CHAPTER I.
In leading proof of the Babylonian character of the Papal
Church the first point to which I solicit the reader's attention,
is the character of Mystery which attaches alike to the modern
Roman and the ancient Babylonian systems. The gigantic system of
moral corruption and idolatry described in this passage under the
emblem of a woman with a "GOLDEN CUP IN HER HAND"
(Rev.xvii.4), "making all nations DRUNK with the wine of
her fornication" (Rev. xvii. 2; xviii. 3), is divinely
called "MYSTERY, Babylon the Great" (Rev.
xvii. 5). That Paul's "MYSTERY of iniquity," as
described in 2 Thess. ii. 7, has its counterpart in the Church of
Rome, no man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the
subject, can easily doubt. Such was the impression made by that
account on the mind of the great Sir Matthew Hale, no mean judge
of evidence, that he used to say, that if the apostolic
description were inserted in the public "Hue and
Cry" any constable in the realm would be warranted in
seizing, wherever he found him, the Bishop of Rome as the head of
that "MYSTERY of iniquity." Now, as the system
here described is equally characterised by the name of "MYSTERY,"
it may be presumed that both passages refer to the same system.
But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the
reader cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon
of the ancient world. As the Apocalyptic woman has in her hand a
CUP, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was it with the
Babylon of old. Of that Babylon, while in all its g lory, the
Lord thus spake, in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: "Babylon
hath been a GOLDEN CUP in the Lord's hand, that made all the
earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore
the nations are mad" (Jer. li. 7). Why this exact
similarity of language in regard to the two systems? The natural
inference surely is, that the one stands to the other in the
relation of type and antitype. Now, as the Babylon of the
Apocalypse is characterised by the name of "MYSTERY,"
so the grand dis tinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian
system was the Chaldean "MYSTERIES," that
formed so essential a part of that system. And to these
mysteries, the very language of the Hebrew prophet, symbolical
though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he speaks of
Babylon as a "golden CUP." To drink of "mysterious
beverages," says Salverte, was indispensable on the
part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries. * These
"mysterious beverages" were composed of "wine,
honey, water, and flour." * From the
ingredients avowedly used, and from the nature of others not
avowed, but certainly used, * there can be no
doubt that they were of an intoxicating nature; and till the
aspirants had come under their power, till their understandings
had been dimmed, and their passions excited by the medicated
draught, they were not duly prepared for what they were either to
hear or to see. If it be inqui red what was the object and design
of these ancient "Mysteries," it will be found
that there was a wonderful analogy between them and that "Mystery
of iniquity" which was embodied in the Church of Rome.
Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and
little, under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath,
what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to
propound. The time at which they were instituted proves that this
must have been the case. The Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up
to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after
the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image
of her own depraved and polluted mind. * That
beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a
paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the
Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming, she was
worshipped as Rhea, * the great "MOTHER"
of the gods, * * with such atrocious rites as
identified her with Venus, the MOTHER of all impurity,
and raised the very city where she had reigned to a bad eminence
among the nations, as the grand seat at once of idolatry and
consecrated prostitution. * Thus seat was this
Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the "Woman"
in the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her hand, and the
name on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the
MOTHER of harlots and abominations of the earth." The
Apocalyptic emblem of the Harlot woman with the cup in her hand
was even embodied in the symbols of idolatry derived from ancient
Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece; for thus was the Greek
Venus originally represented, * and it is
singular that in our own day, and so far as appears for the first
time, the Roman Church has actually taken this very symbol as her
own chosen emblem. In 1825, on the occasion of the jubilee, Pope
Leo XII. struck a medal, bearing on the one side his won image,
and on the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolised as a "Woman,"
holding in her left hand a cross, and in her right a CUP, with
the legend around her, "Sedet super universum,"
"The whole world is her seat." *
Now the period when Semiramis lived,--a period when the
patriarchal faith was still fresh in the minds of men, when Shem
was still alive, * to rouse the minds of the
faithful to rally around the banner for the truth and cause of
God, made it hazardous all at once and publicly to set up such a
system as was inaugurated by the Babylonian queen, We know, from
the statements in Job, that among patriarchal tribes that had
nothing whatever to do with Mosaic institutions, but which
adhered to the pure faith of the patriarchs, idolatry in any
shape was held to be a crime, to be visited with signal and
summary punishment on the heads of those who practised it. "If
I beheld the sun," said Job, "when it shined,
or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been
secretly enticed, and * my
mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be
punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God that is
above" (Job xxxi. 26-28). Now if this was the case in
Job's day, much more must it have been the case at the earlier
period when the Mysteries were instituted. It was a matter,
therefore, of necessity, of idolatry where to be brought in, and
especially such a foul idolatry as the Babylonian system
contained in its bosom, that it should be done stealthily and in
secret. * Even though introduced by the hand of
power, it might have produced a revulsion, and violent attempts
might have been made b y the uncorrupted portion of mankind to
put it down; and at all events, if it had appeared at once in all
its hideousness, it would have alarmed the consciences of men,
and defeated the very object in view. That object was to bind all
mankind in blind and absolute submission to a hierarchy entirely
dependent on the sovereigns of Babylon. In the carrying out of
this scheme, all knowledge, sacred and profane, came to be
monopolised by the priesthood, * who dealt it out to those who
were initiated in the "Mysteries" exactly as
they saw fit, according as the interests of the grand system of
spiritual despotism they had to administer might seem to require.
