Bel?

Section V — Lamps and Wax-Candles

Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the “Heart,” when it became an emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, once a year celebrate their festival of “burning lamps,” that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun. Now, what on these high occasions was done on a grand scale was also done on a smaller scale, in the individual acts of worship to their god, by the lighting of lamps and tapers before the favourite divinity. In Babylon, this practice had been exceedingly prevalent, as we learn from the Apocryphal writer of the Book of Baruch. “They (the Babylonians),” says he, “light up lamps to their gods, and that in greater numbers, too, than they do for themselves, although the gods cannot see one of them, and are senseless as the beams of their houses.” In Pagan Rome, the same practice was observed. Thus we find Licinius, the Pagan Emperor, before joining battle with Constantine, his rival, calling a council of his friends in a thick wood, and there offering sacrifices to his gods, “lighting up wax-tapers” before them, and at the same time, in his speech, giving his gods a hint, that if they did not give him the victory against Constantine, his enemy and theirs, he would be under the necessity of abandoning their worship, and lighting up no more “wax-tapers to their honour.” In the Pagan processions, also, at Rome, the wax-candles largely figured. “At these solemnities,” says Dr. Middleton, referring to Apuleius as his authority, “at these solemnities, the chief magistrate used frequently to assist, in robes of ceremony, attended by the priests in surplices, with wax-candles in their hands, carrying upon a pageant or thensa, the images of their gods, dressed out in their best clothes; these were usually followed by the principal youth of the place, in white linen vestments or surplices, singing hymns in honour of the gods whose festivals they were celebrating, accompanied by crowds of all sorts that were initiated in the same religion, all with flambeaux or wax-candles in their hands.”

Now, so thoroughly and exclusively Pagan was this custom of lighting up lamps and candles in daylight, that we find Christian writers, such as Lactantius, in the fourth century, exposing the absurdity of the practice, and deriding the Romans “for lighting up candles to God, as if He lived in the dark.” Had such a custom at that time gained the least footing among Christians, Lactantius could never have ridiculed it as he does, as a practice peculiar to Paganism. But what was unknown to the Christian Church in the beginning of the fourth century, soon thereafter began to creep in, and now forms one of the most marked peculiarities of that community that boasts that it is the “Mother and mistress of all Churches.”

While Rome uses both lamps and wax-candles in her sacred rites, it is evident, however, that she attributes some pre-eminent virtue to the latter above all other lights. Up to the time of the Council of Trent, she thus prayed on Easter Eve, at the blessing of the Easter candles: “Calling upon thee in thy works, this holy Eve of Easter, we offer most humbly unto thy Majesty this sacrifice; namely, a fire not defiled with the fat of flesh, nor polluted with unholy oil or ointment, nor attained with any profane fire; but we offer unto thee with obedience, proceeding from perfect devotion, a fire of wrought WAX and wick, kindled and made to burn in honour of thy name. This so great a MYSTERY therefore, and the marvellous sacrament of this holy eve, must needs be extolled with due and deserved praises.”

That there was some occult “Mystery,” as is here declared, couched under the “wax-candles,” in the original system of idolatry, from which Rome derived its ritual, may be well believed, when it is observed with what unanimity nations the most remote have agreed to use wax-candles in their sacred rites. Among the Tungusians, near the Lake Baikal in Siberia, “wax-tapers are placed before the Burchans,” the gods or idols of that country. In the Molucca Islands, wax-tapers are used in the worship of Nito, or Devil, whom these islanders adore. “Twenty or thirty persons having assembled,” says Hurd, “they summon the Nito, by beating a small consecrated drum, whilst two or more of the company light up wax-tapers, and pronounce several mysterious words, which they consider as able to conjure him up.” In the worship of Ceylon, the use of wax-candles is an indispensable requisite. “In Ceylon,” says the same author, “some devotees, who are not priests, erect chapels for themselves, but in each of them they are obliged to have an image of Buddha, and light up tapers or wax-candles before it, and adorn it with flowers.” A practice thus so general must have come from some primeval source, and must have originally had some mystic reason at the bottom of it. The wax-candle was, in fact, a hieroglyphic, like so many other things which we have already seen, and was intended to exhibit the Babylonian god in one of the essential characters of the Great Mediator. The classic reader may remember that one of the gods of primeval antiquity was called Ouranos, * that is, “The Enlightener.”

* For Aor or our, “light,” and an, “to act upon” or produce, the same as our English particle en, “to make.” Ouranos, then, is “The Enlightener.” This Ouranos is, by Sanchuniathon, the Phoenician, called the son of Elioun–i.e., as he himself, or Philo-Byblius, interprets the name, “The Most High.” (SANCH) Ouranos, in the physical sense, is “The Shiner”; and by Hesychius it is made equivalent to Kronos, which also has the same meaning, for Krn, the verb from which it comes, signifies either “to put forth horns,” or “to send forth rays of light”; and, therefore, while the epithet Kronos, or “The Horned One,” had primarily reference to the physical power of Nimrod as a “mighty” king; when that king was deified, and made “Lord of Heaven,” that name, Kronos, was still applied to him in his new character as “The Shiner or Lightgiver.” The distinction made by Hesiod between Ouranos and Kronos, is no argument against the real substantial identity of these divinities originally as Pagan divinities; for Herodotus states that Hesiod had a hand in “inventing a theogony” for the Greeks, which implies that some at least of the details of that theogony must have come from his own fancy; and, on examination, it will be found, when the veil of allegory is removed, that Hesiod’s “Ouranos,” though introduced as one of the Pagan gods, was really at bottom the “God of Heaven,” the living and true God.

In this very character was Nimrod worshipped when he was deified. As the Sun-god he was regarded not only as the illuminator of the material world, but as the enlightener of the souls of men, for he was recognised as the revealer of “goodness and truth.” It is evident, from the Old Testament, not less than the New, that the proper and personal name of our Lord Jesus Christ is, “The Word of God,” as the Revealer of the heart and counsels of the Godhead.

Figure 42

Now, to identify the Sun-god with the Great Revealer of the Godhead, while under the name of Mithra, he was exhibited in sculpture as a Lion; that Lion had a Bee represented between his lips (see figure 42). The bee between the lips of the sun-god was intended to point him out as “the Word”; for Dabar, the expression which signifies in Chaldee a “Bee,” signifies also a “Word”; and the position of that bee in the mouth leaves no doubt as to the idea intended to be conveyed. It was intended to impress the belief that Mithra (who, says Plutarch, was worshipped as Mesites, “The Mediator”), in his character as Ouranos, “The Enlightener,” was no other than that glorious one of whom the Evangelist John says,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God…In Him was life; and the life was THE LIGHT OF MEN.“

The Lord Jesus Christ ever was the revealer of the Godhead, and must have been known to the patriarchs as such; for the same Evangelist says, “No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared,” that is, He hath revealed “Him.” Before the Saviour came, the ancient Jews commonly spoke of the Messiah, or the Son of God, under the name of Dabar, or the “Word.” This will appear from a consideration of what is stated in the 3rd chapter of 1st Samuel. In the first verse of that chapter it is said,

“The WORD of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision,”

that is, in consequence of the sin of Eli, the Lord had not, for a long time, revealed Himself in vision to him, as He did to the prophets. When the Lord had called Samuel, this “vision” of the God of Israel was restored (though not to Eli), for it is said in the last verse (v 21),

“And the Lord APPEARED again in Shiloh; for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel by the WORD of the Lord.“

Although the Lord spake to Samuel, this language implies more than speech, for it is said, “The LORD appeared“–i.e., was seen. When the Lord revealed Himself, or was seen by Samuel, it is said that it was “by (Dabar) the Word of the Lord.” The “Word of the Lord” to be visible, must have been the personal “Word of God,” that is, Christ. *

* After the Babylonish captivity, as the Chaldee Targums or Paraphrases of the Old Testament show, Christ was commonly called by the title “The Word of the Lord.” In these Targums of later Chaldee, the term for “The Word” is “Mimra”; but this word, though a synonym for that which is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, is never used there. Dabar is the word employed. This is so well recognised that, in the Hebrew translation of John’s Gospel in Bagster’s Polyglott, the first verse runs thus: “In the beginning was the Word (Dabar).”

This had evidently been a primitive name by which He was known; and therefore it is not wonderful that Plato should speak of the second person of his Trinity under the name of the Logos, which is just a translation of “Dabar,” or “the Word.” Now, the light of the wax-candle, as the light from Dabar, “the Bee,” was set up as the substitute of the light of Dabar, “the Word.” Thus the apostates turned away from the “True Light,” and set up a shadow in His stead. That this was really the case is plain; for, says Crabb, speaking of Saturn, “on his altars were placed wax-tapers lighted, because by Saturn men were reduced from the darkness of error to the light of truth.” In Asiatic Greece, the Babylonian god was evidently recognised as the Light-giving “Word,” for there we find the Bee occupying such a position as makes it very clear that it was a symbol of the great Revealer. Thus we find Muller referring to the symbols connected with the worship of the Ephesian Diana: “Her constant symbol is the bee, which is not otherwise attributed to Diana…The chief priest himself was called Essen, or the king-bee.” The character of the chief priest shows the character of the god he represented. The contemplar divinity of Diana, the tower-bearing goddess, was of course the same divinity as invariably accompanied the Babylonian goddess: and this title of the priest shows that the Bee which appeared on her medals was just another symbol for her child, as the “Seed of the Woman,” in his assumed character, as Dabar, “The Word” that enlightened the souls of men. That this is the precise “Mystery” couched under the wax-candles burning on the altars of the Papacy, we have very remarkable evidence from its own formularies; for, in the very same place in which the “Mystery” of the wax-candle is spoken of, thus does Rome refer to the Bee, by which the wax is produced: “Forasmuch as we do marvellously wonder, in considering the first beginning of this substance, to wit, wax-tapers, then must we of necessity greatly extol the original of Bees, for…they gather the flowers with their feet, yet the flowers are not injured thereby; they bring forth no young ones, but deliver their young swarms through their mouths, like as Christ (for a wonderful example) is proceeded from His Father’s MOUTH.” *

* Review of Epistle of DR. GENTIANUS HARVET of Louvaine. This work, which is commonly called The Beehive of the Roman Church, contains the original Latin of the passage translated above. The passage in question is to be found in at least two Roman Missals, which, however, are now very rare–viz., one printed at Vienna in 1506, with which the quotation in the text has been compared and verified; and one printed at Venice in 1522. These dates are antecedent to the establishment of the Reformation; and it appears that this passage was expunged from subsequent editions, as being unfit to stand the searching scrutiny to which everything in regard to religion was subjected in consequence of that great event. The ceremonial of blessing the candles, however, which has no place in the Pontificale Romanum in the Edinburgh Advocates’ Library, is to be found in the Pontificale Romanum, Venice, 1542, and in Pontificale Romanum, Venice, 1572. In the ceremony of blessing the candles, given in the Roman Missal, printed at Paris, 1677, there is great praise of the Bee, strongly resembling the passage quoted in the text. The introduction of such an extraordinary formula into a religious ceremony is of very ancient date, and is distinctly traced to an Italian source; for, in the words of the Popish Bishop Ennodius, who occupied an Italian diocese in the sixth century, we find the counterpart of that under consideration. Thus, in a prayer in regard to the “Easter Candle,” the reason for offering up the wax-candle is expressly declared to be, because that through means of the bees that produce the wax of which it is made, “earth has an image of what is PECULIAR TO HEAVEN,” and that in regard to the very subject of GENERATION; the bees being able, “through the virtue of herbs, to pour forth their young through their MOUTHS with less waste of time than all other creatures do in the ordinary way.” This prayer contains the precise idea of the prayer in the text; and there is only one way of accounting for the origin of such an idea. It must have come from a Chaldean Liturgy.

Here it is evident that Christ is referred to as the “Word of God”; and how could any imagination ever have conceived such a parallel as is contained in this passage, had it not been for the equivoque [wordplay, double meaning] between “Dabar,” “the Bee,” and “Dabar,” “The Word.”

In a Popish work already quoted, the Pancarpium Marianum, I find the Lord Jesus expressly called by the name of the Bee. Referring to Mary, under the title of “The Paradise of Delight,” the author thus speaks: “In this Paradise that celestial Bee, that is, the incarnate Wisdom, did feed. Here it found that dropping honeycomb, with which the whole bitterness of the corrupted world has been turned into sweetness.” This blasphemously represents the Lord Jesus as having derived everything necessary to bless the world from His mother! Could this ever have come from the Bible? No. It must have come only from the source where the writer learned to call “the incarnate Wisdom” by the name of the Bee. Now, as the equivoque from which such a name applied to the Lord Jesus springs, is founded only on the Babylonian tongue, it shows whence his theology has come, and it proves also to demonstration that this whole prayer about the blessing of wax-candles must have been drawn from a Babylonian prayer-book. Surely, at every step, the reader must see more and more the exactitude of the Divine name given to the woman on the seven mountains, “Mystery, Babylon the Great“! 

Section VI — The Sign of the Cross

There is yet one more symbol of the Romish worship to be noticed, and that is the sign of the cross. In the Papal system as is well known, the sign of the cross and the image of the cross are all in all. No prayer can be said, no worship engaged in, no step almost can be taken, without the frequent use of the sign of the cross. The cross is looked upon as the grand charm, as the great refuge in every season of danger, in every hour of temptation as the infallible preservative from all the powers of darkness. The cross is adored with all the homage due only to the Most High; and for any one to call it, in the hearing of a genuine Romanist, by the Scriptural term, “the accursed tree,” is a mortal offence. To say that such superstitious feeling for the sign of the cross, such worship as Rome pays to a wooden or a metal cross, ever grew out of the saying of Paul, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ“–that is, in the doctrine of Christ crucified–is a mere absurdity, a shallow subterfuge and pretence. The magic virtues attributed to the so-called sign of the cross, the worship bestowed on it, never came from such a source. The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian Mysteries, was applied by Paganism to the same magic purposes, was honoured with the same honours. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians–the true original form of the letter T–the initial of the name of Tammuz–which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, as found on coins, was formed as in No. 1 of the accompanying woodcut (see figure 43); and in Etrurian and Coptic, as in Nos. 2 and 3. That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, * and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol.

* TERTULLIAN, De Proescript. Hoeret. The language of Tertullian implies that those who were initiated by baptism in the Mysteries were marked on the forehead in the same way, as his Christian countrymen in Africa, who had begun by this time to be marked in baptism with the sign of the cross.

Figure 43

To identify Tammuz with the sun it was joined sometimes to the circle of the sun, as in the forth symbol of figure 43; sometimes it was inserted in the circle, as in the fifth symbol of figure 43. Whether the Maltese cross, which the Romish bishops append to their names as a symbol of their episcopal dignity, is the letter T, may be doubtful; but there seems no reason to doubt that that Maltese cross is an express symbol of the sun; for Layard found it as a sacred symbol in Nineveh in such a connection as led him to identify it with the sun. The mystic Tau, as the symbol of the great divinity, was called “the sign of life”; it was used as an amulet over the heart; it was marked on the official garments of the priests, as on the official garments of the priests of Rome; it was borne by kings in their hand, as a token of their dignity or divinely-conferred authority. The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now. The Egyptians did the same, and many of the barbarous nations with whom they had intercourse, as the Egyptian monuments bear witness. In reference to the adorning of some of these tribes, Wilkinson thus writes: “The girdle was sometimes highly ornamented; men as well as women wore earrings; and they frequently had a small cross suspended to a necklace, or to the collar of their dress. The adoption of this last was not peculiar to them; it was also appended to, or figured upon, the robes of the Rot-n-no; and traces of it may be seen in the fancy ornaments of the Rebo, showing that it was already in use as early as the fifteenth century before the Christian era.” (see figure 44 below).

Figure 44

There is hardly a Pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the incarnation and death of Christ. “It is a fact,” says Maurice, “not less remarkable than well-attested, that the Druids in their groves were accustomed to select the most stately and beautiful tree as an emblem of the Deity they adored, and having cut the side branches, they affixed two of the largest of them to the highest part of the trunk, in such a manner that those branches extended on each side like the arms of a man, and, together with the body, presented the appearance of a HUGE CROSS, and on the bark, in several places, was also inscribed the letter Thau.” It was worshipped in Mexico for ages before the Roman Catholic missionaries set foot there, large stone crosses being erected, probably to the “god of rain.” The cross thus widely worshipped, or regarded as a sacred emblem, was the unequivocal symbol of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah, for he was represented with a head-band covered with crosses (see figure 45 below).

Figure 45

This symbol of the Babylonian god is reverenced at this day in all the wide wastes of Tartary, where Buddhism prevails, and the way in which it is represented among them forms a striking commentary on the language applied by Rome to the Cross. “The cross,” says Colonel Wilford, in the Asiatic Researches, “though not an object of worship among the Baud’has or Buddhists, is a favourite emblem and device among them. It is exactly the cross of the Manicheans, with leaves and flowers springing from it. This cross, putting forth leaves and flowers (and fruit also, as I am told), is called the divine tree, the tree of the gods, the tree of life and knowledge, and productive of whatever is good and desirable, and is placed in the terrestrial paradise.” (see figure 46). Compare this with the language of Rome applied to the cross, and it will be seen how exact is the coincidence. In the Office of the Cross, it is called the “Tree of life,” and the worshippers are taught thus to address it: “Hail, O Cross, triumphal wood, true salvation of the world, among trees there is none like thee in leaf, flower, and bud…O Cross, our only hope, increase righteousness to the godly and pardon the offences of the guilty.” *

* The above was actually versified by the Romanisers in the Church of England, and published along with much besides from the same source, some years ago, in a volume entitled Devotions on the Passion. The London Record, of April, 1842, gave the following as a specimen of the “Devotions” provided by these “wolves in sheep’s clothing” for members of the Church of England:–

“O faithful cross, thou peerless tree,
No forest yields the like of thee,
Leaf, flower, and bud;
Sweet is the wood, and sweet the weight,
And sweet the nails that penetrate
Thee, thou sweet wood.”

Figure 46

Can any one, reading the gospel narrative of the crucifixion, possibly believe that that narrative of itself could ever germinate into such extravagance of “leaf, flower, and bud,” as thus appears in this Roman Office? But when it is considered that the Buddhist, like the Babylonian cross, was the recognised emblem of Tammuz, who was known as the mistletoe branch, or “All-heal,” then it is easy to see how the sacred Initial should be represented as covered with leaves, and how Rome, in adopting it, should call it the “Medicine which preserves the healthful, heals the sick, and does what mere human power alone could never do.”

Now, this Pagan symbol seems first to have crept into the Christian Church in Egypt, and generally into Africa. A statement of Tertullian, about the middle of the third century, shows how much, by that time, the Church of Carthage was infected with the old leaven. Egypt especially, which was never thoroughly evangelised, appears to have taken the lead in bringing in this Pagan symbol. The first form of that which is called the Christian Cross, found on Christian monuments there, is the unequivocal Pagan Tau, or Egyptian “Sign of life.” Let the reader peruse the following statement of Sir G. Wilkinson: “A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it in lieu of the cross, which was afterwards substituted for it, prefixing it to inscriptions in the same manner as the cross in later times. For, though Dr. Young had some scruples in believing the statement of Sir A. Edmonstone, that it holds that position in the sepulchres of the great Oasis, I can attest that such is the case, and that numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments.” The drift of this statement is evidently this, that in Egypt the earliest form of that which has since been called the cross, was no other than the “Crux Ansata,” or “Sign of life,” borne by Osiris and all the Egyptian gods; that the ansa or “handle” was afterwards dispensed with, and that it became the simple Tau, or ordinary cross, as it appears at this day, and that the design of its first employment on the sepulchres, therefore, could have no reference to the crucifixion of the Nazarene, but was simply the result of the attachment to old and long-cherished Pagan symbols, which is always strong in those who, with the adoption of the Christian name and profession, are still, to a large extent, Pagan in heart and feeling. This, and this only, is the origin of the worship of the “cross.”

This, no doubt, will appear all very strange and very incredible to those who have read Church history, as most have done to a large extent, even amongst Protestants, through Romish spectacles; and especially to those who call to mind the famous story told of the miraculous appearance of the cross to Constantine on the day before the decisive victory at the Milvian bridge, that decided the fortunes of avowed Paganism and nominal Christianity. That story, as commonly told, if true, would certainly give a Divine sanction to the reverence for the cross. But that story, when sifted to the bottom, according to the common version of it, will be found to be based on a delusion–a delusion, however, into which so good a man as Milner has allowed himself to fall. Milner’s account is as follows: “Constantine, marching from France into Italy against Maxentius, in an expedition which was likely either to exalt or to ruin him, was oppressed with anxiety. Some god he thought needful to protect him; the God of the Christians he was most inclined to respect, but he wanted some satisfactory proof of His real existence and power, and he neither understood the means of acquiring this, nor could he be content with the atheistic indifference in which so many generals and heroes since his time have acquiesced. He prayed, he implored with such vehemence and importunity, and God left him not unanswered. While he was marching with his forces in the afternoon, the trophy of the cross appeared very luminous in the heavens, brighter than the sun, with this inscription, ‘Conquer by this.’ He and his soldiers were astonished at the sight; but he continued pondering on the event till night. And Christ appeared to him when asleep with the same sign of the cross, and directed him to make use of the symbol as his military ensign.” Such is the statement of Milner.

Now, in regard to the “trophy of the cross,” a few words will suffice to show that it is utterly unfounded. I do not think it necessary to dispute the fact of some miraculous sign having been given. There may, or there may not, have been on this occasion a “dignus vindice nodus,” a crisis worthy of a Divine interposition. Whether, however, there was anything out of the ordinary course, I do not inquire. But this I say, on the supposition that Constantine in this matter acted in good faith, and that there actually was a miraculous appearance in the heavens, that it as not the sign of the cross that was seen, but quite a different thing, the name of Christ. That this was the case, we have at once the testimony of Lactantius, who was the tutor of Constantine’s son Crispus–the earliest author who gives any account of the matter, and the indisputable evidence of the standards of Constantine themselves, as handed down to us on medals struck at the time. The testimony of Lactantius is most decisive: “Constantine was warned in a dream to make the celestial sign of God upon his solders’ shields, and so to join battle. He did as he was bid, and with the transverse letter X circumflecting the head of it, he marks Christ on their shields. Equipped with this sign, his army takes the sword.” Now, the letter X was just the initial of the name of Christ, being equivalent in Greek to CH. If, therefore, Constantine did as he was bid, when he made “the celestial sign of God” in the form of “the letter X,” it was that “letter X,” as the symbol of “Christ” and not the sign of the cross, which he saw in the heavens. When the Labarum, or far-famed standard of Constantine itself, properly so called, was made, we have the evidence of Ambrose, the well-known Bishop of Milan, that that standard was formed on the very principle contained in the statement of Lactantius–viz., simply to display the Redeemer’s name. He calls it “Labarum, hoc est Christi sacratum nomine signum.”–“The Labarum, that is, the ensign consecrated by the NAME of Christ.” *

* Epistle of Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius about the proposal to restore the Pagan altar of Victory in the Roman Senate. The subject of the Labarum has been much confused through ignorance of the meaning of the word. Bryant assumes (and I was myself formerly led away by the assumption) that it was applied to the standard bearing the crescent and the cross, but he produces no evidence for the assumption; and I am now satisfied that none can be produced. The name Labarum, which is generally believed to have come from the East, treated as an Oriental word, gives forth its meaning at once. It evidently comes from Lab, “to vibrate,” or “move to and fro,” and ar “to be active.” Interpreted thus, Labarum signifies simply a banner or flag, “waving to and fro” in the wind, and this entirely agrees with the language of Ambrose “an ensign consecrated by the name of Christ,” which implies a banner.

There is not the slightest allusion to any cross–to anything but the simple name of Christ. While we have these testimonies of Lactantius and Ambrose, when we come to examine the standard of Constantine, we find the accounts of both authors fully borne out; we find that that standard, bearing on it these very words, “Hoc signo victor eris,” “In this sign thou shalt be a conqueror,” said to have been addressed from heaven to the emperor, has nothing at all in the shape of a cross, but “the letter X.” In the Roman Catacombs, on a Christian monument to “Sinphonia and her sons,” there is a distinct allusion to the story of the vision; but that allusion also shows that the X, and not the cross, was regarded as the “heavenly sign.” The words at the head of the inscription are these: “In Hoc Vinces [In this thou shalt overcome] X.” Nothing whatever but the X is here given as the “Victorious Sign.” There are some examples, no doubt, of Constantine’s standard, in which there is a cross-bar, from which the flag is suspended, that contains that “letter X”; and Eusebius, who wrote when superstition and apostacy were working, tries hard to make it appear that that cross-bar was the essential element in the ensign of Constantine. But this is obviously a mistake; that cross-bar was nothing new, nothing peculiar to Constantine’s standard. Tertullian shows that that cross-bar was found long before on the vexillum, the Roman Pagan standard, that carried a flag; and it was used simply for the purpose of displaying that flag.

If, therefore, that cross-bar was the “celestial sign,” it needed no voice from heaven to direct Constantine to make it; nor would the making or displaying of it have excited any particular attention on the part of those who saw it. We find no evidence at all that the famous legend, “In this overcome,” has any reference to this cross-bar; but we find evidence the most decisive that that legend does refer to the X. Now, that that X was not intended as the sign of the cross, but as the initial of Christ’s name, is manifest from this, that the Greek P, equivalent to our R, is inserted in the middle of it, making by their union CHR. The standard of Constantine, then, was just the name of Christ. Whether the device came from earth or from heaven–whether it was suggested by human wisdom or Divine, supposing that Constantine was sincere in his Christian profession, nothing more was implied in it than a literal embodiment of the sentiment of the Psalmist, “In the name of the Lord will we display our banners.” To display that name on the standards of Imperial Rome was a thing absolutely new; and the sight of that name, there can be little doubt, nerved the Christian soldiers in Constantine’s army with more than usual fire to fight and conquer at the Milvian bridge.

In the above remarks I have gone on the supposition that Constantine acted in good faith as a Christian. His good faith, however, has been questioned; and I am not without my suspicions that the X may have been intended to have one meaning to the Christians and another to the Pagans. It is certain that the X was the symbol of the god Ham in Egypt, and as such was exhibited on the breast of his image. Whichever view be taken, however, of Constantine’s sincerity, the supposed Divine warrant for reverencing the sign of the cross entirely falls to the ground. In regard to the X, there is no doubt that, by the Christians who knew nothing of secret plots or devices, it was generally taken, as Lactantius declares, as equivalent to the name of “Christ.” In this view, therefore, it had no very great attractions for the Pagans, who, even in worshipping Horus, had always been accustomed to make use of the mystic tau or cross, as the “sign of life,” or the magical charm that secured all that was good, and warded off everything that was evil. When, therefore, multitudes of the Pagans, on the conversion of Constantine, flocked into the Church, like the semi-Pagans of Egypt, they brought along with them their predilection for the old symbol. The consequence was, that in no great length of time, as apostacy proceeded, the X which in itself was not an unnatural symbol of Christ, the true Messiah, and which had once been regarded as such, was allowed to go entirely into disuse, and the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah, was everywhere substituted in its stead. Thus, by the “sign of the cross,” Christ has been crucified anew by those who profess to be His disciples. Now, if these things be matter of historic fact, who can wonder that, in the Romish Church, “the sign of the cross” has always and everywhere been seen to be such an instrument of rank superstition and delusion?

There is more, much more, in the rites and ceremonies of Rome that might be brought to elucidate our subject. But the above may suffice. *

* If the above remarks be well founded, surely it cannot be right that this sign of the cross, or emblem of Tammuz, should be used in Christian baptism. At the period of the Revolution, a Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, numbering among its members eight or ten bishops, strongly recommended that the use of the cross, as tending to superstition, should be laid aside. If such a recommendation was given then, and that by such authority as members of the Church of England must respect, how much ought that recommendation to be enforced by the new light which Providence has cast on the subject!

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter VI. Section I — The Sovereign Pontiff

All chapters of The Two Babylons

This is the continuation of Section IV — Extreme Unction

“Extreme unction,” however, to a burdened soul, was but a miserable resource, after all, in the prospect of death. No wonder, therefore, that something else was found to be needed by those who had received all that priestly assumption could pretend to confer, to comfort them in the prospect of eternity. In every system, therefore, except that of the Bible, the doctrine of a purgatory after death, and prayers for the dead, has always been found to occupy a place. Go wherever we may, in ancient or modern times, we shall find that Paganism leaves hope after death for sinners, who, at the time of their departure, were consciously unfit for the abodes of the blest. For this purpose a middle state has been feigned, in which, by means of purgatorial pains, guilt unremoved in time may in a future world be purged away, and the soul be made meet for final beatitude. In Greece the doctrine of a purgatory was inculcated by the very chief of the philosophers. Thus Plato, speaking of the future judgment of the dead, holds out the hope of final deliverance for all, but maintains that, of “those who are judged,” “some” must first “proceed to a subterranean place of judgment, where they shall sustain the punishment they have deserved“; while others, in consequence of a favourable judgment, being elevated at once into a certain celestial place, “shall pass their time in a manner becoming the life they have lived in a human shape.” In Pagan Rome, purgatory was equally held up before the minds of men; but there, there seems to have been no hope held out to any of exemption from its pains. Therefore, Virgil, describing its different tortures, thus speaks:

“Nor can the grovelling mind,
In the dark dungeon of the limbs confined,
Assert the native skies, or own its heavenly kind.
Nor death itself can wholly wash their stains;
But long-contracted filth, even in the soul, remains
The relics of inveterate vice they wear,
And spots of sin obscene in every face appear.
For this are various penances enjoined;
And some are hung to bleach upon the wind,
Some plunged in water, others purged in fires,
Till all the dregs are drained, and all the rust expires.
All have their Manes, and those Manes bear.
The few so cleansed to these abodes repair,
And breathe in ample fields the soft Elysian air,
Then are they happy, when by length of time
The scurf is worn away of each committed crime.
No speck is left of their habitual stains,
But the pure ether of the soul remains.”

In Egypt, substantially the same doctrine of purgatory was inculcated. But when once this doctrine of purgatory was admitted into the popular mind, then the door was opened for all manner of priestly extortions. Prayers for the dead ever go hand in hand with purgatory; but no prayers can be completely efficacious without the interposition of the priests; and no priestly functions can be rendered unless there be special pay for them. Therefore, in every land we find the Pagan priesthood “devouring widows’ houses,” and making merchandise of the tender feelings of sorrowing relatives, sensitively alive to the immortal happiness of the beloved dead. From all quarters there is one universal testimony as to the burdensome character and the expense of these posthumous devotions. One of the oppressions under which the poor Romanists in Ireland groan, is the periodical special devotions, for which they are required to pay, when death has carried away one of the inmates of their dwelling. Not only are there funeral services and funeral dues for the repose of the departed, at the time of burial, but the priest pays repeated visits to the family for the same purpose, which entail heavy expense, beginning with what is called “the month’s mind,” that is, a service in behalf of the deceased when a month after death has elapsed. Something entirely similar to this had evidently been the case in ancient Greece; for, says Muller in his History of the Dorians, “the Argives sacrificed on the thirtieth day [after death] to Mercury as the conductor of the dead.” In India many and burdensome are the services of the Sradd’ha, or funeral obsequies for the repose of the dead; and for securing the due efficacy of these, it is inculcated that “donations of cattle, land, gold, silver, and other things,” should be made by the man himself at the approach of death; or, “if he be too weak, by another in his name” (Asiatic Researches). Wherever we look, the case is nearly the same.

In Tartary, “The Gurjumi, or prayers for the dead,” says the Asiatic Journal, “are very expensive.” In Greece, says Suidas, “the greatest and most expensive sacrifice was the mysterious sacrifice called the Telete,” a sacrifice which, according to Plato, “was offered for the living and the dead, and was supposed to free them from all the evils to which the wicked are liable when they have left this world.” In Egypt the exactions of the priests for funeral dues and masses for the dead were far from being trifling. “The priests,” says Wilkinson, “induced the people to expend large sums on the celebration of funeral rites; and many who had barely sufficient to obtain the necessaries of life were anxious to save something for the expenses of their death. For, beside the embalming process, which sometimes cost a talent of silver, or about 250 pounds English money, the tomb itself was purchased at an immense expense; and numerous demands were made upon the estate of the deceased, for the celebration of prayer and other services for the soul.” “The ceremonies,” we find him elsewhere saying, “consisted of a sacrifice similar to those offered in the temples, vowed for the deceased to one or more gods (as Osisris, Anubis, and others connected with Amenti); incense and libation were also presented; and a prayer was sometimes read, the relations and friends being present as mourners. They even joined their prayers to those of the priest. The priest who officiated at the burial service was selected from the grade of Pontiffs, who wore the leopard skin; but various other rites were performed by one of the minor priests to the mummies, previous to their being lowered into the pit of the tomb after that ceremony. Indeed, they continued to be administered at intervals, as long as the family paid for their performance.” Such was the operation of the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead among avowed and acknowledged Pagans; and in what essential respect does it differ from the operation of the same doctrine in Papal Rome? There are the same extortions in the one as there were in the other. The doctrine of purgatory is purely Pagan, and cannot for a moment stand in the light of Scripture. For those who die in Christ no purgatory is, or can be, needed; for

“the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth from ALL sin.“

If this be true, where can there be the need for any other cleansing? On the other hand, for those who die without personal union to Christ, and consequently unwashed, unjustified, unsaved, there can be no other cleansing; for, while “he that hath the son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life,” and never can have it. Search the Scripture through, and it will be found that, in regard to all who “die in their sins,” the decree of God is irreversible: “Let him that is unjust be unjust still, and let him that is filthy be filthy still.” Thus the whole doctrine of purgatory is a system of pure bare-faced Pagan imposture, dishonouring to God, deluding men who live in sin with the hope of atoning for it after death, and cheating them at once out of their property and their salvation. In the Pagan purgatory, fire, water, wind, were represented (as may be seen from the lines of Virgil) as combining to purge away the stain of sin. In the purgatory of the Papacy, ever since the days of Pope Gregory, FIRE itself has been the grand means of purgation (Catechismus Romanus). Thus, while the purgatorial fires of the future world are just the carrying out of the principle embodied in the blazing and purifying Baal-fires of the eve of St. John, they form another link in identifying the system of Rome with the system of Tammuz or Zoroaster, the great God of the ancient fire-worshippers.

Now, if baptismal regeneration, justification by works, penance as a satisfaction to God’s justice, the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, extreme unction, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, were all derived from Babylon, how justly may the general system of Rome be styled Babylonian? And if the account already given be true, what thanks ought we to render to God, that, from a system such as this, we were set free at the blessed Reformation! How great a boon is it to be delivered from trusting in such refuges of lies as could no more take away sin than the blood of bulls or of goats! How blessed to feel that the blood of the Lamb, applied by the Spirit of God to the most defiled conscience, completely purges it from dead works and from sin! How fervent ought our gratitude to be, when we know that, in all our trials and distresses, we may come boldly unto the throne of grace, in the name of no creature, but of God’s eternal and well-beloved Son; and that that Son is exhibited as a most tender and compassionate high priest, who is TOUCHED with a feeling of our infirmities, having been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Surely the thought of all this, while inspiring tender compassion for the deluded slaves of Papal tyranny, ought to make us ourselves stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and quit ourselves like men, that neither we nor our children may ever again be entangled in the yoke of bondage.

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter V. Section I — Idol Processions

All chapters of The Two Babylons

This is the next chapter after Section III — The Sacrifice of the Mass

The last office which Popery performs for living men is to give them “extreme unction,” to anoint them in the name of the Lord, after they have been shriven and absolved, and thus to prepare them for their last and unseen journey. The pretence for this “unction” of dying men is professedly taken from a command of James in regard to the visitation of the sick; but when the passage in question is fairly quoted it will be seen that such a practice could never have arisen from the apostolic direction–that it must have come from an entirely different source.

“Is any sick among you?” says James (v 14,15), “let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall RAISE HIM UP.“

Now, it is evident that this prayer and anointing were intended for the recovery of the sick. Apostolic men, for the laying of the foundations of the Christian Church, were, by their great King and Head, invested with miraculous powers–powers which were intended only for a time, and were destined, as the apostles themselves declared, while exercising them, to “vanish away” (1 Cor 13:8). These powers were every day exercised by the “elders of the Church,” when James wrote his epistle, and that for healing the bodies of men, even as our Lord Himself did. The “extreme unction” of Rome, as the very expression itself declares, is not intended for any such purpose. It is not intended for healing the sick, or “raising them up“; for it is not on any account to be administered till all hope of recovery is gone, and death is visibly at the very doors. As the object of this anointing is the very opposite of the Scriptural anointing, it must have come from a quite different quarter. That quarter is the very same from which the Papacy has imported so much heathenism, as we have seen already, into its own foul bosom. From the Chaldean Mysteries, extreme unction has obviously come. Among the many names of the Babylonian god was the name “Beel-samen,” “Lord of Heaven,” which is the name of the sun, but also of course of the sun-god. But Beel-samen also properly signifies “Lord of Oil,” and was evidently intended as a synonym of the Divine name, “The Messiah.” In Herodotus we find a statement made which this name alone can fully explain. There an individual is represented as having dreamt that the sun had anointed her father. That the sun should anoint any one is certainly not an idea that could naturally have presented itself; but when the name “Beel-samen,” “Lord of Heaven,” is seen also to signify “Lord of Oil,” it is easy to see how that idea would be suggested. This also accounts for the fact that the body of the Babylonian Belus was represented as having been preserved in his sepulchre in Babylon till the time of Xerxes, floating in oil (CLERICUS, Philosoph. Orient.). And for the same reason, no doubt, it was that at Rome the “statue of Saturn” was “made hollow, and filled with oil” (SMITH’S Classical Dictionary).

The olive branch, which we have already seen to have been one of the symbols of the Chaldean god, had evidently the same hieroglyphical meaning; for, as the olive was the oil-tree, so an olive branch emblematically signified a “son of oil,” or an “anointed one” (Zech 4:12-14). Hence the reason that the Greeks, in coming before their gods in the attitude of suppliants deprecating their wrath and entreating their favour, came to the temple on many occasions bearing an olive branch in their hands. As the olive branch was one of the recognised symbols of their Messiah, whose great mission it was to make peace between God and man, so, in bearing this branch of the anointed one, they thereby testified that in the name of that anointed one they came seeking peace. Now, the worshippers of this Beel-samen, “Lord of Heaven,” and “Lord of Oil,” were anointed in the name of their god. It was not enough that they were anointed with “spittle”; they were also anointed with “magical ointments” of the most powerful kind; and these ointments were the means of introducing into their bodily systems such drugs as tended to excite their imaginations and add to the power of the magical drinks they received, that they might be prepared for the visions and revelations that were to be made to them in the Mysteries.

These “unctions,” says Salverte, “were exceedingly frequent in the ancient ceremonies…Before consulting the oracle of Trophonius, they were rubbed with oil over the whole body. This preparation certainly concurred to produce the desired vision. Before being admitted to the Mysteries of the Indian sages, Apollonius and his companion were rubbed with an oil so powerful that they felt as if bathed with fire.” This was professedly an unction in the name of the “Lord of Heaven,” to fit and prepare them for being admitted in vision into his awful presence. The very same reason that suggested such an unction before initiation on this present scene of things, would naturally plead more powerfully still for a special “unction” when the individual was called, not in vision, but in reality, to face the “Mystery of mysteries,” his personal introduction into the world unseen and eternal. Thus the Pagan system naturally developed itself into “extreme unction” (Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, January, 1853). Its votaries were anointed for their last journey, that by the double influence of superstition and powerful stimulants introduced into the frame by the only way in which it might then be possible, their minds might be fortified at once against the sense of guilt and the assaults of the king of terrors. From this source, and this alone, there can be no doubt came the “extreme unction” of the Papacy, which was entirely unknown among Christians till corruption was far advanced in the Church. *

* Bishop GIBSON says that it was not known in the Church for a thousand years. (Preservative against Popery)

Continued in Section V — Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

All chapters of The Two Babylons

Foreword from the Webmaster: In Appendix F, the author presents a powerful argument, in my opinion, of submitting that the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church is the False Prophet of Revelation chapter 13! It’s based on documents of what the priests have taught. It’s so shocking to hear that Catholic priests think they have more power and authority than God Almighty!!!

THE Word of God warned the early Christians to expect an apostasy, or sliding away, from primitive truth; which apostasy was at work in Paul’s days, but was restrained for a time by the then regnant power of the Caesars. On the removal of this hindrance to complete development, there would be revealed, within the professing Christian body, a class of men opposing, and exalting itself against, all mundane powers and objects of reverence, insomuch that it should actually put forth claims to divinity. It was to foster celibacy and fasting. In the Apocalypse this class of man is styled “The False Prophet,” in outward appearance lamb-like, inwardly and in speech anti-Christian and intolerant, as well as self-exalting and blasphemous. In the present day this class of men are conspicuous by their arrogant claims and immense self-exaltation—though it is the fashion amongst politicians, pressmen, and society people to regard them all as “earnest and devoted workers” in the cause of Christ, thus adding insult to injury.

Let me just give a few instances of this self-exaltation, and then let well-meaning but unthinking neo-evangelicals ask themselves whether “The False Prophet” is not in their midst, masquerading as a lamb?*

* Hermes condemns the “false prophet” of his own day (2nd cent.), “who, seemingly to have the spirit, exalts himself and would fain have the first seat” (Lightfoot, on “The Christian Ministry,” p. 219).

(1) “The Canonized Saint” Liguori, whose published works have been declared by the Papacy to be without cause of censure, in his “Selva,” declares that “the priest of God is exalted above all earthly sovereignties and above all celestial heights”; and that “the death of Christ has been necessary to institute the priesthood,” not “to save the world.” (Ed. What a horrible lie!)