Thus the people, wherever the Babylonian system spread, where
bound neck and heel to the priests. The priest were the only
depositaries of religious knowledge; they only had the true
tradition, by which the writs and symbols of the public religion
could be interpreted; and without blind and implicit submission
to them, what was necessary for salvation could not be known. Now
compare this with the early history of the Papacy, and with its
spirit and modus operandi throughout, and how exact was the
coincidence! Was it in a period of patriarchal light that the
corrupt system of the Babylonian "Mysteries"
began? It was in a period of still greater light that that unholy
and unscriptural system commenced, that has found such a rank
development in the Church of Rome. It began in the very age of
the apostles, when the primitive Church was in its flower, when
the glorious fruits of Pentecost were everywhere to be seen, when
martyrs were sealing their testimony for the truth with their
blood. Even then, when the Gospel shone so brightly, the Spirit
of God bore this clear and distinct testimony by Paul:
"THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2
Thess. ii. 7). That system of iniquity which then began it was
divinely foretold was to issue in a portentous apostacy, that in
due time would be awfully "revealed," and
would continue until it should be destroyed "by the
breath of the Lord's mouth, and consumed by the brightness of His
coming" (Ibid. v. 8). But at its first introduction
into the Church, it came in secretly and by stealth, with "all
DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness." It wrought "mysteriously"
under fair but false pretences, leading men away from the
simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. And it did so
secretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly
introduced in the ancient Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe,
it was not prudent to do otherwise. The zeal of the true Church,
though destitute of civil power, would have aroused itself, to
put the false system and all its abettors beyond the pale of
Christianity, if it had appeared openly and all at once in all
its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress. Ther
efore it was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one
corruption being introduced after another, as apostacy proceeded,
and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it, till
it has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in most every
particular the system of the Papacy is the very antipodes of the
system of the primitive Church. Of the gradual introduction of
all that is now most characteristic of Rome, through the working
of the "Mystery of iniquity," we have very
striking evidence, preserved even by Rome itself, in the
inscriptions copied from the Roman catacombs. These catacombs are
extensive excavations underground in the neighbourhood of Rome,
in which the Christians, in times of persecution during the first
three centuries, celebrated their worship, and also buried their
dead. On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to
be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known
principles and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What,
for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the
Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these
inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome,
there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was
known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:--
1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and
Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."
2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the
type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears,
dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to
weep for one who lives in God." *
A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God refresh
thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of
iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above
equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously
working,--that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman
Church had not proceeded the l ength it had done now, of
absolutely "forbidding its priests to 'marry.' " Craftily
and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of
priest-craft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a
superstructure. At its commencement, "Mystery"
was stamped upon its system.