(2) “The priest,” says Liguori, “has the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of Paradise, and of changing them from slaves of Satan into children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests.”

(3) “If the Person of the Redeemer had not as yet been in the world, the priest, by pronouncing the words of consecration, would produce this great Person of a Man-God.”

(4) “Hence, priests are called the parents of Jesus Christ. For they are the active cause by which He is made to exist . . . thus the priest may . . . be called the Creator of his Creator.’

(5) “Who is it that has an arm like the arm of God, and thunders with a voice like the thundering Voice of God? It is the priest.”

(6) Canon Doyle, parish priest of Arthurstown, in 1895, published in “The People,” of Wexford, “The Dignity of the Priesthood,” in which he repeated Liguori’s dicta, and added a few others. Thus he declares that “he who insults a priest, insults Christ”; that “by a single mass he gives greater honor to God than all the angels and saints have or shall give”; that “in obedience to the words of priests God Himself comes whenever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies.” “Having come, He remains entirely at their disposal; they move Him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the church. They may, if they choose, eat His flesh, and give Him for the food of others.” “The sacerdotal dignity is the most noble of all dignities in the world. The power of the priest extends to spiritual goods, and to the human soul. The kings of the earth glory in honoring priests. They willingly bend their knee before the priest. They kiss his hands. The dignity of the priesthood surpasses even that of the angels. The word of the priest created Jesus Christ. The priesthood is called the Seat of the Saints. Priests hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth. Priests are the representatives of the Person of God on earth. What God alone can do by His omnipotence, the priest can also do.”

The “Very Reverend Father Provincial,” of the C.S.S.R., preaching at the Church of the Most Precious Blood, Edmonton, said: “Day by day, as Holy Mass was said, Jesus Christ came down upon the Altar in hundreds and thousands of Churches just as truly as He did on the first Christmas morning” (“Catholic Times,” 3-3-1905).

Father J. Furniss, C.S.S.A., in “God and His Creatures.” Permissu Superiorum, under “The First Communion” (p. 556), says: “See that child. In three minutes the Lord God Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, will be in that child.”

Cardinal Mercier defined the Papacy as “the accepted and cherished supremacy of one Conscience over all other Consciences, of one Will over all other Wills” (see Rev. xiii. 12).

(7) In a sermon preached by a Bavarian priest named Kinzelmann, in 1872, he said: “We priests stand as far above the emperors, kings, and princes as the heaven is above the earth. Angels and Archangels stand beneath us. We occupy a position superior to that of the Mother of God. Yea, . . . we stand above God—Who must always serve us.“ “Church History,” by Professor J. H. Kurtz, 1893, vol. iii. p. 248.)

(8) A priest named Gregory preached a sermon in Chicago in 1912, in which he said: “I cannot exaggerate the power and dignity of the priest. . . . His power is greater than that of an angel. His dignity is greater than that of Mary, the Queen of angels.” “At the altar his is not inferior to that of God.” “No power of man is equal to this. . . It must be the power of God.” (“Toronto Sentinel,” 6th June, 1912).

(9) At Quebec a priest preached a sermon in which he said “the priest reproduces Jesus Christ.” ” The priest— bearing . . . a power that makes him the equal of God” (“The Christian,” 24th September, 1914).

(10) Priest Phelan—then editor of a Popish newspaper —in 1915 preached a sermon containing the following: “I never invite an angel down from Heaven to hear Mass. The only Person in Heaven I ever ask to come down here is Jesus Christ, and Him I command to come down. He has to come when I bid Him” (“American Citizen,” 31st July, 1915).

(11) The “Christian World” of 18th September, 1913, gave some extracts from a Romish work published in Germany, and written by a priest: “Priests . . . possess supernatural position and power. Even the angels bow before them. Christ would rather permit the world to perish than that the celibacy of the clergy should be abolished.”

(12) The same paper quoted a book by the Cardinal Archbishop of Salzburg, in which the following language is used:— “One may even speak of the omnipotence of the priest, of an omnipotence which is beyond that of God Himself.” (Ed. It’s so shocking that anyone could think this! It came straight from Satan.)

(13) At the funeral of a priest in Quebec on November 2nd, 1915, “Father” Connolly said: “The priest is another Christ, and his work is to continue the great work of the Redemption.”

(14) “In an address to Roman Catholics at Spokane, Washington, ‘Father’ George Maloney, speaking on ‘The Duty of Catholics,’ said: ‘If the precepts of the Church are not kept, the children cannot hope to be saved, for God punishes more severely the disobedience of the rules of the Church than He does the transgressions of His own commandments. It is the experience of every priest that it is harder to seek repentance for those who break the precepts of the Church than for these who break the commandments. It is easier to get forgiveness for one who commits murder than for one who misses Mass on Sunday or eats meat on Friday.” —(“Review,” Spokane, Washington, April 18th, 1913.).

(15) In a sermon preached at the Brompton Oratory on January 1st, 1860, the Rev. F. W. Faber, D.D., said that Christ is still on Earth in the Pope. “The Sovereign Pontiff is a Third Visible Presence of Jesus amongst us. In the Person of His Vicar. . . . we may draw near to Jesus.” (“Devotion to the Pope,” dedicated to Rev. E. Hearn, D.D., Vicar-General; published by Richardson.).

(16) Aquinas (xxxiv. Ed. Paris. xx. 549-580) says: “There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ.”

(17) James’ “Church History,” p. 282: “Tolomeo begins by saying that Christ was the first Pope.”

(18) “Between God in Heaven and man upon earth stands the priest, who, being both God and man, combines both natures, and forms the connecting link. … I, as priest, do not follow in rank the cherubim and seraphim in the administration of the universe. I stand high above them. For they are God’s servants. We (priests), however, are God’s coadjutors … I fulfill three exalted functions towards the God of our altars. I summon Him to earth, I give Him to men… . without your (priest’s) permission. He may not move; He cannot bless without your co-operation; nor can He give grace except through our hands. Behold yonder man only 25 years old. Soon he will go through the sanctuary to meet the sinners who await His coming; He is the God of this earth, which He purifies.”

(“The Manresa of the Priest,” by “Father” Couxtte, ex-Vicar- General of Toulouse, see “Literary Digest,” October, 1897, pp. 28 to 57.).

(19) The Curé d’Ars, a Memoir of Jean Baptiste Marie Viauncy, London, 1869, p. 121, by Georgina Molyneux: “Consider the power of the priesthood! Out of a piece of bread the priest’s tongue can make a God. That is a greater act than the creation of a world… Someone said: St. Philomena obeys the Curé d’Ars! Certainly she may obey him, since God obeys him. If I met a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before the angel. The latter is the friend of God, but the priest holds His place.”

(20) “Our Sunday Visitor,” September 24th, 1922, contained an advertisement by a Popish priest, named, “Rev. A. J. Halbleib, of the Sacred Heart Church.” Deauville, Virginia, asking people to send “a dollar, more or less, once or oftener” in order to “insure your own soul—and the souls nearest and dearest to you—against final loss by fire and at the same time help . . .’the work of starting the (R.) Catholic Church .. . in a vast section of the south, where it is still almost unknown.”

(21) Admittedly a sentence from a brief report of a fifty minutes’ lecture, “taken simply as it stands,” does not express a complete theology of the Eucharist in its sacrificial aspects. The sentence contrasted the Mass with the traditional Eucharistic doctrine of Communion in the Anglican Reformed Church, and summed up that difference in the fact that the Mass offers Christ as a Divine Victim really present under the Eucharistic veils on an earthly altar, while the traditional Anglican theology does not express this oblation. I am quite aware that the modern Anglo-Catholic theology has returned to the Catholic concept of the offering of Christ’s Body and Blood on the earthly altar, but my lecture was chiefly occupied in proving that this is not the traditional theology of Anglicanism.—Rev. F. Woodlock, S.J., Farm Street Church.—(“Times,” 20/6/27.)

Appendix G. The Primacy of Peter.

Papists subscribe to the Creed of Pope Pius IV., and promise not “to take and interpret them (the Scriptures) otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” —i.e., to moonshine, for “the Fathers” never agreed on a single text.

In the speech prepared for, but not permitted by, the Vatican Council of 1869-70, Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, —who afterwards published it in Naples, denied that Petrine claims to the Primacy could be made out—by Scripture—precisely because of the above clause in Pius IV.’s Creed obliging Papists to interpret Scripture only “according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” He gave the following statistics showing that no less than Five different interpretations of Matthew xvi. 18 are given by “the Fathers”:

(1) That the Church is built on Peter is taught by seventeen Fathers;

(2) That the Rock is the whole body of the Apostles is held by eight Fathers;

(3) That the Rock is the Faith confessed by Peter is held by forty-four Fathers;

(4) That the Rock is Christ is held by sixteen;

(5) that the Rock includes all the faithful-living stones of which the Church is built. Kenrick says “a few” held this.

Whence Archbishop Kenrick asserted that: “If we are bound to follow the greater number of the Fathers, then we must hold for certain that the word PETRA means, not Peter but the Faith professed by Peter.” (“Church Quarterly Review,” July, 1881, p. 545.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (died 430), before Conversion (A.D. 387), was Professor of Rhetoric. The Roman Church venerates his writings. He sometimes interpreted the Rock to mean Peter, and sometimes to mean Christ. In his “Retractions” (lib. 1) he said: “I have said in a certain passage, respecting the Apostle Peter, that the Church is founded upon him as a rock . . . but know that I have frequently afterwards so explained myself that the phrase, ‘upon the Rock,’ should be understood to be the Rock which Peter confessed.”

Another learned doctor of the Roman Church, “Father Lannay,” Censor of works, 1643, gives seventy extracts from “Fathers,” in which Peter is spoken of as The Rock; eight in which the Church is said to have been built upon all the Apostles; forty-four state that the faith Peter confessed was the Rock; sixteen that Christ was the Rock. (Lannoii. Opera. tom. v., Part II., p. 99: Epist. vii. lib. v.)

It will be noticed that this Jesuit substitutes seventy for seventeen, but agrees with Archbishop Kenrick in the remaining figures! Like Kenrick, he says that “a few Fathers held the Rock to be the faithful.” Kenrick was an honest and sincere man. Can the same be said of any Ultramontane Jesuit?

APPENDIX H. “Killing No Murder.”

In all the Sinn Fein troubles in Ireland there was one question which the British Government did not face openly. That was in regard to the responsibility of the Roman hierarchy for the conditions there. Roman prelates not only condoned crime but, through the official church publications, they encouraged rebellion and taught the doctrine that killing is not murder provided the killing is done for political purposes. If the political parties should have endorsed that doctrine there would be lively times indeed during general and other election campaigns. The Roman Church authorities in Ireland were directly responsible for the promulgation of that doctrine and the facts ought to have been made known by the British Government, relations with the Vatican severed and the publishers indicted, This reasonable demand was made at the time in an article in the “London Spectator.”

The Irish Roman Catholic Primate and his Censor allowed, and so became responsible for, the publication of an article in the Irish Theological Quarterly, published by the Authorities of Maynooth, which in effect made killing no murder in Ireland, provided the killing was done for political objects and by those who had declared that Ireland was in a state of war with Great Britain. The British Government should, therefore, have taken the matter up and made the whole of Europe ring with it. Parliament should have condemned this doctrine as set forth under the imprimatur of the Irish Roman Catholic Primate, and the next step should have been to instruct our diplomatic agent at the Vatican to inquire whether or not the doctrine laid down and published with a non obstat and an Archiepiscopal imprimatur in Dublin was endorsed by the Holy See. This, we venture to say, the Vatican would never admit. Nor, again, would it refuse to give any answer. If the authorities had said the matter was subject to investigation in the Curia, then the British Government should have plainly said that they would be bound to suspend official relations with the Roman Church till she had made up her mind on the point so momentous as whether the Papacy allows its chief ecclesiastics to sanction the publication of condonations of murder such as that issued under the imprimatur of the Roman Primate in Ireland in the article in the Irish Theological Quarterly.

Such proclamation as already mentioned was not an isolated one. Possibly this is best seen by citing the case of Mr. Charles Diamond, Editor of the London Catholic Herald, a man of position and education, who wrote an article in his journal headed “Killing —No Murder.” “Lord French,” he says, “has escaped this time: will he always escape?” Then this Roman Catholic journalist added, “Killing is no murder when it is the other fellow who is to be killed.” There was much more of a like nature, all inciting to murder and outrage.

That this teaching is acted upon by Romish agents is proved by the “New Zealand Sentinel” of October 1923, p. 8. which contained a “Felonious Record of Knights of Columba” in the United States, since 1913. It included two murderous assaults on ex-Priest Crowley in 1913, and fourteen other assaults on Protestants.

APPENDIX I.

THE PAPACY IS THE ANTICHRIST.

(1) The Translators of the Authorized Version of 1611 added an “Address” to King James I., in which they described the Papacy as “the Man of Sin.” They were all learned and pious men, who knew History and the Bible.

(2) The Reformers and Martyrs who were burnt alive in Queen Mary’s reign were also learned men. They wrote the “Homilies” or Sermons which are mentioned at the end of the 39 Articles. The Third Part of the Homily against Peril of Idolatry (p. 243) cites Dan. xi. 38 as relating to Antichrist and Popery; at p. 245 it speaks of “the Kingdom of Antichrist,” and quotes Matt. xxiv. 24, 2 Thess. ii. 9-12, Rev. xiii. 13, 14. The Second part of the Sermon for Whit Sunday denounces the Roman Church as not a true Church of Christ, and the Pope as Antichrist—citing Gregory I.’s Epistles 76-78, lib. iv. The Third Part of the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, p. 292, calls Rome “the idolatrous church,” “a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot,” “the great strumpet (harlot) of all strumpets,” of Rev. xviii., xvii.

REVIEW.

THE ANTICHRIST: His PORTRAIT AND History. By Baron Porcelli. Pp. 116. Protestant Truth Society.

This is a comparatively small book, but it should not be thought unimportant on that account. It deals with a great subject in an able and interesting manner. Evidently in considering the question of the “Antichrist” the actual meaning of the term is a matter of the greatest consequence. This is our author’s first point. Although his space is limited, yet his references to the original of the New Testament are ample, and he supports his contention with numerous and well-chosen quotations. In our opinion he is fully justified in his conclusion that the “Antichrist of prophecy is a false Christian, a veiled enemy of Christ, of heathen origin. He is not only the outcome of the Great Apostasy, but is consummated Head, its apostolic Head, its false Apostle or ‘son of perdition.’” Anyone, however, who doubts this conclusion or requires proof should carefully examine the arguments by which it is preceded and sustained. Succeeding chapters on the “characteristics” of Antichrist, the time of his appearance, the duration of his power, his local connection with Rome, and his actual identification also call for attentive study. They are not merely assertions or repetitions of hackneyed statements; they are reasoned expositions of their theme displaying a large amount of learning which ought to command the respect even of those whose views may be different from those of the writer. Chapter VII. on “Antichrist revealed by chain of evidence” displays in a remarkable manner the pains which Baron Porcelli took to compile and arrange his arguments and facts before committing them to print. It is a veritable storehouse of quotations culled from a wide field, manifesting wonderful patience in their collection as well as skill in their application. It will well repay perusal. Indeed, no one desiring to be well-informed upon the subject can possibly neglect it.

Two things may be specially noted about this book. It is written throughout from the standpoint of the historical school of interpretation. It is frankly anti-papal, because it sees the papacy described and condemned in the Word of God. In the second place, it gives supreme honor to the Bible. There it finds the only real test of doctrine, the final court of appeal. To quote from the author’s preface, “The condition of Christendom today is such as to cause serious alarm and distress to thoughtful minds, owing to the multiplicity of ‘isms,’ which very often read plausibly, but au fond are sadly erroneous, owing to lack of care in observation and study; and not less often owing to hasty acceptance of theories which have no basis in truth. ‘To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.'” We earnestly commend this book to our readers, hoping that its value will be fully recognized in these remarkable and solemn days.—English Churchman.

Download this entire book in PDF format: The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

Continued from Appendix D. Rev. XIII. 16-18 Fulfilled

One of the late Cardinal Bourne’s entourage, once wrote to the Press stating that the feelings of Papists had been harrowed by a newspaper report of a meeting of priests at Naples, at which a resolution had been passed demanding the abolition of priestly celibacy. This report was, of course, declared to be untrue—ça va sans dire (it goes without saying). But I have taken the trouble to institute inquiries at Naples and elsewhere in Italy, and I find, as I expected, that the report was true in substance, though not correctly expressed. I have before me an Italian journal published at Florence. It contains an article by the Senator ex-priest Romolo Murri, entitled “A Cry of Anguish.” It deals with the subject of priestly celibacy as viewed by ex-military priests who had recently held a meeting at Milan, on purpose to demand “the abolition of the obligatory celibacy of Romish priests.” Murri was directly appealed to by these to interest himself in this matter, and he says in his article that “probably these are the same that published in the Press an appeal on the same subject, as was dealt with by Qui quondam in the April number of the Roman Review Bilychnis.”

Commenting on this article, the Editor of the journal said: “A great stir was made at Rome by the notice, published at the end of March by a popular morning journal, that at a meeting of priests at Naples there was ventilated the question of the abolition of obligatory celibacy, and of the vow of chastity: and this at once provoked lively and instant protests and denials at the Vatican.”

As a fact the Naples meeting took place. It had been duly authorized. Therefore no official resolution against celibacy could be passed by it. But the subject was most certainly mooted, and numbers of those present were in favor of it. Indeed it cannot be denied, even by the Vatican official prevarication, that there exists at Naples a secret organization the priests—who are opposed to celibacy; and that this question was discussed very fully in a Review and pamphlets, by Professor Gennaro Avolio; and that copious literature is at this very moment circulating throughout Italy, especially in Southern Italy, where the matter affects the priesthood very severely.

A movement against celibacy was actually founded with its headquarters in Naples. A large number of priests joined it, as shown by a referendum made by Avolio, and its echoes have reached as far as Rome. Many members of this organization attended the authorized meeting at Naples, and there is no doubt that these entered into a deliberate propaganda. No sooner was this discovered than the Cardinal Archbishop Prisco fulminated against the movement, the Vatican rose in arms, and denials were plentifully showered. But the fact remains, that at the Naples meeting—and unofficially —under the very noses of the authorities, celibacy was not only mooted, but discussed, and its abolition recommended by numbers of priests.

In France and Czechoslovakia the priests followed suit.

Continued in the final section, Appendix F. The False Prophet, Appendixes G. H. & I.

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

This is the continuation of the book from the previous chapter The Antichrist: His Portrait and History – Appendix C. He That Exalteth Himself. 2 Thess. II. 4

THE False Christian Priesthood (Matt. vii. 15) was to be coadjutor to, and helper of, the Antichrist or “The Beast”; and one of the means he would use, in order to further the cause of the Antichrist is thus described: “He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or on their foreheads.”

There is no mistaking this. It means a symbol of faith imposed by a false Christian Priesthood in order to render the recipients the subjects of The Beast or The Antichrist. As The Beast is of Pagan origin—(for “Wild Beast” is ever the symbol of a Pagan Power)—and the False Priesthood is also of Pagan origin, it is sufficiently obvious that the “mark” imposed is also of Pagan origin.

We are therefore to seek for a Pagan symbol imposed as a symbol of the Christian Faith, by a False Christian Priesthood, upon all—irrespective of quality or condition; and this with the object of making all the recipients the subjects of the False Priesthood’s Master—The Antichrist. The right hand, and the forehead, were to be the two parts of the human body affected by this religious symbol.

In 1906 Pope Pius X. issued a “Compendium of Christian Doctrine,” which, he declared, “expounds clearly the Holy Faith, which all Christians must observe.” To the question “What is the sign of a Christian?” the reply is given: “The sign of a Christian is the sign of the Holy Cross.”

To the further question, “How do you make the sign of the Cross?” the answer is: I make the sign of the Cross, placing the RIGHT HAND to the FOREHEAD, saying: “In the Name of the Father”; then to the breast, saying, “And of the Son”; then to the left shoulder and to the right shoulder, saying, “And of the Holy Spirit”; and lastly I say “Amen.”’

To the question, “Why is the Sign of the Cross the sign of a Christian?” the reply given is . . . “because it serves to distinguish Christians from infidels.”

To the question, “What does the Sign of the Cross indicate?” the reply given is, “It indicates the principal mysteries of our holy faith.” And then the recipient of this sign is told that as it “possesses the merit of reviving faith, banishing temptation, and of obtaining much grace from God, it is right to make the Sign of the Cross when getting up in the morning, when going to bed at night, before and after meals and work, on entering or leaving a church, and especially before prayer.” It will be seen, therefore, that every class, and all ages, are included; rich and poor, bond and free. All have to make the Sign of the Cross with the right hand to the forehead, in order to show that they are followers of the Pope—for it is the Pope’s “Holy Faith” which, throughout this Catechism, is passed off as Christianity. Into this “holy faith” one is admitted by “holy baptism” and by “holy baptism” is meant the rite performed by “a Priest” who, with his RIGHT HAND, makes the “Sign of the Cross” on the FOREHEAD of the infant. From that moment it is obligatory on the recipient to observe the Law of the Church” —i.e., of the Pope’s Church or False Priesthood.

The Council of Trent decreed (Session vii., Canon ix.) that in baptism there is imprinted in the soul . . . a certain spiritual and indelible sign,” thus terrorizing all into being baptized. The Council of Trent was a gathering of sham Christian Priests.

The Roman Ritual or office-book of the Priesthood of Rome prescribes how baptism is to be performed. It lays down that “the lawful minister of baptism is the Parish Priest,” who “with his thumb shall make the Sign of the Cross on the FOREHEAD . . .” of the baptized.

The “Cross” thus made is a notorious and well-known Pagan emblem, the oldest in symbolism. I need not elaborate that point now, as I have proved it to the hilt elsewhere. It suffices at present to add that the Pope claims all baptized persons as his subjects. (The Pope and the Council, p. 165; also the Canonist Kirchenrecht, 1855-1872. )

It will thus be seen, by any unprejudiced person, that in order to compel rich and poor, bond and free, to become subjects of the Pope, the priests of Rome teach that by baptism the soul is indelibly marked for eternity, when a mark is impressed with the Right Hand to the Forehead in the form of a Cross (Pontificale Romanum, p. 49.)—the oldest and most universal Pagan symbol. All who decline to accept this ordeal are refused the name of “Christian,” and are relegated to the ranks of “infidels”!

“Innocent XI., A.D. 1680, struck a medal showing the Church of Rome as a Woman standing at Rome, holding in her left hand a LATIN CROSS, and in her right hand a cup containing the wafer, with the legend “In Saeculum Stabit.”

Leo XII, 1825, struck one showing a Woman seated on the globe, with a LATIN CROSS in her left hand, and a cup in her right band, with the legend “Sedet Super Universam.”

Gregory XIII., 1572, struck one showing an angel with a sword in the right hand, and a CROSS in the other, in honor of St. Bartholomew’s massacre.

And in this manner is the “more sure word of prophecy” fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit revealed to John on Patmos more than 1,800 years ago, so clearly that he may run who reads it.

The Bull “Unam Sanctam” declares it essential to salvation to be subject to the Pope; accordant with which claim all Papal ecclesiastics take the vow of “obedience,” and receive the Sign of the Cross, as a sign of fealty to the Pope; and these in turn administer to Emperors, and Kings, and to all within the Church of Rome, the oath of spiritual allegiance to the Pope, along with the Sign of the Cross, which is impressed upon all FOREHEADS or hands, with the RIGHT HANDS of the operators—even as a great army of soldiers under the Papal banner—from birth to death.

Yet there are intelligent Englishmen who are blind to this evident fulfillment, and are looking for something quite different still to come. Thus is Wisdom justified of her children!

Continued in The Antichrist: His Portrait and History – Appendix E. Romish Truth and Celibacy

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

This is the continuation of Appendix B. The Mark of The Beast

It is unfortunate that our excellent Authorized Version occasionally fails to give the correct sense in certain prophetic passages, although this was inevitable, of course, as greater light was promised in later times. The text from which the above words are taken should read: “who opposeth and exalteth himself against (See also Exodus ix. 17 and 2 Cor. x. 5) all that is called God, or that is an object of reverence, so that he, as God, taketh his seat in the Sanctuary* of God, setting himself forth as God”; not by abuse or denial, but by actions and assumptions of Divinity. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows very well that it constantly designates rulers and judges as gods, and that self-exaltation and arrogance are constantly denounced by Christ (e.g., Matthew xi. 23); whilst the “Naos of God,” or “Sanctuary,” or “House of the Lord,” is as constantly applied to public worship (e.g., Psalm xcii. 13; Acts vii. 48; 1 Cor. iii. 17) and to the whole body of professing Christians, not to mere buildings.

*In the “Acts” the Jewish temple is mentioned twenty-five times; the Greek word used being hieron, never naos. In 2 Thess. ii, the word is naos. Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas say the apostle meant the Christian Church, as in 1 Cor. iii, 16.

As a fact, there is nothing in 2 Thess. ii. that is not already explained in other passages of Scripture. Nothing but lack of familiarity with Oriental phraseology and Hebrew thought can excuse a desire to uphold, at all costs, a visionary theory—originated either by men who lived long before the event, and therefore were in a very different position to us who live after it; or by enemies who deliberately seized upon these mistaken guesses, in order to fashion a weapon whereby to deflect from Rome the obvious testimony of Holy Writ and of history. This weapon is known as “Futurism,” because it shuts its eyes to facts of the past, and fixes them on fancies of the future.

I wish to recall certain undeniable facts (not theories) which show incontestably how self-exaltation and blasphemy are conjoined in the Papacy, that Pagan Caesarism which wears a religious mask—exactly as foretold by 2 Thess. ii., Rev. xiii. and Daniel vii. and xi. 36-39; and which is the Last or Eighth Head of the Latin Wild Beast of prophecy (Rev. xvii. 11); a realized fulfillment, and not a still unfulfilled future Antichrist.

Portrait of Antichrist

With the Triple Crown claiming to have power over Heaven, Earth, and Purgatory.

“The Flavelli are the well-known great fans carried on either side of the Pope. According to Macri the eyes of the peacock’s feathers are typical of the vigilance and circumspection of the Pontiff.” (“Last Winter in Rome” by Weld p. 495. Compare Daniel vii. 8, “Eyes of a man.”)

“The Three Crowns (or Tiara) are decorated with 32 rubies, 19 emeralds, 11 sapphires, 529 diamonds, and 252 pearls.” (“Sede Vacante,” a Diary written in 1903 during the Pope’s “enthronement,” by a Papal Chamberlain.)

The Three Crowns, of Tiara, indicate that the wearer is “Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Catholic Dictionary 1884, p. 796.)

First, as to the usurped “seat” or throne occupied. In Francis. Wey’s “Rome,” illustrated, there is a picture of “St. Peter’s Chair,” by virtue of which the Pope claims to be Apostolic successor of the humble Galilean fisherman— but as it is a false claim, he is a False Apostle or “Son of Perdition,” as foretold. Here is Wey’s description of this Chair. “There is, in the apse of the Cathedral, a sumptuous altar, and in the middle of a glory, the Chair of St. Peter, sustained, by four colossal figures of bronze and gold, which represent two Fathers of the Latin and two of the Greek Church. The chair by Bernini is only an outside case, containing the curule seat of Egyptian wood faced with ivory, which is, supposed to have been given (compare Rev. xiii. 2: “And the Beast gave him his seat.”) by the Senator Pudens to his, guest, the Apostle Peter. They show in the sacristy a model of this precious piece, which is rarely exhibited, as well as some of the small ivory facings that have been detached from it; they represent the Labors of Hercules, (Hercules was God of Force, see Dan. xi. 38) and are of indisputable antiquity” (p. 155; see also “The Chair of St. Peter,” by H. Forbes Witherby, and “Jacob Primmer in Rome,” p. 94). Cardinal Wiseman described these ivory ornaments as “The Exploits of the Monster-quelling Hercules,” and said “there are eighteen small compartments, disposed in three rows.”

On the 18th of January every year this old heathen seat is “adored” by Papists on the “Feast of the Chair of St. Peter”; so the Pagan god Hercules receives homage annually by Rome’s dupes, exactly as foretold. These dupes are not aware that the ivory “Labours of Hercules” in this heathen seat are arranged in three rows of six emblems each, so that if one counts the lowest as six units, the next as tens, and the third as hundreds, one obtains the fatal “Number of the Beast”: 666. This Latin chair, therefore, is another link in the chain of evidence identifying “The Man of Sin”; for LATEINOS contains the “number of a man,” 666, in Greek numeral letters. LATEINOS was the founder of LATIUM, Rome’s original name, whilst Latin is the official tongue of the Papacy, and of no other system in the world masquerading as Christianity.

The late William Arthur (author of “The Pope, the Kings, and the People”)* in his “Italy in Transition,” described the self-exaltation of the Pope during “Holy Week,” as seen by himself.

*See also his “ The Pope, the Kings, end the Penile’ 72 pp. 271-307, chapter on “An Unequaled Pageant” It is terrifyingly blasphemous.

Here are his words: “After a while the whole of the nave is lined with Guards; first the Swiss Guards, in their harlequin dress, red and yellow and blue hanging in artistic stripes about them—every man as tall as a Horse Guard; then what are called the Palatin Guards. . . . Then the Noble Guards appear—that rare corps of eighty men, every man with a title, dressed nearly like our Horse Guards. At last the procession comes in, purple and scarlet, (Rev. xvii. 4) and muslin, and embroidered silk,(Rev. xviii. 12) gilded garments, robes of changing red and yellow, golden robes, robes of pure white, of violet, of lemon; white miters, colored miters, gilded miters; stars, ribbons and plumes; ecclesiastical, courtly, military adornments, flashing steel, clattering muskets; then borne aloft, two great fans of ostrich feathers, with a peacock feather eye upon the top of each; and then, in the air, the towering tiara, with its three circlets, one for the kingly office, another for the priestly, the third for the union of the priestly, kingly and imperial. It moves, above helmets, halberds and plumes, aloft toward the vault of the nave, gliding slowly along; over it a moving canopy of silk, borne on golden staves. . . the old hand holding itself out, and blessing with the two fingers. . . .”

That the whole of this pageantry is heathen anyone conversant with the question knows. Mr. Arthur recognized it at once. It is singular, however, how small points of identity crop up unexpectedly. In Dr. Cunningham Geike’s learned “The Holy Land and the Bible,” on page 27, is an engraving of the Fish-God, Dagon, from a bas-relief at Khorsabad. It shows a man whose lower extremities are fish-like. On his head is a tiara—and his right arm is extended, like the Pope’s, in the act of blessing. This attitude is invariably adopted by Popes when publicly and officially “blessing.” “As if,” Mr. Arthur remarks, “there were some mystic power in the motion, and a moment must not be lost in conferring the benefits of it upon all around.” It is the attitude of fraudulent Divinity, “showing by acts that he is God “—for who can “bless,” but God?

Mr. Arthur says: “The portative (portable) throne is a magnificent chair set upon a litter, such as a high priest in India may sometimes be seen borne upon by his disciples . . .; and then at last you see, under this moving pageant, eight men, clothed in deep crimson, bearers of the Vice-God. The gliding canopy, the flashing crown, the smiling face, the thrice gorgeous robes, the rich chair, the moving litter, the crimson men, the golden poles, the prostrate helmets and plumes, the flash, flash, flash of steel; the curious, or scrutinizing, or shocked, or half-adoring glances of so many eyes; altogether, it is a wonderful scene! What is meant by the ceremony? “The procession represents the Apostles and Disciples passing into Galilee to meet the Savior; but with still higher meaning, the King of Glory proceeding with the assembly of ransomed spirits from Hades into the realms of bliss . . .” (see “Lent and the Holy Week in Rome,” by C. J. Hemans, p. 163). The Pope is acting the “King of Glory entering Paradise”! “showing himself by acts as God,” as foretold.*

*As the true Christ is God therefore the Vice-Christ claims to be God. In the Canon Law the Pope is also called God (Decretum Gregorii XIII. Distine 96 Car 7): and also “Lord and God” (Decretales Gregorii IX. Tit 7). Innocent III., in his Decretals, said of the Pope: “God because be is God’s Vicar.” The Sacrum Ceremoniale says: “The Apostolic Chair is the Seat of God.” Benedict XIII was styled “Vice-God” The Canon Law and Decretals are styled by Papal writers the Pope’s “Oracle.”

Mr. Hemans gives the following explanation of the two Peacock Fans or Flabelli: “The mystic import attached to them is, that as the eyes of peacocks’ feathers are set in the ostrich plumes, vigilance as of many eyes is required from the Pontiff, that he may ever watch for the good of the Catholic Commonwealth. . . .” (Arthur, p. 372).

Here, then, is the fulfillment of another item in the prophetic delineation of the Antichrist, for, in Daniel vii. 8, he is described as having “eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things,” i.e., as an EPISKOPOS, or Overseer, over the ten-horned or “Catholic ” Commonwealth or Latino-Roman Power.

As to the import of the throne, the same authority says: “In this ELEVATION of the Person of the Pontiff is implied that the Vicar of Christ is the Center to which the eyes of the faithful should turn, as to a Beacon-Light on high, for their guidance and consolation!”

What awful blasphemy! “Showing himself by act as God.”

Here is more self-exaltation, mingled with blasphemy: “After the Pope has gone back to his throne, the host and the chalice are solemnly carried down from the altar along the floor, then up the steps of the throne. Here he is seated in the temple of God—he above it, it below; his crown at this moment upon the altar, his enthroned person higher than the sacrament. While others kneel and prostrate themselves to receive it, it is handed to him seated upon his throne. Seated, he takes the host; seated, the chalice from men upon their knees; . . . Consecrated particles are presented to him by kneeling men, and he distributes them from that throne to the angels in white, and red, and gold, and purple, and embroidery, and they again to those who are kneeling around him After this, the Pontiff again puts on the triple crown, again seats himself on the portative throne, and the chief Priest of St. Peter’s presents him with a purse of white velvet, containing the fee for saying Mass” (Arthur, p. 370) Remember that the “throne” referred to is above what Papists call “the altar of God.”

It is on this that are laid the diadems of the Pope; it is on this that the Pope performs Mass—pretending to create God out of a wafer; it is above this that the Pope sits on his “throne”—conveying to the looker-on the idea of God on earth.

Add to this self-exaltation the appalling ceremonial of the “Adoration of the Pope,” as given in Picart, where he is “adored” no less than five times in succession by cardinals in red and in purple, the first time when seated on his “portative throne” before “the altar”; the second time when seated om “the altar”; the third time when seated on “the great altar”—cardinals kissing his foot and right hand, followed by foreign ambassadors; the fourth time when seated in a “throne” under the portico; the fifth time when seated on his usual “throne”—where all the cardinals “adore” him, along with all the clergy; add to this the disgusting way in which the head Cardinal-Deacon and other cardinals kiss the Pope’s stomach, whilst patriarchs, archbishops and bishops kiss his foot and knee, and abbots and penitentiaries kiss his knee only; and we reach a state of super-human self-exaltation as derogatory to man as it is insulting to God in whose name it is all done. It is “against all that is called God.” Remember, that to Papists the Pyx (a small round container used to carry the Eucharist) contains “il buon Dio”—the good God— that it usually stands on the high altar of St. Peter’s, the very place on which the Pope seats himself to be “adored”; and is only removed to allow him to occupy its place, and is then generally put on the floor out of the way. So that literally the Pope exalts himself “above all that is (by Papists) called God”; and this in more senses than one—for the Catechism of the Council of Trent declares that “bishops and priests are rightly called Gods.”

When you remember where the Pope is seated, how he is adored, and what it all represents, do you not recognize the “Man of Sin” showing himself that he is God, and exalting himself “above all that is called god,” as well as “against”?

Dr. Ward Beecher, in “Papal Conspiracy Exposed” (p. 317), said: “It has kept no terms with humanity; humanity should keep no terms with it. It has kept no terms with God; and God will assuredly keep no terms with it. It has impiously usurped His place on earth. All common blasphemy disappears and is forgotten in comparison with the blasphemy of the Popes and their insensate worshipers. They have not only claimed power as God, but above God, and against God; and let the nations be assured that he will not hold them guiltless for ever. The day of His judgment hastens; it is at hand!”

The Romish Vulgate of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. has: “who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is reverenced (colitur), so that he sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.” “Lifted up” is “extollitur.”

As a fact, the Pope is lifted up in the Sedia Gestatoria, above all bishops and priests, who, by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, are “called gods.”

It is also a fact that the wafer is called “God” by the Council of Trent, and by all Papists, and to it is the worship Latria rendered (Session XIII, Canons I. and VI., and chapters i. and v.).

It is also a fact that the Pope is “lifted up”* above the wafer God on the “altar.” and when thus seated, the Pyx is on the floor below him.

It is also a fact that the official Petrine Throne of the Pope in St. Peter’s is high above the “altar” in the Tribune.

Hence 2 Thess ii. 4 is literally fulfilled in three physical ways by the Popes of Rome, in addition to several spiritual ways.

* In his “Temporal Power,” P. 50, Cardinal Manning wrote: “He was ELEVATED to be in his Divine Master’s name, King of Kings, and Lord of Lord’s.

Continued in The Antichrist: His Portrait and History – Appendix D. Rev. XIII. 16-18 Fulfilled

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

This is the continuation of Appendix A. “The Image of The Beast” (Revelation 13:15)

“All, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, receive a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead.”

The word rendered “mark” is “Charagma,” any graven mark, or line, character, inscription, a totally different word from that used in Rev. vii. 3, xiv. 1, concerning the “seal” on the forehead of servants of God. It is called, in Rev. xiv. 11, the “mark of his name”; and the “name” and “mark” are bracketed together repeatedly (Rev. xiii. 17; xiv. 9, 11; xv. 2); whence one is forced to infer that there is some connection between the two.

Now the “name” of the Roman “Beast” was long ago suggested by Irenaeus as “Lateinos,” or the Latin Man, and no better solution has ever been suggested, for Latin was in John’s day, and has ever been, the sacred tongue of Rome, whether Pagan or Papal; and “Lateinos” was the correct way to spell “Latin” in Greek, according to Iraeneus, Hippolytus, Andreas (Greek “Fathers”) the Roman Poet Ennius, and by the Poet Plautus (Latin Poets). The “mark” then must be connected with Latin; it must be “the mark of the Latin man.” Was there, and is there now, any “mark” which is inseparably connected with Roman Latinity?

Undoubtedly this “mark” is religious, for it forms the foundation for the Beast’s claim to rule over “all” (i.e., all within the orbit of his tyranny, not “all” in the earth), and to force idolatrous “worship” (Rev. xiii. 15) upon them (cf. Rev. xiv. 9; xv. 4) through his co-adjutor “the false prophet”—clearly a religious class.

Now antiquarians, archaeologists, and other scholars, with unanimous voice, declare that the Latin Cross was a sacred Roman symbol (as it was a common Heathen symbol universally adored) long before the First Advent. It is found on coins, medals, tombs, temples, clothes, banners; and Montfaucon, the learned Benedictine, gives numerous examples. It is, indeed, an undeniable fact. This being so, the next point to observe is that the “mark” is impressed upon all subjects of the Latin man—in a particular manner, viz., on the right hand, or upon the forehead. It is so made as to appear graven. It is, in short, a distinguishing mark, the use of which, in a particular way, for purposes of devotion, is the characteristic emblem and certain indication of obedience to the Latin man.

Is the sign of the Latin Cross such a mark? To ask that question is to answer it, for from the moment of birth to the moment of death that mark is impressed with the right hand to the forehead, of all “the faithful” slaves of the Latin Pope or Father of the Latins. Nay, this very fact is actually boasted of and claimed as a proof that this outward mark seals indelibly a “character” upon the soul. Here is what the widely distributed “The Faith of our Fathers,” by James, Cardinal Gibbons (J. Murphy & Co., New York, 1897, PP. 320-321) says:—

“The Sacrament of Confirmation is also known by the name of CRISM, because the FOREHEAD … is anointed . . . in the form of a CROSS”; … “In the Sacred Crism which is marked on our FOREHEADS He hath sealed us by the INDELIBLE Character Stamped on our souls, which is indicated by the SIGN OF THE CROSS impressed on us.” “The bishop performs the external unction, but GOD sanctifies the Soul by His SECRET OPERATION.”

Observe the exact correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfillment. The sign of the Latin Cross, made with the right hand to the forehead, upon all followers of the Latin Papa, is declared to be a magic charm which indelibly impresses character upon the Soul; the false prophet of Rome performs the external mark, and simultaneously a secret supernatural operation is effected!

What need to look elsewhere, then, for the Mark of the Beast, when every scholar knows the esoteric meaning of the Latin Cross symbol and its phallic origin? What deadlier insult can be offered to a Holy God than to use that “mark” under pretense of initiating men, women, and children into the Kingdom of God and of His Christ?

Always with the right hand, never with the left: always upon the forehead. (See Pontificale Romanum, Pars Prima, De Confirmandis, p. 1; also Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta.) In baptism the priest makes with the thumb of the right hand the Sign of the Cross on the forehead and also on the breast of the baby, once, and again on the forehead—to keep the devil out of him!

Continued in The Antichrist: His Portrait and History – Appendix C. He That Exalteth Himself. 2 Thess. II. 4

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

This is the continuation of The Two Babylons Chapter IV. Section III — The Sacrifice of the Mass

As “the Beast” is a symbol, and represents a Pagan Power, its “image” must not be taken in its literal sense, i.e., must not be understood of a statue, but rather of some representation of the pagan power signified. Otherwise confusion results.