But this feature of "Mystery" has adhered
to it throughout its whole course. When it had once succeeded in
dimming the light of the Gospel, obscuring the fulness and
freeness of the grace of God, and drawing away the souls of men
from direct and immediate dealings with the One Grand Prophet and
High Priest of our profession, a mysterious power was attributed
to the clergy, which gave them "dominion over the
faith" of the people--a dominion directly disclaimed by
apostolic men (2 Cor. i. 24), but which, in connection with the
confessional, has become at least as absolute and complete as was
ever possessed by Babylonian priest over those initiated in the
ancient Mysteries. The clerical power of the Roman priesthood
culminated in the erection of the confessional. That confessional
was itself borrowed from Babylon. The confession required of the
votaries of Rome is entirely different from the confession
prescribed in the Word of God. The dictate of Scripture in regard
to confession is, "Confess your faults one to
another" (James v. 16), which implies that the priest
should confess to the people, as well as the people to the
priest, if either should sin against the other. This could never
have served any purpose of spiritual despotism; and therefore,
Rome, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian
system. In that system, secret confession to the priest,
according to a prescribed form, was required of all who were
admitted to the "Mysteries;" and till such
confession had been made, no complete ini tiation could take
place. Thus does Salverte refer to this confession as observed in
Greece, in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian
origin: * the Greeks, from Delphi to
Thermopylae, were initiated in the Mysteries of the temple of
Delphi. Their silence in regard to everything they were commanded
to keep secret was secured both by the fear of the penalties
threatened to a perjured revelation, and by the general
CONFESSION exacted of the aspirants after initiation--a
confession which caused them greater dread of the indiscretion of
the priest, than have him reason to dread their indiscretion. *
This confession is also referred to by Potter, in his "Greek
Antiquities," though it has been generally overlooked. In
his account of the Eleusinian mysteries, after describing the
preliminary ceremonies and instructions before the admission of
the candidates for initiation into the immediate presence of the
divinities, he thus proceeds:--"Then the priest that
initiated them called "Hierophantes" {the Hiero phant},
proposed certain QUESTIONS, as, whether they were fasting, etc.,
to which they returned answers in a set form." * The
etcetera here might not strike a casual reader; but it is a
pregnant etcetera, and contains a great deal. It means, Are you
free from every violation of chastity? and that not merely in the
sense of moral impurity, but in that factitious sense of chastity
which Paganism always cherishes. * Are you free
from the guilt of murder?--for no one guilty of slaughter, even
accidentally, could be admitted till he was purged from blood,
and there were certain priests, called Koes, who "heard
confessions" in such cases, and purged the guilt away. *
The strictness of the inquiries in the Pagan confessional is
evidently implied in certain licentious poems of Propertius,
Tibullus, and Juvenal. * Wilkinson, in his
chapter on "Private Fast and Penance," which,
he says, "were strictly enforced," in
connection with "certain regulations at fixed
periods," * has several classical
quotations, which clearly prove whence Popery derived the kind of
questions which have stamped that character of obscenity on its
confessional, as exhibited in the notorious pages of Peter Dens.
The pretence under which this auricular confession was required,
was, that the solemnities to which the initiated were to be
admitte d were so high, so heavenly, so holy, that no man with
guilt lying on his conscience, and sin unpurged, could lawfully
be admitted to them. For the safety, therefore, of those who were
to be initiated, it was held to be indispensable that the
officiating priest should thoroughly probe their consciences,
lest coming without due purgation from previous guilt contracted,
the wrath of the gods should be provoked against the profane
intruders. This was the pretence; but when we know the
essentially unholy nature, both of the gods and their worship,
who can fail to see that this was nothing more than a pretence;
that the grand object in requiring the candidates for initiation
to make confession to the priest of all their secret faults and
short comings and sins, was just to put them entirely in the
power of those to whom the inmost feelings of their souls and
their most important secrets were confided? Now, exactly in the
same way, and for the very same purposes, has Rome erected the
confessional. Instead of requir ing priests and people alike, as
the Scripture does, to "confess their faults one to
another," when either have offended the other, it
commands all, on pain of perdition, to confess to the priest, *
whether they have transgressed against him or no, while
the priest is under no obligation to confess to the people at
all. Without such confession, in the Church of Rome, there can be
no admission to the Sacraments, any more than in the days of
Paganism there could be admission without confession to the
benefit of the Mysteries. Now, this confession is made by every
individual, in SECRECY AND IN SOLITUDE, to the priest sitting in
the name and clothed with the authority of God, * invested
with the power to examine the conscience, to judge the life, to
absolve or condemn according to his mere arbitrary will and
pleasure. This is the grand pivot on which the whole "Mystery
of iniquity," as embodied in the Papacy, is made to
turn; and wherever it is submitted to, admirably does it serve
the design of binding men in abject subjection to the priesthood.
In conformity with the principle out of which the confessional
grew, the Church, that is, the clergy, claimed to be the sole
depositaries of the true faith of Christianity. As the Chaldean
priests were believed alone to possess the key to the
understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, a key handed down to
them from primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be
the sole interpreters of Scripture; they only had the true
tradition, transmitted from age to age, without which it was
impossible to arr ive at its true meaning. They, therefore,
require implicit faith in their dogmas; all men were bound to
believe as the Church believed, while the Church in this way
could shape its faith as it pleased. As possessing supreme
authority, also, over the faith, they could let out little or
much, as they judged most expedient; and "RESERVE"
in teaching the great truths of religion was as essential a
principle in the system of Babylon, as it is in Romanism or
Tractarianism at this day. * It was this
priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that "imprisoned
the truth in unrighteousness" *
in the ancient world, so that "darkness covered the
earth, and gross darkness the people." It was the very
same claim, in the hands of the Roman priests, that ushered in
the dark ages, when, through many a dreary century, the Gospel
was unknown, and the Bible a sealed book to millions who bore the
name of Christ. In every respect, then, we see how justly Rome
bears on its forehead in the name, "Mystery, Babylon the
Great."