In Revelation xiii. 14, this representation is described as made “to” or “for” the Bestial Power wounded and revived. In Revelation xiii. 15 it is described as both speaking in human language, and causing human beings to be slain for refusing to reverence its decrees.

Now the use of this figure of speech is common in Holy Writ, in classical usage, and in poetical and historic phraseology. Thus in Romans viii. 29: “the image of His Son” (tees eikonos Tou uiou autou) is used of no literal effigy, but of character.

Cicero (Pro. P. Sextio., Ed. Ernesti, Vol. VIII., p. 974) uses the same figure when he calls the Consul Piso, “imaginem antiquitatis“—”the image of antiquity,” or the representation of antiquity; and Piso’s interdict on Capuan perfumery, as “imaginis ornande causa,” “for the sake of the adornment of antiquity.”

Ambrose thus uses the figure (in Epist. 66, Ch. ii.); and in Questio, 109 apud, Augustine, Op. (Bened. Ed.), Vol. III., p. 109, Appendix, the Christian minister is described as the Envoy of Christ, and therefore His “image”— “Etenim ejus imago.”

In the Middle Ages the figure was of common use, in regard to deputies; and in modern days, statesmen have adopted and applied it to the British Parliament as the “express image” of the nation.

Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (Vol. II., p. 263) uses it also: “From the time of the Punic War, the uninterrupted succession of senators had preserved the name and the image of the Republic”; where the parallel between Revelation xiii. 17, 15, and Gibbon is most marked: “the name of the Beast, the image of the Beast”—being on all fours with “the name and the image of the Republic.”

In the ancient Councils the same figure was used to denote their representative character; members being described as being “the images” of those who sent them (Harduin, iii., 1641-1648).

Moreover, as though expressly to show the fitness of this figure of speech, both Eastern and Western General Councils were represented in sculpture and in painting by an ikon or “image,” a sacred object for reverence (Harduin, iii., 1836; Baronius, ad Ann. 711; Mosheim, viii. 2, 3, 11). So Agatho, Secretary to the Sixth Council; Anastasius; and Ado (vide Note on pp. 186-187 of “Horae Apocalypticae,” Vol. III.)—”the image of the Council” being a picture. Whence the propriety of “the image of the Papal Power” to signify the Papal Councils which issued Decrees, formulated doctrines, and consigned “heretics” to the flames. No better symbol than “image of the Beast” could have been used by the inspired penman.

Continued in Appendix B. The Mark of The Beast

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

My wife and I really liked what Steve Gregg has to say about the upcoming November election. This is something you can share with your Democrat friends who call themselves Christians.

David Martinez is apparently a caller to Steve Gregg’s The Narrow Path Radio Program. Steve Gregg is a Bible teacher my wife and I like to listen to. His bio.

The video is below the transcript.

Transcript

David Martinez: I’ve been horrified and haunted by the thought of a President Harris future. So I was wondering about what pastors and people in ministry can do to avoid that. I have been to services where pastors sing the national anthem and have the American flag and do all the pro-America stuff. But I was wondering, is there any version of that that you think, okay, I would put up with it or have any kind of biblical basis to that kind of patriotism, right? For the sake of trying to motivate and inspire people, Americans, from giving their vote to evil people that are going to shed innocent blood and things like that. You know what I mean?

Steve Gregg: I don’t know that you’d have to appeal to patriotism per se to convince people that one candidate is going to be a better choice than another. I don’t know if I’d call myself patriotic or not. I’m thankful. I’m thankful to God for America. I’m thankful that I live in America and not somewhere else. I certainly pray for America.

I desire for freedoms such as we’re accustomed to in America to continue perpetually. So, I mean, if we call that patriotism, then that’s what it is. I don’t know that the church is a place for flag-waving and singing songs of praise to the nation, since our whole purpose of gathering is to focus on our praise of God. And the nation certainly is not God.

I would just say I’m thankful to God for America and for being privileged to have the benefits of living here.

Every advantage that Christians have in any country at any time is an advantage from God. It says every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above. So, God has given us gifts. Some of those are financial. In the free world, in the Western world, we have a lot more money, many of us, than third world people typically do. So, we are more and more responsible for stewardship of that money. But we also have other benefits others don’t have, including freedoms that others don’t have, and a say in who governs us and things like that. I mean, these freedoms are advantages every bit as much as financial prosperity, if not more so. And whatever advantages we have are talents or pounds or stewardship that God has given us. So, I would speak in terms of the need to steward opportunities and that God is going to have us give account for our stewardship.

I would read Luke 19 or Matthew 25. The master distributed his goods to his different servants, went away for a long time, and when he came back, he made them give account of it. And I would say we are going to give account to God for how we steward the advantages we have.

What would stewardship be aiming at? Well, the promotion of the kingdom of God. Well, America is not the kingdom of God. No, it is not. There’s no nation on earth that is the kingdom of God. But there are certainly nations whose policies are more just and that allow more freedom, certainly where the spirit of the Lord is. There’s liberty. That’s a value of God’s. Liberty is a value of God’s. Justice is a really major value of God’s.

It’s clear that some governments of some nations exemplify justice and liberty more than others. In fact, even in our country, some political parties and political candidates and their suggested agendas would exemplify justice or liberty more than another. And since justice is what Jesus called the weightier matters of the law, a very important priority, and liberty, even if it wasn’t a high priority with God, if it was a low priority with him, it’s an awfully enjoyable thing, and it seems to benefit the kingdom of God for us to be able to preach without being put in jail for it, to protest abortion in a clinic without being thrown in jail for it.

I mean, certainly liberty is a precious thing. It’s not something that the church can’t live without, because many churches have lived under totalitarian governance and didn’t have liberty. The church can survive without all these benefits, but we’d rather not.

The church has had to survive without these benefits in times and lands where they had no say about it. But we do have a say about it, and that advantage is a stewardship responsibility.

If I were running a church, I would not wave a flag or sing patriotic hymns. I would strongly say with an election coming up, or even when there’s not an election coming up, we are here to be advocates for Christ and for his values. I would point out how the Bible indicates in Isaiah 42, which is quoted about Jesus in Matthew 12, that he will establish justice in the nations, and the islands will await the justice he’s going to bring. He will not fail or be discouraged until he’s established justice in the earth. This is something that Jesus—that’s his mission. That’s basically what the Bible says he came to do. Now, of course, he came to redeem us too, but for what? For a kingdom of justice, and for a kingdom of righteousness, and so forth, and of love.

And so, I would point out that the Messiah’s agenda is justice. And if we have opportunity to promote that agenda, and we sit on our hands and don’t do it, or worse yet, we vote for candidates that we can be pretty sure are going to do things that the Bible says are unjust, well then, well, we’re going to have to answer to God for it.

No one’s going to answer to God for whether they were patriotic or not, or at least, let me put it this way, God is not going to fault anyone on the grounds that you weren’t patriotic, but he may very well fault a lot of us for saying you had the opportunity to pass along a more just, and free, and godly society to your children, just as earlier generations passed it on to you. You had the opportunity to do this for your children and grandchildren, and why didn’t you do that? That was what your stewardship responsibility was.

And I would speak that way, because then you don’t get off into politics. You don’t get off into,, patriotism. You’re just talking about the things of God, and pointing out that there are, in fact, candidates, and I wouldn’t even mind naming them if I had to, but I think everyone would know who you’re talking about, who would not stand for justice for the innocent. They don’t stand for justice for the unborn. They don’t stand for godly sexual norms. They stand for wickedness.

I also point out, Paul said to Timothy, don’t lay your hands suddenly on anyone, neither be a partaker of other people’s sins. He’s telling him not to ordain somebody to the ministry prematurely if you don’t know, if you haven’t vetted them, because they may end up committing sins. Then you’re responsible. You’re partaking in their sins, because you launched them. By laying hands on them, you basically authorized them to go out and do what they do. If what they do is evil, that’s on you, because you prematurely ordained them.

When we vote people into office, we’re voting people into the ministry, Paul said. Paul said that the government officials are ministers of God to promote justice. If I vote for somebody who goes out, and with my vote they get empowered, and they go out and promote injustice, that’s like me laying hands on a person to be a minister, and he goes out and rapes girls. I’m responsible. I’m responsible for my stewardship.

David Martinez: That’s what I would say. Steve, real quick, I heard of a pastor. I think he was from California, who was actually disciplining some of the members of his church because they were voting, I think, Democrat or something like that.

Steve Gregg: If they’re watching mainstream news, the mainstream news have been doing an all full court press to make Kamala seem like the salvation of the nation from monster Trump, okay? Now, people who only watch that news, they might think, well, God certainly would want her. The low information voters, they don’t know what she stands for. If they know, “Well, she’s kind of pro-abortion rights. Well, shouldn’t we be compassionate toward pregnant women who don’t want a baby?” That’s how these low information, low logic people are, and Christians can be totally uninformed. That’s why we need to disciple them.

I wouldn’t say anyone who votes Democrat, leave this church, or we’re going to discipline you. I would say we’re going to have a special Sunday school class for Democrats. For the next 12 weeks, if you’re a Democrat, we want you to be in this Sunday school class, I’ll tell you what’s going on.

If they know that they’re voting for an abortionist, or for someone who’s going to pervert young children, or confuse children, put stumbling blocks before them, certainly if a child is confused about his gender, and you confirm the confusion rather than alleviate the confusion and correct it, well, how is that not putting a stumbling block before one of these little ones? How is that not deserving a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the sea?

We’re not talking politics. We’re talking justice. We’re talking about morality. These are not political questions. The Democrats have often politicized them, and so have the Republicans, but they’re not really political issues. They’re God’s issues.

The question of whether it’s okay to confuse children so that they end up losing their faith or their minds because you chop body parts off them and give them mind-altering drugs to confirm their confusion, that’s hell-bound stuff. I mean, that’s absolute wickedness. And the fact that any significant number of people in our country do not know that only tells us how far the church has failed in discipling people and letting them know what God is about, and that’s what we need to be doing. If people in our churches are voting Democrat, I wouldn’t say kick them out. I’d say the preacher’s failing.

Instead of talking about patriotism and politics, I would definitely, I’d have a special class for Democrats, and then I’d ask them, why are you voting Democrat? Do what their party stands for on these issues and so forth? You could have a special class for Republicans too, and if they say you’re going to vote for Trump, why are you doing that?

What are people voting for when they go to the ballot box? Are they voting for a church elder? Are they voting for even whether someone can be in the church or not? This has nothing to do with the church. We’re talking about how the secular government is run, and as far as I know, we’ve never had in my lifetime a candidate in either party that I was convinced was a disciple of Jesus. Now, it’d be wonderful if all the people running were disciples of Jesus and we could just pick the one we liked, but I don’t know that we ever had that choice.

So the thing is, okay, well, I’m not voting for someone to get Christian of the Year Award. I’m voting for someone who’s going to make policies that Christians and non-Christians will live under, including my children and my grandchildren. So the question is, what policies do I want my children and grandchildren to have to endure? And I’m awfully glad that generations before mine chose the kinds of policies that I have had to live under because it has been pretty easy. But if I had been raised in the Soviet Union, I would have found it much more difficult, especially as a Christian. And by the way, we have two socialists right now on the Democrat ticket. That’s not me saying so. That’s them saying so.

This is the continuation of The Two Babylons Chapter IV. Section II — Justification by Works

If baptismal regeneration, the initiating ordinance of Rome, and justification by works, be both Chaldean, the principle embodied in the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass is not less so. We have evidence that goes to show the Babylonian origin of the idea of that “unbloody sacrifice” very distinctly. From Tacitus we learn that no blood was allowed to be offered on the altars of Paphian Venus. Victims were used for the purposes of the Haruspex, that presages of the issues of events might be drawn from the inspection of the entrails of these victims; but the altars of the Paphian goddess were required to be kept pure from blood. Tacitus shows that the Haruspex of the temple of the Paphian Venus was brought from Cilicia, for his knowledge of her rites, that they might be duly performed according to the supposed will of the goddess, the Cilicians having peculiar knowledge of her rites. Now, Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, was built by Sennacerib, the Assyrian king, in express imitation of Babylon. Its religion would naturally correspond; and when we find “unbloody sacrifice” in Cyprus, whose priest came from Cilicia, that, in the circumstances, is itself a strong presumption that the “unbloody sacrifice” came to it through Cilicia from Babylon. This presumption is greatly strengthened when we find from Herodotus that the peculiar and abominable institution of Babylon in prostituting virgins in honour of Mylitta, was observed also in Cyprus in honour of Venus. But the positive testimony of Pausanias brings this presumption to a certainty. “Near this,” says that historian, speaking of the temple of Vulcan at Athens, “is the temple of Celestial Venus, who was first worshipped by the Assyrians, and after these by the Paphians in Cyprus, and the Phoenicians who inhabited the city of Ascalon in Palestine. But the Cythereans venerated this goddess in consequence of learning her sacred rites from the Phoenicians.” The Assyrian Venus, then–that is, the great goddess of Babylon–and the Cyprian Venus were one and the same, and consequently the “bloodless” altars of the Paphian goddess show the character of the worship peculiar to the Babylonian goddess, from whom she was derived. In this respect the goddess-queen of Chaldea differed from her son, who was worshipped in her arms. He was, as we have seen, represented as delighting in blood. But she, as the mother of grace and mercy, as the celestial “Dove,” as “the hope of the whole world,” (BRYANT) was averse to blood, and was represented in a benign and gentle character. Accordingly, in Babylon she bore the name of Mylitta–that is, “The Mediatrix.” *

* Mylitta is the same as Melitta, the feminine of Melitz, “a mediator,” which in Chaldee becomes Melitt. Melitz is the word used in Job 33:23, 24: “If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter (Heb. Melitz, “a mediator“), one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom.”

Every one who reads the Bible, and sees how expressly it declares that, as there is only “one God,” so there is only “one Mediator between God and man” (1 Tim 2:5), must marvel how it could ever have entered the mind of any one to bestow on Mary, as is done by the Church of Rome, the character of the “Mediatrix.” But the character ascribed to the Babylonian goddess as Mylitta sufficiently accounts for this. In accordance with this character of Mediatrix, she was called Aphrodite–that is, “the wrath-subduer” *–who by her charms could soothe the breast of angry Jove, and soften the most rugged spirits of gods or mortal-men. In Athens she was called Amarusia (PAUSANIAS)–that is, “The Mother of gracious acceptance.” **

* From Chaldee “aph,” “wrath,” and “radah,” “to subdue”; “radite” is the feminine emphatic.

** From “Ama,” “mother,” and “Retza,” “to accept graciously,” which in the participle active is “Rutza.” Pausanias expresses his perplexity as to the meaning of the name Amarusia as applied to Diana, saying, “Concerning which appellation I never could find any one able to give a satisfactory account.” The sacred tongue plainly shows the meaning of it.

In Rome she was called “Bona Dea,” “the good goddess,” the mysteries of this goddess being celebrated by women with peculiar secrecy. In India the goddess Lakshmi, “the Mother of the Universe,” the consort of Vishnu, is represented also as possessing the most gracious and genial disposition; and that disposition is indicated in the same way as in the case of the Babylonian goddess. “In the festivals of Lakshmi,” says Coleman, “no sanguinary sacrifices are offered.” In China, the great gods, on whom the final destinies of mankind depend, are held up to the popular mind as objects of dread; but the goddess Kuanyin, “the goddess of mercy,” whom the Chinese of Canton recognise as bearing an analogy to the Virgin or Rome, is described as looking with an eye of compassion on the guilty, and interposing to save miserable souls even from torments to which in the world of spirits they have been doomed. Therefore she is regarded with peculiar favour by the Chinese. This character of the goddess-mother has evidently radiated in all directions from Chaldea. Now, thus we see how it comes that Rome represents Christ, the “Lamb of God,” meek and lowly in heart, who never brake the bruised reed, nor quenched the smoking flax–who spake words of sweetest encouragement to every mourning penitent–who wept over Jerusalem–who prayed for His murderers–as a stern and inexorable judge, before whom the sinner “might grovel in the dust, and still never be sure that his prayers would be heard,” while Mary is set off in the most winning and engaging light, as the hope of the guilty, as the grand refuge of sinners; how it is that the former is said to have “reserved justice and judgment to Himself,” but to have committed the exercise of all mercy to His Mother! The most standard devotional works of Rome are pervaded by this very principle, exalting the compassion and gentleness of the mother at the expense of the loving character of the Son. Thus, St. Alphonsus Liguori tells his readers that the sinner that ventures to come directly to Christ may come with dread and apprehension of His wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with her Son, and she has only to “show” that Son “the breasts that gave him suck,” (Catholic Layman, July, 1856) and His wrath will immediately be appeased. But where in the Word of God could such an idea have been found? Not surely in the answer of the Lord Jesus to the woman who exclaimed,

“Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps that thou hast sucked!“

Jesus answered and said unto her,

“Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:27,28).

There cannot be a doubt that this answer was given by the prescient Saviour, to check in the very bud every idea akin to that expressed by Liguori. Yet this idea, which is not to be found in Scripture, which the Scripture expressly repudiates, was widely diffused in the realms of Paganism. Thus we find an exactly parallel representation in the Hindoo mythology in regard to the god Siva and his wife Kali, when that god appeared as a little child. “Siva,” says the Lainga Puran, “appeared as an infant in a cemetery, surrounded by ghosts, and on beholding him, Kali (his wife) took him up, and, caressing him, gave him her breast. He sucked the nectareous fluid; but becoming ANGRY, in order to divert and PACIFY him, Kali clasping him to her bosom, danced with her attendant goblins and demons amongst the dead, until he was pleased and delighted; while Vishnu, Brahma, Indra, and all the gods, bowing themselves, praised with laudatory strains the god of gods, Kal and Parvati.” Kali, in India, is the goddess of destruction; but even into the myth that concerns this goddess of destruction, the power of the goddess mother, in appeasing an offended god, by means only suited to PACIFY a peevish child, has found an introduction. If the Hindoo story exhibits its “god of gods” in such a degrading light, how much more honouring is the Papal story to the Son of the Blessed, when it represents Him as needing to be pacified by His mother exposing to Him “the breasts that He has sucked.” All this is done only to exalt the Mother, as more gracious and more compassionate than her glorious Son. Now, this was the very case in Babylon: and to this character of the goddess queen her favourite offerings exactly corresponded. Therefore, we find the women of Judah represented as simply

“burning incense, pouring out drink-offerings, and offering cakes to the queen of heaven” (Jer 44:19).

The cakes were “the unbloody sacrifice” she required. That “unbloody sacrifice” her votaries not only offered, but when admitted to the higher mysteries, they partook of, swearing anew fidelity to her. In the fourth century, when the queen of heaven, under the name of Mary, was beginning to be worshipped in the Christian Church, this “unbloody sacrifice” also was brought in. Epiphanius states that the practice of offering and eating it began among the women of Arabia; and at that time it was well known to have been adopted from the Pagans. The very shape of the unbloody sacrifice of Rome may indicate whence it came. It is a small thin, round wafer; and on its roundness the Church of Rome lays so much stress, to use the pithy language of John Knox in regard to the wafer-god, “If, in making the roundness the ring be broken, then must another of his fellow-cakes receive that honour to be made a god, and the crazed or cracked miserable cake, that once was in hope to be made a god, must be given to a baby to play withal.” What could have induced the Papacy to insist so much on the “roundness” of its “unbloody sacrifice”? Clearly not any reference to the Divine institution of the Supper of our Lord; for in all the accounts that are given of it, no reference whatever is made to the form of the bread which our Lord took, when He blessed and break it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is My body: this do in remembrance of Me.” As little can it be taken from any regard to injunctions about the form of the Jewish Paschal bread; for no injunctions on that subject are given in the books of Moses. The importance, however, which Rome attaches to the roundness of the wafer, must have a reason; and that reason will be found, if we look at the altars of Egypt. “The thin, round cake,” says Wilkinson, “occurs on all altars.” Almost every jot or tittle in the Egyptian worship had a symbolical meaning. The round disk, so frequent in the sacred emblems of Egypt, symbolised the sun. Now, when Osiris, the sun-divinity, became incarnate, and was born, it was not merely that he should give his life as a sacrifice for men, but that he might also be the life and nourishment of the souls of men. It is universally admitted that Isis was the original of the Greek and Roman Ceres. But Ceres, be it observed, was worshipped not simply as the discoverer of corn; she was worshipped as “the MOTHER of Corn.” The child she brought forth was He-Siri, “the Seed,” or, as he was most frequently called in Assyria, “Bar,” which signifies at once “the Son” and “the Corn.” (see figure 37). The uninitiated might reverence Ceres for the gift of material corn to nourish their bodies, but the initiated adored her for a higher gift–for food to nourish their souls–for giving them that bread of God that cometh down from heaven–for the life of the world, of which, “if a man eat, he shall never die.” Does any one imagine that it is a mere New Testament doctrine, that Christ is the “bread of life”? There never was, there never could be, spiritual life in any soul, since the world began, at least since the expulsion from Eden, that was not nourished and supported by a continual feeding by faith on the Son of God,

“in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell” (Col 1:19),

“that out of His fulness we might receive, and grace for grace” (John 1:16).

Figure 37

Paul tells us that the manna of which the Israelites ate in the wilderness was to them a type and lively symbol of “the bread of life“; (1 Cor 10:3), “They did all eat the same spiritual meat“–i.e., meat which was intended not only to support their natural lives, but to point them to Him who was the life of their souls.

Now, Clement of Alexandria, to whom we are largely indebted for all the discoveries that, in modern times, have been made in Egypt, expressly assures us that, “in their hidden character, the enigmas of the Egyptians were VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE JEWS.” That the initiated Pagans actually believed that the “Corn” which Ceres bestowed on the world was not the “Corn” of this earth, but the Divine “Son,” through whom alone spiritual and eternal life could be enjoyed, we have clear and decisive proof. The Druids were devoted worshippers of Ceres, and as such they were celebrated in their mystic poems as “bearers of the ears of corn.” Now, the following is the account which the Druids give of their great divinity, under the form of “Corn.” That divinity was represented as having, in the first instance, incurred, for some reason or other, the displeasure of Ceres, and was fleeing in terror from her. In his terror, “he took the form of a bird, and mounted into the air. That element afforded him no refuge: for The Lady, in the form of a sparrow-hawk, was gaining upon him–she was just in the act of pouncing upon him. Shuddering with dread, he perceived a heap of clean wheat upon a floor, dropped into the midst of it, and assumed the form of a single grain. Ceridwen [i.e., the British Ceres] took the form of a black high-crested hen, descended into the wheat, scratched him out, distinguished, and swallowed him. And, as the history relates, she was pregnant of him nine months, and when delivered of him, she found him so lovely a babe, that she had not resolution to put him to death” (“Song of Taliesin,” DAVIES’S British Druids). Here it is evident that the grain of corn, is expressly identified with “the lovely babe“; from which it is still further evident that Ceres, who, to the profane vulgar was known only as the Mother of “Bar,” “the Corn,” was known to the initiated as the Mother of “Bar,” “the Son.” And now, the reader will be prepared to understand the full significance of the representation in the Celestial sphere of “the Virgin with the ear of wheat in her hand.” That ear of wheat in the Virgin’s hand is just another symbol for the child in the arms of the Virgin Mother.

Now, this Son, who was symbolised as “Corn,” was the SUN-divinity incarnate, according to the sacred oracle of the great goddess of Egypt: “No mortal hath lifted my veil. The fruit which I have brought forth is the SUN” (BUNSEN’S Egypt). What more natural then, if this incarnate divinity is symbolised as the “bread of God,” than that he should be represented as a “round wafer,” to identify him with the Sun? Is this a mere fancy? Let the reader peruse the following extract from Hurd, in which he describes the embellishments of the Romish altar, on which the sacrament or consecrated wafer is deposited, and then he will be able to judge: “A plate of silver, in the form of a SUN, is fixed opposite to the SACRAMENT on the altar; which, with the light of the tapers, makes a most brilliant appearance.” What has that “brilliant” “Sun” to do there, on the altar, over against the “sacrament,” or round wafer? In Egypt, the disk of the Sun was represented in the temples, and the sovereign and his wife and children were represented as adoring it.

Near the small town of Babain, in Upper Egypt, there still exists in a grotto, a representation of a sacrifice to the sun, where two priests are seen worshipping the sun’s image, as in the accompanying woodcut (see figure 38). In the great temple of Babylon, the golden image of the Sun was exhibited for the worship of the Babylonians. In the temple of Cuzco, in Peru, the disk of the sun was fixed up in flaming gold upon the wall, that all who entered might bow down before it. The Paeonians of Thrace were sun-worshippers; and in their worship they adored an image of the sun in the form of a disk at the top of a long pole. In the worship of Baal, as practised by the idolatrous Israelites in the days of their apostacy, the worship of the sun’s image was equally observed; and it is striking to find that the image of the sun, which apostate Israel worshipped, was erected above the altar. When the good king Josiah set about the work of reformation, we read that his servants in carrying out the work, proceeded thus (2 Chron 34:4): “And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence, and the images (margin, SUN-IMAGES) that were on high above them, he cut down.” Benjamin of Tudela, the great Jewish traveller, gives a striking account of sun-worship even in comparatively modern times, as subsisting among the Cushites of the East, from which we find that the image of the sun was, even in his day, worshipped on the altar. “There is a temple,” says he, “of the posterity of Chus, addicted to the contemplation of the stars. They worship the sun as a god, and the whole country, for half-a-mile round their town, is filled with great altars dedicated to him. By the dawn of morn they get up and run out of town, to wait the rising sun, to whom, on every altar, there is a consecrated image, not in the likeness of a man, but of the solar orb, framed by magic art. These orbs, as soon as the sun rises, take fire, and resound with a great noise, while everybody there, men and women, hold censers in their hands, and all burn incense to the sun.” From all this, it is manifest that the image of the sun above, or on the altar, was one of the recognised symbols of those who worshipped Baal or the sun. And here, in a so-called Christian Church, a brilliant plate of silver, “in the form of a SUN,” is so placed on the altar, that every one who adores at that altar must bow down in lowly reverence before that image of the “Sun.” Whence, I ask, could that have come, but from the ancient sun-worship, or the worship of Baal? And when the wafer is so placed that the silver “SUN” is fronting the “round” wafer, whose “roundness” is so important an element in the Romish Mystery, what can be the meaning of it, but just to show to those who have eyes to see, that the “Wafer” itself is only another symbol of Baal, or the Sun.

If the sun-divinity was worshipped in Egypt as “the Seed,” or in Babylon as the “Corn,” precisely so is the wafer adored in Rome. “Bread-corn of the elect, have mercy upon us,” is one of the appointed prayers of the Roman Litany, addressed to the wafer, in the celebration of the mass. And one at least of the imperative requirements as to the way in which that wafer is to be partaken of, is the very same as was enforced in the old worship of the Babylonian divinity. Those who partake of it are required to partake absolutely fasting. This is very stringently laid down. Bishop Hay, laying down the law on the subject, says that it is indispensable, “that we be fasting from midnight, so as to have taken nothing into our stomach from twelve o’clock at night before we receive, neither food, nor drink, nor medicine.” Considering that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Communion immediately after His disciples had partaken of the paschal feast, such a strict requirement of fasting might seem very unaccountable. But look at this provision in regard to the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass in the light of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and it is accounted for at once; for there the first question put to those who sought initiation was, “Are you fasting?” (POTTER, Eleusiania) and unless that question was answered in the affirmative, no initiation could take place. There is no question that fasting is in certain circumstances a Christian duty; but while neither the letter nor the spirit of the Divine institution requires any such stringent regulation as the above, the regulations in regard to the Babylonian Mysteries make it evident whence this requirement has really come.

Although the god whom Isis or Ceres brought forth, and who was offered to her under the symbol of the wafer or thin round cake, as “the bread of life,” was in reality the fierce, scorching Sun, or terrible Moloch, yet in that offering all his terror was veiled, and everything repulsive was cast into the shade. In the appointed symbol he is offered up to the benignant Mother, who tempers judgment with mercy, and to whom all spiritual blessings are ultimately referred; and blessed by that mother, he is given back to be feasted upon, as the staff of life, as the nourishment of her worshippers’ souls. Thus the Mother was held up as the favourite divinity. And thus, also, and for an entirely similar reason, does the Madonna of Rome entirely eclipse her son as the “Mother of grace and mercy.”

In regard to the Pagan character of the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass, we have seen not little already. But there is something yet to be considered, in which the working of the mystery of iniquity will still further appear. There are letters on the wafer that are worth reading. These letters are I. H. S. What mean these mystical letters? To a Christian these letters are represented as signifying, “Iesus Hominum Salvator,” “Jesus the Saviour of men.” But let a Roman worshipper of Isis (for in the age of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them? He will read them, of course, according to his own well known system of idolatry: “Isis, Horus, Seb,” that is, “The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods,”–in other words, “The Egyptian Trinity.” Can the reader imagine that this double sense is accidental? Surely not. The very same spirit that converted the festival of the Pagan Oannes into the feast of the Christian Joannes, retaining at the same time all its ancient Paganism, has skilfully planned the initials I. H. S. to pay the semblance of a tribute to Christianity, while Paganism in reality has all the substance of the homage bestowed upon it.

When the women of Arabia began to adopt this wafer and offer the “unbloody sacrifice,” all genuine Christians saw at once the real character of their sacrifice. They were treated as heretics, and branded with the name of Collyridians, from the Greek name for the cake which they employed. But Rome saw that the heresy might be turned to account; and therefore, though condemned by the sound portion of the Church, the practice of offering and eating this “unbloody sacrifice” was patronised by the Papacy; and now, throughout the whole bounds of the Romish communion, it has superseded the simple but most precious sacrament of the Supper instituted by our Lord Himself.

Intimately connected with the sacrifice of the mass is the subject of transubstantiation; but the consideration of it will come more conveniently at a subsequent stage of this inquiry. 

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter IV. Section IV — Extreme Unction

All chapters of The Two Babylons

This is the continuation of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History – Chapter VII. Antichrist Revealed by Chain of Evidences.

THE learned Rev. C. H. H. Wright, D.D., in his “Daniel and his Prophecies” (Willams & Norgate, 1906, p. xiv.) says: “The Futuristic School of prophetical interpretation has been, to no small degree, responsible for the success which has attended the modern onslaught on the credibility of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The interpreters of that narrow school of thought, however, imagine themselves to br the only real defenders of Holy Scripture. The origin of that school, in its modern phase, may be traced back to Ribera, a distinguished Jesuit expositor (1585), and to the other remarkable Jesuit interpreters of the seventeenth century. Futurist views of prophecy, as was natural, were soon accepted by the theologians of the High Church School, and were also caught up by many popular preachers of the Evangelical party in the National Church. The interest, however, in prophetical studies, did not long continue to be a general characteristic of the High Church party, but their prophetical views spread among writers of the so called ‘Plymouth Brethren.’ Most of their leaders wrote on prophecy, and all more or less in support of Futuristic views. A craving after sensationalism is a marked characteristic of many of the writers of the Futurist School. The Book of Daniel itself ought to have acted as a warning against their fantastic views of the imaginary Antichrist of the latter days. These novel Futurists expound the prophecies as teaching that the disconnected ten kingdoms will all be joined together again (contrary to the statement of Daniel ii. 43,44), and Satan visibly seated on the throne of a united world, when the Son of Man shall appear. All these are idle dreams of men imperfectly acquainted with the prophecies.

“‘The Antichrist’ and ‘the deceiver’ has been working in the Church since St. John’s days (2 John vii.). The outward and visible Church very soon began to wrap earth-woven robes around her, and to dream of ‘infallibility,’ all the while that she abounded with false doctrines, and had departed widely from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the Saints.’ Outside the Church there is no Antichrist, in the Biblical sense of the term; inside the Church that evil power has sat for nearly 2,000 years as ‘God in the temple of God.’

“The attempt to interpret Old and New Testament prophecies literally, as these writers term it, led the Futurists into conclusions which, as Professor Birks, of Cambridge, long ago stated, tended to undermine the foundations of all Christian evidences. That learned writer noted that their reasonings and principles were more incredulous than those of the infidel, and asserted that, when such opinions gained general currency and approval in the Church, the reign of open infidelity would be at hand. This statement was made about 1841, in his book on the ‘First Elements of Sacred Prophecy.’

“Similar warnings to that effect were uttered by other writers. The warnings have passed by unheeded. What was foreseen has long since come to pass.”

Again, in a footnote to p. 238, Dr. Wright said, in criticism of these modern Futurists: “The English Futurist expositors of our day, highly dogmatic in their tone (Mr. Pember and Sir R. Anderson) . . . are intensely dogmatic on points on which the evidence adduced is most uncertain. Sir R. Anderson’s ‘Daniel in the Critic’s Den’ . . . breaks down completely when it comes to interpretation. Mr. Pember’s book is thoroughly unscientific, even from an ‘orthodox’ point of view. It is strangely fanciful and wild in its ideas respecting a reign of Satan, and lays undue stress upon the scandalous aberrations of the Paris ‘Luciferians’ . . . to propound the theory that Satan in person will be actually worshiped by the world at large, and that Society will sink into utter chaos before the Second Advent, is opposed to all Scripture. These ultra-literalists are doing as much damage to God’s Word as the critics whom they regard as the precursors of Antichrist.”

On p. 239 he says: “The mistakes . . . may be traced up to the false schools of exegesis, in which they were trained, and have been mainly due to their desire to predict a future quite outside the horizon of the prophecy. There is not a line in the prophecy (Daniel ix.) concerning ‘the Antichrist,’ of whom the Fathers wrote so fantastically.”

It must be remembered that Dr. Wright was a great scholar, learned in Hebrew and Greek, and therefore competent to pass judgment on such incautious and wild writers as those he criticizes, and who are as ignorant of Hebrew as they are of Oriental figures of speech or turns of thought.

Another eminent and scholarly author, the Rev. E. B. Elliott, to his learned Commentary on the Apocalypse—than which no more able an examination of sacred prophecy has ever appeared, has added a “Critical Examination and Refutation of the Three Chief Counter-Schemes of Apocalyptic Interpretation” —the German Preterist, the Futurist, and the “Church-Scheme.” Of the second he says (“Hore Apocalyptiae,” Vol. IV., p. 506): “The Futurists” is the Second grand Anti-Protestant Apocalyptic scheme. I might perhaps have though it sufficient to refer the reader to Mr. Birks’ masterly work in refutation of it, but for the consideration that my own would be incomplete without some such examination of this Futurist scheme. . . The Futurist scheme was first, or nearly first, propounded about 1590 by the Jesuit Ribera, as the fittest one whereby to turn aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecy from the Church of Rome. In England and Ireland, of late years, it has been brought into vogue chiefly by Mr. Maitland and Mr. Burgh; followed by Mr. Newman, in some of the Oxford Tracts on Antichrist. Its general characteristic is to view the whole Apocalypse . . . as a representation of the events of the consummation and Second Advent all still future; literal Israel; literal days; and the Antichrist . . . a personal infidel to reign for just three and a half years.” . . . “A great advantage that they have over the Preterits” is “that instead of being in any measure chained down by the facts of history, they can draw on the unlimited powers of fancy, wherewith to devise in the dreaming future whatever may seem to them to fit the sacred prophecy.”

Mr. Elliott triumphantly shows “the insuperable difficulties attending the Futurist scheme,” how it “sets language, grammar and context at defiance”; how “inconsistency” marks it from beginning to end; how erroneous is their conception of Antichrist; how self-contradictory and illogical; how opposed to History, Scripture and the Ancient Fathers is the Futurist view of the religion of Antichrist; and “that it is not merely unaccordant with the Apocalyptic and the other cognate prophecies of Antichrist, but that it is, even intellectually speaking, a mere rude and commonplace conception of Satan’s predicted masterpiece of opposition to Christ, compared with what has been actually realized and established in the Papacy” (p. 539). “The Papal system is beyond anything that the Futurists have imagined, or ever can imagine, the very perfection of Anti-Christianism,” because “an open, desperate enemy, sworn against your life, family, friends, property,” is infinitely less dangerous and offensive than “one that, while professing the utmost friendship, by some strange impersonation of you, in your absence, insinuates himself into your place in the family, seduces your wife to be as his wife, your children to look to him as their father; then makes use of his opportunities to train them into unfaithfulness and rebellion to all your most solemn and cherished wishes and commands; falsifying your letters, and forging your handwriting, in order the more effectually to carry out his plan; and even at length framing an image, and breathing voice into it, and by magic art and strong delusion making men believe that it was yourself speaking, in expression of perfect approval of this proceedings, as those of your chief friend, plenipotentiary and chosen substitute.”

“Such is somewhat the view of Antichrist sketched in Scripture prophecy; such what has been realized in the Popes and Popedom. And, horrid as was the Atheism of the French Revolutionists, yet must I beg leave to doubt whether, in God’s view, it was as horrid an abomination, even at its worst, as the blasphemous hypocrisies and betrayal of Christ in the polished Court and Church Councils of His Usurping Vicar and impersonator. Sharp as were the thorns and nails and spear of the Pagan soldiery, they were surely less painful to the Savior than the kiss of Judas.” (Psa. lv. 12-14)

Professor T. R. Birks (“First Elements of Sacred Prophecy”), after enumerating the “maxims in the interpretation of the sacred prophecies generally received by the Protestant Churches, ever since the time of the Reformation,” adds “all of these maxims, however, without distinction, have been rejected by several late writers . . . Burgh, Maitland, Todd, Dodsworth, Tyso, MacCausland, Govett. . . . They agree in few points, except in rejecting the conclusions of all previous expositors; and maintain that nearly the whole of Daniel’s prophecies and of the Apocalypse are unfulfilled. Now, if the theories of these writers are entirely groundless, the responsibility which they have incurred is very great, and the effects of their error may prove extremely fatal to the Church. The strongest bulwark against the revived zeal of the Romish Church will have been taken away when it is most needed; and the danger of a renewed apostasy will have been fearfully increased. . . A spirit of feverish and skeptical doubt . . . will have been injected, without warrant, into the minds of thousands; the light which the Word of God has thrown on half the whole period of the Church’s history, will have been quenched in darkness; and her hopes for the future, by a perplexed and fallacious application of irrelevant prophecies, be involved in a chaos of fanciful conjectures and inextricable confusion.”

Mr. Birks, by a careful analysis of the statements of the above-mentioned Futurists, demonstrates incontrovertibly their “rashness,” “emptiness,” their “groundless,” “untrue” attacks upon Protestant expositors of note; their “gross absurdity,” which “directly contradict the early writers”; their “irrelevance,” “inconsistence,” “self-contradictions,” “illogicality”; their “bold inversion of facts,” “willful perversions of Scripture”; and, finally, “the view of the Futurists brings down the servants of God in every age to the level of the unbelievers . . . and, by a wretched alchemy, turns all their most patient and prayerful researches into one pile of laborious blunders. This reason alone, with every thoughtful Christian, should be enough to convict their [Futurist] system, as a system, of utter falsehood.”

These words were published in 1843, before the Higher Critics, and Rationalists and Futurists had succeeded in so emasculating all testimony against Antichrist as to produce complete confusion and Babylonianism in “the Church.” Since then, owing to the rapid growth of error, which is ever swifter than Truth, these allies have succeeded in breaking down the Witness of Protestantism against Popery, whether in the Established Churches, or in un-Established Churches; and the only gainer has been, and still is, the Antichrist of prophecy.

The late Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, in his “Approaching End of the Age” (pp. 95 et seq.) said: “The Futurist view is that which teaches that the prophetic visions of Revelation, from chapters iv. to xix., prefigure events still wholly future, and not to take place till just at the close of this dispensation. It supposes ‘an instant plunge of the Apocalyptic prophecy into the distant future of the consummation.’ This view gives the literal Israel a large place in the Apocalypse, and expects a solitary infidel Antichrist, who shall bitterly oppress the saints for three and a half years, near the date of the Second Advent, thus interpreting time as well as much else in the Apocalypse, literally. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the sixteenth century with the Jesuit Ribera, who, moved like Alcazar to relieve the Papacy from the terrible stigma cast upon it by the Protestant interpretation, tried to do so by referring these prophecies to the distant future, instead of, like Alcazar, to the distant past. It is held under a great variety of modifications, no two writers agreeing as to what the symbols do prefigure. . . The Futurist view denies progressive revelation. . .”

Dr. Guinness replies, in an Appendix, to various Futurist attacks upon his work. One is by a “Plymouth Brother,” of whom Dr. Guinness remarks: “The critic who undertakes to reply to a work of this character should at least be accurate in his statements of the views he opposes. The anonymous author is very much the reverse, and spends most of his strength in commenting on confusions which he has himself created. A peculiar tone of dogmatism which pervades his remarks is not calculated to produce conviction in thoughtful minds. The ‘reply’ is, in fact, superficial and inaccurate. . . Futurist critics are an enigma. . . They cannot deny or be blind to certain grand historical facts . . . yet they deny that the symbols foretell the facts. . . . though Futurists admit how exactly the symbols of prophecy answer to these facts . . . and they assert—what, of course, can neither be proved nor disproved—that they foretell other future events!

“Not only by this writer, but by all writers of the Futurist School, are these supposed future acts of the supposed future Antichrist largely discussed and gravely insisted on. Few would surmise how frail the foundation on which this cardinal doctrine that Antichrist is to make a covenant with the Jews—rests. Few would suppose that the notion has really no solid ground at all in Scripture, but is derived from an erroneous interpretation of one single clause of one single text . . . Daniel ix, 27 . . . one of the gravest evils of Futurism is the terrible way in which it tampers with this great fundamental prophecy, applying to . . . Antichrist its Divine description of . . . Christ.”

Referring to another Futurist critic, Sir Robert Anderson, and his “The Coming Prince, the Last Great Monarch of Christendom,” Dr. Guinness remarked: “The title is a combination of error and assumption, . . . ‘The Coming Prince’—intended as it is for a quotation from Daniel ix. 26, is an erroneous citation, for there is no definite article in the Hebrew. The book . . . is marred by error and assumption, as well as by rash statements and wild speculations. It is also marred by a disrespectful, supercilious manner . . . which is neither gentlemanly nor Christian . .” ” So close and accurate is the correspondence of history with prophecy (in the division of the Roman earth into ten kingdoms) that . . . this writer himself perceives it, while he denies it . . . for he admits that the existing state of things in Europe is ‘undoubtedly a feature of the prophecy.’

“The monstrous ‘gap’ theory of the Futurist School is maintained in the most dogmatic way by Dr. Anderson, who makes the strangely false assertion that ‘all Christian interpreters are agreed in it’ . . . ‘ the entire Historic School of Protestant interpreters . . . would utterly and unhesitatingly reject such an interpretation as offensive to common sense, and doing violence to the oracles of God.’” “The Futurist theory, which confines the evil career . . . of Antichrist to a period subsequent to the destruction of Babylon by the ten horns must be erroneous . . . “Futurists are obliged to admit that the Babylon of Rev. xvii. is the Apostate Church of Rome. They cannot, moreover, question that the Church of Rome has endured for twelve or thirteen centuries. The great Anti-Christian persecution takes place during the reign of Babylon, not after her destruction. That destruction is followed, not by that great Anti-Christian persecution, but by the Marriage of the Lamb (Rev. xix.).” “If the ten kingdoms have existed for the last thirteen or fourteen centuries, so has the Antichrist, for he is their contemporary; and Futurism falls to the ground.

“To conclude: The Futurist conception of Antichrist as an openly-avowed Atheist, an infidel King, who will oppose all religion and morality, and set himself in direct and daring opposition to Christ, is, to say the best of it, an unutterably poor and low conception, even intellectually, compared to the great and terrible reality.”

The last authority to be cited is the late Dr. M. O’Sullivan, whose “Of the Apostasy predicted by St. Paul,” published in 1842, is by far the most cautious, careful, and erudite analysis of Scripture known to me. It possesses also the merit of critically examining the Futurist theories of Dr. Todd and other writers of that school. Its extensive knowledge of Greek, of Scripture, and of prophecy, establishes it as a monument of learning, and fidelity to the text. Now what is the view of this elaborate commentary? It simply annihilates, though most courteously, the Futurist perversions of Scripture, which do duty for interpretations of prophecy. With great patience, and infinite care, it shows how “conjecture as to the interpretation of a prophecy” is miscalled “consideration of the true meaning” of such terms as “Apostasy”; how mere “opinions” are twisted into “authority to determine the meaning of terms.” Take, for instance, the phrase, “Temple of God,” which Dr. Todd and other Futurists—in spite of admissions that “a modern Christian might very well understand the Church of Christ”—persist in regarding literally of some still future earthly building, in which a solitary Antichrist is to sit. Dr. O’Sullivan patiently investigates past solutions and Futurist assumptions, pointing out objections, difficulties, inconsistencies, fallacies, and contradictions—confusion between “literal” and “material,” between apostolic usage of terms and Futurist misuse of them. He cites McKnight on the Epistles: “It is an observation of Bochart, that after the death of Christ, the Apostles never called the temple of Jerusalem the temple of God, but as often as they used that phrase they meant the Christian Church (1 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Ephes. ii. 19, 24). Besides, in the Revelation of St. John, which was written some years after the destruction of Jerusalem, there is mention made of men’s ‘ becoming pillars in the Temple of God’ (Rev. iii. 12).” “Hence, it is evident that the ‘sitting of the man of sin in the Temple of God’ by no means implies that he was to show himself in Judea.’’

Dr. O’Sullivan then contrasts the language the Apostles used when they spoke of the Temple at Jerusalem. “St. Paul, for example, speaks of that edifice five times (Acts xxii. 17; xxiv. 12-18; xxv. 8; xxvi. 21). In every instance he styles it ‘the temple,’ not once ‘the temple of God.’” “In the words, ‘Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God?’ (1 Cor. iii. 16), there is an interrogatory . . . that those whom the Apostle addressed were prepared to understand the name ‘temple of God’ in the sense in which the writer used it,” and not as Dr. Todd and Futurists misuse it, viz., a material sense (pp. 31-32). Dr. Todd actually admits that he cannot “see any Scriptural authority” “that Antichrist should rebuild the temple,” or “how a temple built by Antichrist for his own purposes can be properly called the Temple of God.” (p. 36).

In regard to the term, “the man of sin,” which the Douay Bible (Stereotyped Edition, A.D. 1825) says must mean “some particular man” “from the frequent repetition of the article the man of sin, the son of perdition, the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world,” we see at once the origin of the Futurist theory. It is derived from Romish sources. Yet Dr. Todd adopted this idea and line of argument (Todd’s “Discourses,” p. 233). Dr. O’Sullivan exposes the hollowness of this notion, as well as Dr. Todd’s mendacious assertion that this idea “has been so understood by all the ancient commentators.” He cites, as an instance to the contrary, Matthies’ “Copious Greek Grammar,” translated by Blomfield. “The article serves to signify that the noun with which it stands indicates either a determinate object among several which are comprehended under the same idea, or the whole species” (Vol. I., p. 457); and adds: “thus it appears, on sound principles of grammar, that with equal propriety the article may constitute the noun, to which it is prefixed, the name of an individual or of a class. Its effect in each particular expression must be determined by usage and by the context.” (p. 91).

Further, on pp. 92-93, he shows how false the Futurist idea is, by reference to such Scriptures as Luke iv. 4; Mark ii, 27; 2 Tim. iii. 17; Matt.xii. 35; 1 John ii. 18; Matt. v. 25; John x. 10, 12; 2 Thess. ii. 3; and to the English usage of the indefinite article to individualize an expression, while the definite article enlarges the application of a name to a class or order. “Thus a King or Queen of England is one; the King or Queen represents or comprehends many.” “A King has the life of an individual; the King never dies,” “The man of God” (2 Tim. iv. 17) is the name of a class. In Hebrews ix. 7 “the high-priest” means the succession of high-priests. There is therefore no necessity—as falsely asserted by Futurists like Dr. Todd—that Ho anthropos—the man of sin, should designate one solitary person, but rather the contrary.

Dr. Todd falls into the inconsistency of using the definite article in the very sense he opposed; for he spoke of “the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome,” when he meant the entire succession of Bishops of Rome (p. 95); just as Bishop Bossuet, the Romish opponent of Protestants, fell into the same blunder in the heat of controversy—speaking of the Papacy as a line of Bishops. His words were: “All the Roman bishops are to be regarded as the one person of St. Peter, in whom the faith of Peter never should fail.” (“Defensio,” etc., Vol. II., p. 191; O’Sullivan, p. 95).

Dr. O’Sullivan adduces other instances of the absurdity of this particular Futuristic idea about one solitary Antichrist; for instance, the Abbé Baniére in his “Histoire Générale de Céremonie,” etc., Vol. 1, 288, describes “The adoration of the Pope, on the grand altar of St. Peter.” meaning Popes in general; and on p. 287 the same French author says: “The Pope thus robed is carried in his chair before the altar of the chapel where he was elected; and there the Cardinal Doyen, and afterwards the other Cardinals, adore his Holiness on their knees.” Upon which Dr. O’Sullivan justly observes: “The article does not pronounce the ‘man of sin’ a single individual. On the contrary, it may, with equal propriety, be regarded as constituting the expression . . . the title of an order or succession.”

On pp. 370-371 Dr. O’Sullivan shows that the word “person” has two different meanings, as explained in Blackstone’s Commentary, Book 1, Ch. i. “Persons are divided by law into either natural persons or artificial.” Natural persons are individuals; artificial persons are corporations or bodies politic. There is the single person who ends at death. There is the perpetual person in whom a community subsists, and also lives by a perpetual succession. Each of these is equally real. “The parson of a parish” is no less intelligible as the appellation of an individual, than of the persons who in succession have charge. “The Pope”, or “the Bishop of Rome” is susceptible of the same twofold application. Lainez, the Jesuit, at the Council of Trent, used this very figure: “These things, that is, to be a key-keeper and a pastor, being perpetual offices, must be conferred upon a perpetual person, that is, not upon the first only, but upon all his succession. So the Bishop of Rome, from St. Peter to the end of the world, is true and absolute monarch . . .” (“History of Council of Trent,” Lib. VII p. 571, Brentitraus). So Le Maistre, the Ultramontane, in his work, “Du Pape” (Tome II., p. 344), declares “that a whole sovereignty should be considered as one individual . . . and that the succession of the Popes is incomparably superior to all others.”

In fact all Papal orators or authors speak of “the Pope” and “the Bishop of Rome,” when they mean a perpetual person, not an individual. Thus Cardinal Wiseman in his Lectures; Fénélon, etc. Hence, Futurists are absolutely wrong in interpreting ho anthropos as one solitary person.

Dr. O’Sullivan helps the cause of truth also by his Excursus on the “Adoration” of the Church of Rome, addressed to Popes, and to Images (pp. 388 et seq.). He says: “The evasions which many of her advocates practice in escaping from the real ground of complaint against her, are plainly devices to which no man, who felt his cause good, would condescend to have recourse.” “According to the representations of these advocates, Romanism does not adore creatures, whether images or saints.” According to Milner. (“End of Controversy,” 1828, Dublin, p. 258, note), “Catholics abstain from applying it [the word ‘worship’] to persons or things inferior to God, making use of the word honor or veneration in their regard . . .”; “the end for which . . . images are made and retained . . . is to put us in mind of the person they represent. They are not primarily intended for the purpose of being venerated; nevertheless they become entitled to a relative or secondary veneration . . .”

Butler’s “Lives of the Saints” says that by the Council of Nice’s decree, “images are to be honored, but not with the worship called Latria . . . he who reveres the image, reveres the person it represents.” This is not true. Butler deliberately substituted the word “honored” for “Adored,” which is the word used by that Council (“Labbe et Cossart,” Vol. XIII., p. 730).

As Dr. Sullivan shows (pp. 390 et seq.), “the affection or the reverence which Romanism demands of her votaries for images and saints is adoration.” In the “Pontificale Romanum,” Rome, 1818 (Ordo ad recipiendum processionaliter Imperatorem) it is directed that “the Cross of the legate (i.e., an image), because Latria is due to it, shall be on the right.” She gives to the worship which she commands the name of the worship which God forbids and reprobates. The name by which Romanism will have this species of worship known is not inappropriate. It is “douleia,” or, as the word should be presented in an English form, “slavery” or “bondage.” Thus, indeed, the word is translated in Rome’s Scriptures (Douay Bible, Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 24; v. 1). Both the Romish and the more recently published Versions use the word “bondage” in Gal. iv. 24. The “adoration of bondage” is that which Romanism offers to her saints and images. In Romish Versions, the Second Commandment is rendered, “Thou shalt not ‘adore’ them.” Rome says, “Thou shalt ‘adore’ them.”

The distinction between Latria and Douleia, i.e., the worship offered to God, and the worship offered to images, is not admitted by all Romish writers. Thus the Abbé Bergier says: “To express more clearness in their language, theologians call Latria the worship rendered to God, and Douleia that rendered to saints; but originally these two terms, derived from the Greek, signified equally service without distinction” (“Dictionnaire Théologique,” Art., Culte).

We admit that originally and grammatically the terms Douleia and Latria are synonymous.” (Idid., Art., Dulie).

To get out of the difficulty Bergier declares that “the words Latria, Douleia, Cultus, service, etc., change their meaning according to the different objects to which they are applied” (Ibid., Art., Latria); thus pretending that “worship may have two names, and arbitrarily assigning to words the meaning most convenient to Popery—not to Truth, not according to the reality of things.

For, of course, there is a distinction between the words Douleia and Latria. Popery admits it, by rendering the one “bondage,” and the other “service”: (Rom. xii. 1. Rheimish Version, 1825, Stereotype Edition.) the one is slavery, the other freedom. The one, Douleia, is the condition from which the Gospel delivers the redeemed (Rom. viii, 15, 21; Gal. iv. 24, v. 1; Heb. ii. 15); the other, the reverential acknowledgment made to God—as Deliverer—by the ransomed.

Popery, therefore, has aptly chosen for its image worship the very name which testifies that while God gives liberty, Rome wishes to bring bondage. Thus is Rome’s opposition to God once more made manifest. She is ho antikeimenos, the Adversary that sets up a Law opposed to the Will of God.

Continued in Appendix A. “The Image of The Beast”

All chapters of The Antichrist: His Portrait and History

This is the continuation of the previous chapter, Section I — Baptismal Regeneration

The worshippers of Nimrod and his queen were looked upon as regenerated and purged from sin by baptism, which baptism received its virtue from the sufferings of these two great Babylonian divinities. But yet in regard to justification, the Chaldean doctrine was that it was by works and merits of men themselves that they must be justified and accepted of God. The following remarks of Christie in his observations appended to Ouvaroff’s Eleusinian Mysteries, show that such was the case: “Mr. Ouvaroff has suggested that one of the great objects of the Mysteries was the presenting to fallen man the means of his return to God. These means were the cathartic virtues–(i.e., the virtues by which sin is removed), by the exercise of which a corporeal life was to be vanquished. Accordingly the Mysteries were termed Teletae, ‘perfections,’ because they were supposed to induce a perfectness of life. Those who were purified by them were styled Teloumenoi and Tetelesmenoi, that is, ‘brought…to perfection,’ which depended on the exertions of the individual.” In the Metamorphosis of Apuleius, who was himself initiated in the mysteries of Isis, we find this same doctrine of human merits distinctly set forth. Thus the goddess is herself represented as addressing the hero of his tale: “If you shall be found to DESERVE the protection of my divinity by sedulous obedience, religious devotion and inviolable chastity, you shall be sensible that it is possible for me, and me alone, to extend your life beyond the limits that have been appointed to it by your destiny.” When the same individual has received a proof of the supposed favour of the divinity, thus do the onlookers express their congratulations: “Happy, by Hercules! and thrice blessed he to have MERITED, by the innocence and probity of his past life, such special patronage of heaven.” Thus was it in life. At death, also, the grand passport into the unseen world was still through the merits of men themselves, although the name of Osiris was, as we shall by-and-by see, given to those who departed in the faith. “When the bodies of persons of distinction” [in Egypt], says Wilkinson, quoting Porphyry, “were embalmed, they took out the intestines and put them into a vessel, over which (after some other rites had been performed for the dead) one of the embalmers pronounced an invocation to the sun in behalf of the deceased.” The formula, according to Euphantus, who translated it from the original into Greek, was as follows: “O thou Sun, our sovereign lord! and all ye Deities who have given life to man, receive me, and grant me an abode with the eternal gods. During the whole course of my life I have scrupulously worshipped the gods my father taught me to adore; I have ever honoured my parents, who begat this body; I have killed no one; I have not defrauded any, nor have I done any injury to any man.” Thus the merits, the obedience, or the innocence of man was the grand plea. The doctrine of Rome in regard to the vital article of a sinner’s justification is the very same. Of course this of itself would prove little in regard to the affiliation of the two systems, the Babylonian and the Roman; for, from the days of Cain downward, the doctrine of human merit and of self-justification has everywhere been indigenous in the heart of depraved humanity. But, what is worthy of notice in regard to this subject is, that in the two systems, it was symbolised in precisely the same way. In the Papal legends it is taught that St. Michael the Archangel has committed to him the balance of God’s justice, and that in the two opposite scales of that balance the merits and the demerits of the departed are put that they may be fairly weighed, the one over against the other, and that as the scale turns to the favourable or unfavourable side they may be justified or condemned as the case may be.

Now, the Chaldean doctrine of justification, as we get light on it from the monuments of Egypt, is symbolised in precisely the same way, except that in the land of Ham the scales of justice were committed to the charge of the god Anubis instead of St. Michael the Archangel, and that the good deeds and the bad seem to have been weighed separately, and a distinct record made of each, so that when both were summed up and the balance struck, judgment was pronounced accordingly. Wilkinson states that Anubis and his scales are often represented; and that in some cases there is some difference in the details. But it is evident from his statements, that the principle in all is the same. The following is the account which he gives of one of these judgment scenes, previous to the admission of the dead to Paradise: “Cerberus is present as the guardian of the gates, near which the scales of justice are erected; and Anubis, the director of the weight, having placed a vase representing the good actions of the deceased in one scale, and the figure or emblem of truth in the other, proceeds to ascertain his claims for admission. If, on being weighed, he is found wanting, he is rejected, and Osiris, the judge of the dead, inclining his sceptre in token of condemnation, pronounces judgment upon him, and condemns his soul to return to earth under the form of a pig or some unclean animal…But if, when the SUM of his deeds are recorded by Thoth [who stands by to mark the results of the different weighings of Anubis], his virtues so far PREDOMINATE as to entitle him to admission to the mansions of the blessed, Horus, taking in his hand the tablet of Thoth, introduces him to the presence of Osiris, who, in his palace, attended by Isis and Nepthys, sits on his throne in the midst of the waters, from which rises the lotus, bearing upon its expanded flowers the four Genii of Amenti.”

The same mode of symbolising the justification by works had evidently been in use in Babylon itself; and, therefore, there was great force in the Divine handwriting on the wall, when the doom of Belshazzar went forth: “Tekel,” “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.” In the Parsee system, which has largely borrowed from Chaldea, the principle of weighing the good deeds over against the bad deeds is fully developed. “For three days after dissolution,” says Vaux, in his Nineveh and Persepolis, giving an account of Parsee doctrines in regard to the dead, “the soul is supposed to flit round its tenement of clay, in hopes of reunion; on the fourth, the Angel Seroch appears, and conducts it to the bridge of Chinevad. On this structure, which they assert connects heaven and earth, sits the Angel of Justice, to weigh the actions of mortals; when the good deeds prevail, the soul is met on the bridge by a dazzling figure, which says, ‘I am thy good angel, I was pure originally, but thy good deeds have rendered me purer’; and passing his hand over the neck of the blessed soul, leads it to Paradise. If iniquities preponderate, the soul is meet by a hideous spectre, which howls out, ‘I am thy evil genius; I was impure from the first, but thy misdeeds have made me fouler; through thee we shall remain miserable until the resurrection’; the sinning soul is then dragged away to hell, where Ahriman sits to taunt it with its crimes.” Such is the doctrine of Parseeism.

The same is the case in China, where Bishop Hurd, giving an account of the Chinese descriptions of the infernal regions, and of the figures that refer to them, says, “One of them always represents a sinner in a pair of scales, with his iniquities in the one, and his good works in another.” “We meet with several such representations,” he adds, “in the Grecian mythology.” Thus does Sir J. F. Davis describe the operation of the principle in China: “In a work of some note on morals, called Merits and Demerits Examined, a man is directed to keep a debtor and creditor account with himself of the acts of each day, and at the end of the year to wind it up. If the balance is in his favour, it serves as the foundation of a stock of merits for the ensuing year: and if against him, it must be liquidated by future good deeds. Various lists and comparative tables are given of both good and bad actions in the several relations of life; and benevolence is strongly inculcated in regard first to man, and, secondly, to the brute creation. To cause another’s death is reckoned at one hundred on the side of demerit; while a single act of charitable relief counts as one on the other side…To save a person’s life ranks in the above work as an exact set-off to the opposite act of taking it away; and it is said that this deed of merit will prolong a person’s life twelve years.”

While such a mode of justification is, on the one hand, in the very nature of the case, utterly demoralising, there never could by means of it, on the other, be in the bosom of any man whose conscience is aroused, any solid feeling of comfort, or assurance as to his prospects in the eternal world. Who could ever tell, however good he might suppose himself to be, whether the “sum of his good actions” would or would not counterbalance the amount of sins and transgressions that his conscience might charge against him. How very different the Scriptural, the god-like plan of “justification by faith,” and “faith alone, without the deeds of the law,” absolutely irrespective of human merits, simply and solely through the “righteousness of Christ, that is unto all and upon all them that believe,” that delivers at once and for ever “from all condemnation,” those who accept of the offered Saviour, and by faith are vitally united to Him. It is not the will of our Father in heaven, that His children in this world should be ever in doubt and darkness as to the vital point of their eternal salvation. Even a genuine saint, no doubt, may for a season, if need be, be in heaviness through manifold temptations, but such is not the natural, the normal state of a healthful Christian, of one who knows the fulness and the freeness of the blessings of the Gospel of peace. God has laid the most solid foundation for all His people to say, with John,

“We have KNOWN and believed the love which God hath to us” (1 John 4:16); .

or with Paul,

“I am PERSUADED that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:38,39)

But this no man can every say, who “goes about to establish his own righteousness” (Rom 10:3), who seeks, in any shape, to be justified by works. Such assurance, such comfort, can come only from a simple and believing reliance on the free, unmerited grace of God, given in and alongwith Christ, the unspeakable gift of the Father’s love. It was this that made Luther’s spirit to be, as he himself declared, “as free as a flower of the field,” when, single and alone, he went up to the Diet of Worms, to confront all the prelates and potentates there convened to condemn the doctrine which he held. It was this that in every age made the martyrs go with such sublime heroism not only to prison but to death. It is this that emancipates the soul, restores the true dignity of humanity, and cuts up by the roots all the imposing pretensions of priestcraft. It is this only that can produce a life of loving, filial, hearty obedience to the law and commandments of God; and that, when nature fails, and when the king of terrors is at hand, can enable poor, guilty sons of men, with the deepest sense of unworthiness, yet to say,

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 15:55,57).

Now, to all such confidence in God, such assurance of salvation, spiritual despotism in every age, both Pagan and Papal, has ever shown itself unfriendly. Its grand object has always been to keep the souls of its votaries away from direct and immediate intercourse with a living and merciful Saviour, and consequently from assurance of His favour, to inspire a sense of the necessity of human mediation, and so to establish itself on the ruins of the hopes and the happiness of the world. Considering the pretensions which the Papacy makes to absolute infallibility, and the supernatural powers which it attributes to the functions of its priests, in regard to regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, it might have been supposed, as a matter of course, that all its adherents would have been encouraged to rejoice in the continual assurance of their personal salvation. But the very contrary is the fact. After all its boastings and high pretensions, perpetual doubt on the subject of a man’s salvation, to his life’s end, is inculcated as a duty; it being peremptorily decreed as an article of faith by the Council of Trent, “That no man can know with infallible assurance of faith that he HAS OBTAINED the grace of God.” This very decree of Rome, while directly opposed to the Word of God, stamps its own lofty claims with the brand of imposture; for if no man who has been regenerated by its baptism, and who has received its absolution from sin, can yet have any certain assurance after all that “the grace of God” has been conferred upon him, what can be the worth of its opus operatum? Yet, in seeking to keep its devotees in continual doubt and uncertainty as to their final state, it is “wise after its generation.”

In the Pagan system, it was the priest alone who could at all pretend to anticipate the operation of the scales of Anubis; and, in the confessional, there was from time to time, after a sort, a mimic rehearsal of the dread weighing that was to take place at last in the judgment scene before the tribunal of Osiris. There the priest sat in judgment on the good deeds and bad deeds of his penitents; and, as his power and influence were founded to a large extent on the mere principle of slavish dread, he took care that the scale should generally turn in the wrong direction, that they might be more subservient to his will in casting in a due amount of good works into the opposite scale. As he was the grand judge of what these works should be, it was his interest to appoint what should be most for the selfish aggrandisement of himself, or the glory of his order; and yet so to weigh and counterweigh merits and demerits, that there should always be left a large balance to be settled, not only by the man himself, but by his heirs. If any man had been allowed to believe himself beforehand absolutely sure of glory, the priests might have been in danger of being robbed of their dues after death–an issue by all means to be guarded against. Now, the priests of Rome have in every respect copied after the priests of Anubis, the god of the scales. In the confessional, when they have an object to gain, they make the sins and transgressions good weight; and then, when they have a man of influence, or power, or wealth to deal with, they will not give him the slightest hope till round sums of money, or the founding of an abbey, or some other object on which they have set their heart, be cast into the other scale. In the famous letter of Pere La Chaise, the confessor of Louis XIV of France, giving an account of the method which he adopted to gain the consent of that licentious monarch to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, by which such cruelties were inflicted on his innocent Huguenot subjects, we see how the fear of the scales of St. Michael operated in bringing about the desired result: “Many a time since,” says the accomplished Jesuit, referring to an atrocious sin of which the king had been guilty, “many a time since, when I have had him at confession, I have shook hell about his ears, and made him sigh, fear and tremble, before I would give him absolution. By this I saw that he had still an inclination to me, and was willing to be under my government; so I set the baseness of the action before him by telling the whole story, and how wicked it was, and that it could not be forgiven till he had done some good action to BALANCE that, and expiate the crime. Whereupon he at last asked me what he must do. I told him that he must root out all heretics from his kingdom.” This was the “good action” to be cast into the scale of St. Michael the Archangel, to “BALANCE” his crime. The king, wicked as he was–sore against his will-consented; the “good action” was cast in, the “heretics” were extirpated; and the king was absolved. But yet the absolution was not such but that, when he went the way of all the earth, there was still much to be cast in before the scales could be fairly adjusted. Thus Paganism and Popery alike

” make merchandise of the souls of men” (Rev 18:13).

Thus the one with the scales of Anubis, the other with the scales of St. Michael, exactly answer to the Divine description of Ephraim in his apostacy:

“Ephraim is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand” (Hosea 12:7).

The Anubis of the Egyptians was precisely the same as the Mercury of the Greeks–the “god of thieves.” St. Michael, in the hands of Rome, answers exactly to the same character. By means of him and his scales, and their doctrine of human merits, they have made what they call the house of God to be nothing else than a “den of thieves.” To rob men of their money is bad, but infinitely worse to cheat them also of their souls.

Into the scales of Anubis, the ancient Pagans, by way of securing their justification, were required to put not merely good deeds, properly so called, but deeds of austerity and self-mortification inflicted on their own persons, for averting the wrath of the gods. The scales of St. Michael inflexibly required to be balanced in the very same way. The priests of Rome teach that when sin is forgiven, the punishment is not thereby fully taken away. However perfect may be the pardon that God, through the priests, may bestow, yet punishment, greater or less, still remains behind, which men must endure, and that to “satisfy the justice of God.” Again and again has it been shown that man cannot do anything to satisfy the justice of God, that to that justice he is hopelessly indebted, that he “has” absolutely “nothing to pay”; and more than that, that there is no need that he should attempt to pay one farthing; for that, in behalf of all who believe, Christ has finished transgression, made an end of sin, and made all the satisfaction to the broken law that that law could possibly demand. Still Rome insists that every man must be punished for his own sins, and that God cannot be satisfied * without groans and sighs, lacerations of the flesh, tortures of the body, and penances without number, on the part of the offender, however broken in heart, however contrite that offender may be.

* Bishop HAY’S Sincere Christian. The words of Bishop Hay are: “But He absolutely demands that, by penitential works, we PUNISH ourselves for our shocking ingratitude, and satisfy the Divine justice for the abuse of His mercy.” The established modes of “punishment,” as is well known, are just such as are described in the text.

Now, looking simply at the Scripture, this perverse demand for self-torture on the part of those for whom Christ has made a complete and perfect atonement, might seem exceedingly strange; but, looking at the real character of the god whom the Papacy has set up for the worship of its deluded devotees, there is nothing in the least strange about it. That god is Moloch, the god of barbarity and blood. Moloch signifies “king”; and Nimrod was the first after the flood that violated the patriarchal system, and set up as “king” over his fellows. At first he was worshipped as the “revealer of goodness and truth,” but by-and-by his worship was made to correspond with his dark and forbidding countenance and complexion. The name Moloch originally suggested nothing of cruelty or terror; but now the well known rites associated with that name have made it for ages a synonym for all that is most revolting to the heart of humanity, and amply justify the description of Milton (Paradise Lost):

“First Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears,
Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,
Their children’s cries unheard, that passed through fire
To his grim idol.”

In almost every land the bloody worship prevailed; “horrid cruelty,” hand in hand with abject superstition, filled not only “the dark places of the earth,” but also regions that boasted of their enlightenment. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, and our own land under the savage Druids, at one period or other in their history, worshipped the same god and in the same way. Human victims were his most acceptable offerings; human groans and wailings were the sweetest music in his ears; human tortures were believed to delight his heart. His image bore, as the symbol of “majesty,” a whip, and with whips his worshippers, at some of his festivals, were required unmercifully to scourge themselves. “After the ceremonies of sacrifice,” says Herodotus, speaking of the feast of Isis at Busiris, “the whole assembly, to the amount of many thousands, scourge themselves; but in whose honour they do this I am not at liberty to disclose.” This reserve Herodotus generally uses, out of respect to his oath as an initiated man; but subsequent researches leave no doubt as to the god “in whose honour” the scourgings took place. In Pagan Rome the worshippers of Isis observed the same practice in honour of Osiris. In Greece, Apollo, the Delian god, who was identical with Osiris, * was propitiated with similar penances by the sailors who visited his shrine, as we learn from the following lines of Callimachus in his hymn to Delos:

“Soon as they reach thy soundings, down at once
They drop slack sails and all the naval gear.
The ship is moored; nor do the crew presume
To quit thy sacred limits, till they’ve passed
A fearful penance; with the galling whip
Lashed thrice around thine altar.”

* We have seen already, that the Egyptian Horus was just a new incarnation of Osiris or Nimrod. Now, Herodotus calls Horus by the name of Apollo. Diodorus Siculus, also, says that “Horus, the son of Isis, is interpreted to be Apollo.” Wilkinson seems, on one occasion, to call this identity of Horus and Apollo in question; but he elsewhere admits that the story of Apollo’s “combat with the serpent Pytho is evidently derived from the Egyptian mythology,” where the allusion is to the representation of Horus piercing the snake with a spear. From divers considerations, it may be shown that this conclusion is correct: 1. Horus, or Osiris, was the sun-god, so was Apollo. 2. Osiris, whom Horus represented, was the great Revealer; the Pythian Apollo was the god of oracles. 3. Osiris, in the character of Horus, was born when his mother was said to be persecuted by the malice of her enemies. Latona, the mother of Apollo, was a fugitive for a similar reason when Apollo was born. 4. Horus, according to one version of the myth, was said, like Osiris, to have been cut in pieces (PLUTARCH, De Iside). In the classic story of Greece, this part of the myth of Apollo was generally kept in the background; and he was represented as victor in the conflict with the serpent; but even there it was sometimes admitted that he had suffered a violent death, for by Porphyry he is said to have been slain by the serpent, and Pythagoras affirmed that he had seen his tomb at Tripos in Delphi (BRYANT). 5. Horus was the war-god. Apollo was represented in the same way as the great god represented in Layard, with the bow and arrow, who was evidently the Babylonian war-god, Apollo’s well known title of “Arcitenens,”–“the bearer of the bow,” having evidently been borrowed from that source. Fuss tells us that Apollo was regarded as the inventor of the art of shooting with the bow, which identifies him with Sagittarius, whose origin we have already seen. 6. Lastly, from Ovid (Metam.) we learn that, before engaging with Python, Apollo had used his arrows only on fallow-deer, stags, &c. All which sufficiently proves his substantial identification with the mighty Hunter of Babel.

Over and above the scourgings, there were also slashings and cuttings of the flesh required as propitiatory rites on the part of his worshippers. “In the solemn celebration of the Mysteries,” says Julius Firmicus, “all things in order had to be done, which the youth either did or suffered at his death.” Osiris was cut in pieces; therefore, to imitate his fate, so far as living men might do so, they were required to cut and wound their own bodies. Therefore, when the priests of Baal contended with Elijah, to gain the favour of their god, and induce him to work the desired miracle in their behalf, “they cried aloud and cut themselves, after their manner, with knives and with lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them” (1 Kings 18:28). In Egypt, the natives in general, though liberal in the use of the whip, seem to have been sparing of the knife; but even there, there were men also who mimicked on their own persons the dismemberment of Osiris. “The Carians of Egypt,” says Herodotus, in the place already quoted, “treat themselves at this solemnity with still more severity, for they cut themselves in the face with swords” (HERODOTUS). To this practice, there can be no doubt, there is a direct allusion in the command in the Mosaic law, “Ye shall make no cuttings in your flesh for the dead” (Lev 19:28). * These cuttings in the flesh are largely practised in the worship of the Hindoo divinities, as propitiatory rites or meritorious penances. They are well known to have been practised in the rites of Bellona, ** the “sister” or “wife of the Roman war-god Mars,” whose name, “The lamenter of Bel,” clearly proves the original of her husband to whom the Romans were so fond of tracing back their pedigree.

* Every person who died in the faith was believed to be identified with Osiris, and called by his name. (WILKINSON)

** “The priests of Bellona,” says Lactantius, “sacrificed not with any other men’s blood but their own, their shoulders being lanced, and with both hands brandishing naked swords, they ran and leaped up and down like mad men.”

They were practised also in the most savage form in the gladiatorial shows, in which the Roman people, with all their boasted civilisation, so much delighted. The miserable men who were doomed to engage in these bloody exhibitions did not do so generally of their own free will. But yet, the principle on which these shows were conducted was the very same as that which influenced the priests of Baal. They were celebrated as propitiatory sacrifices. From Fuss we learn that “gladiatorial shows were sacred” to Saturn; and in Ausonius we read that “the amphitheatre claims its gladiators for itself, when at the end of December they PROPITIATE with their blood the sickle-bearing Son of Heaven.” On this passage, Justus Lipsius, who quotes it, thus comments: “Where you will observe two things, both, that the gladiators fought on the Saturnalia, and that they did so for the purpose of appeasing and PROPITIATING Saturn.” “The reason of this,” he adds, “I should suppose to be, that Saturn is not among the celestial but the infernal gods. Plutarch, in his book of ‘Summaries,’ says that ‘the Romans looked upon Kronos as a subterranean and infernal God.'” There can be no doubt that this is so far true, for the name of Pluto is only a synonym for Saturn, “The Hidden One.” *

* The name Pluto is evidently from “Lut,” to hide, which with the Egyptian definite article prefixed, becomes “P’Lut.” The Greek “wealth,” “the hidden thing,” is obviously formed in the same way. Hades is just another synonym of the same name.

But yet, in the light of the real history of the historical Saturn, we find a more satisfactory reason for the barbarous custom that so much disgraced the escutcheon of Rome in all its glory, when mistress of the world, when such multitudes of men were “Butchered to make a Roman holiday.”

When it is remembered that Saturn himself was cut in pieces, it is easy to see how the idea would arise of offering a welcome sacrifice to him by setting men to cut one another in pieces on his birthday, by way of propitiating his favour.

The practice of such penances, then, on the part of those of the Pagans who cut and slashed themselves, was intended to propitiate and please their god, and so to lay up a stock of merit that might tell in their behalf in the scales of Anubis. In the Papacy, the penances are not only intended to answer the same end, but, to a large extent,they are identical. I do not know, indeed, that they use the knife as the priests of Baal did; but it is certain that they look upon the shedding of their own blood as a most meritorious penance, that gains them high favour with God, and wipes away many sins. Let the reader look at the pilgrims at Lough Dergh, in Ireland, crawling on their bare knees over the sharp rocks, and leaving the bloody tracks behind them, and say what substantial difference there is between that and cutting themselves with knives. In the matter of scourging themselves, however, the adherents of the Papacy have literally borrowed the lash of Osiris. Everyone has heard of the Flagellants, who publicly scourge themselves on the festivals of the Roman Church, and who are regarded as saints of the first water. In the early ages of Christianity such flagellations were regarded as purely and entirely Pagan. Athenagoras, one of the early Christian Apologists, holds up the Pagans to ridicule for thinking that sin could be atoned for, or God propitiated, by any such means. But now, in the high places of the Papal Church, such practices are regarded as the grand means of gaining the favour of God. On Good Friday, at Rome and Madrid, and other chief seats of Roman idolatry, multitudes flock together to witness the performances of the saintly whippers, who lash themselves till the blood gushes in streams from every part of their body. They pretend to do this in honour of Christ, on the festival set apart professedly to commemorate His death, just as the worshippers of Osiris did the same on the festival when they lamented for his loss. *

* The priests of Cybele at Rome observed the same practice.

But can any man of the least Christian enlightenment believe that the exalted Saviour can look on such rites as doing honour to Him, which pour contempt on His all-perfect atonement, and represent His most “precious blood” as needing to have its virtue supplemented by that of blood drawn from the backs of wretched and misguided sinners? Such offerings were altogether fit for the worship of Moloch; but they are the very opposite of being fit for the service of Christ.

It is not in one point only, but in manifold respects, that the ceremonies of “Holy Week” at Rome, as it is termed, recall to memory the rites of the great Babylonian god. The more we look at these rites, the more we shall be struck with the wonderful resemblance that subsists between them and those observed at the Egyptian festival of burning lamps and the other ceremonies of the fire-worshippers in different countries. In Egypt the grand illumination took place beside the sepulchre of Osiris at Sais. In Rome in “Holy Week,” a sepulchre of Christ also figures in connection with a brilliant illumination of burning tapers. In Crete, where the tomb of Jupiter was exhibited, that tomb was an object of worship to the Cretans. In Rome, if the devotees do not worship the so-called sepulchre of Christ, they worship what is entombed within it. As there is reason to believe that the Pagan festival of burning lamps was observed in commemoration of the ancient fire-worship, so there is a ceremony at Rome in the Easter week, which is an unmistakable act of fire-worship, when a cross of fire is the grand object of worship. This ceremony is thus graphically described by the authoress of Rome in the 19th Century: “The effect of the blazing cross of fire suspended from the dome above the confession or tomb of St. Peter’s, was strikingly brilliant at night. It is covered with innumerable lamps, which have the effect of one blaze of fire…The whole church was thronged with a vast multitude of all classes and countries, from royalty to the meanest beggar, all gazing upon this one object. In a few minutes the Pope and all his Cardinals descended into St. Peter’s, and room being kept for them by the Swiss guards, the aged Pontiff…prostrated himself in silent adoration before the CROSS OF FIRE. A long train of Cardinals knelt before him, whose splendid robes and attendant train-bearers, formed a striking contrast to the humility of their attitude.” What could be a more clear and unequivocal act of fire-worship than this? Now, view this in connection with the fact stated in the following extract from the same work, and how does the one cast light on the other: “With Holy Thursday our miseries began [that is, from crowding]. On this disastrous day we went before nine to the Sistine chapel…and beheld a procession led by the inferior orders of clergy, followed up by the Cardinals in superb dresses, bearing long wax tapers in their hands, and ending with the Pope himself, who walked beneath a crimson canopy, with his head uncovered, bearing the Host in a box; and this being, as you know, the real flesh and blood of Christ, was carried from the Sistine chapel through the intermediate hall to the Paulina chapel, where it was deposited in the sepulchre prepared to receive it beneath the altar…I never could learn why Christ was to be buried before He was dead, for, as the crucifixion did not take place till Good Friday, it seems odd to inter Him on Thursday. His body, however, is laid in the sepulchre, in all the churches of Rome, where this rite is practised, on Thursday forenoon, and it remains there till Saturday at mid-day, when, for some reason best known to themselves, He is supposed to rise from the grave amidst the firing of cannon, and blowing of trumpets, and jingling of bells, which have been carefully tied up ever since the dawn of Holy Thursday, lest the devil should get into them.”

The worship of the cross of fire on Good Friday explains at once the anomaly otherwise so perplexing, that Christ should be buried on Thursday, and rise from the dead on Saturday. If the festival of Holy Week be really, as its rites declare, one of the old festivals of Saturn, the Babylonian fire-god, who, though an infernal god, was yet Phoroneus, the great “Deliverer,” it is altogether natural that the god of the Papal idolatry, though called by Christ’s name, should rise from the dead on his own day–the Dies Saturni, or “Saturn’s day.” *

* The above account referred to the ceremonies as witnessed by the authoress in 1817 and 1818. It would seem that some change has taken place since then, caused probably by the very attention called by her to the gross anomaly mentioned above; for Count Vlodaisky, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, who visited Rome in 1845, has informed me that in that year the resurrection took place, not at mid-day, but at nine o’clock on the evening of Saturday. This may have been intended to make the inconsistency between Roman practice and Scriptural fact appear somewhat less glaring. Still the fact remains, that the resurrection of Christ, as celebrated at Rome, takes place, not on His own day–“The Lord’s day”–but–on the day of Saturn, the god of fire!

On the day before the Miserere is sung with such overwhelming pathos, that few can listen to it unmoved, and many even swoon with the emotions that are excited. What if this be at bottom only the old song of Linus, of whose very touching and melancholy character Herodotus speaks so strikingly? Certain it is, that much of the pathos of that Miserere depends on the part borne in singing it by the sopranos; and equally certain it is that Semiramis, the wife of him who, historically, was the original of that god whose tragic death was so pathetically celebrated in many countries, enjoys the fame, such as it is, of having been the inventress of the practice from which soprano singing took its rise.

Now, the flagellations which form an important part of the penances that take place at Rome on the evening of Good Friday, formed an equally important part in the rites of that fire-god, from which, as we have seen, the Papacy has borrowed so much. These flagellations, then, of “Passion Week,” taken in connection with the other ceremonies of that period, bear their additional testimony to the real character of that god whose death and resurrection Rome then celebrates. Wonderful it is to consider that, in the very high place of what is called Catholic Christendom, the essential rites at this day are seen to be the very rites of the old Chaldean fire-worshippers.

Continued in The Two Babylons Chapter IV. Section III — The Sacrifice of the Mass

All chapters of The Two Babylons