CHAPTER VII.
HITHERTO we have considered the history of the Two Babylons
chiefly in detail. Now we are to view them as organised systems,
The idolatrous system of the ancient Babylon assumed different
phases in different periods of its history. In the prophetic
description of the modern Babylon, there is evidently also a
development of different powers at different times. Do these two
developments bear any typical relation to each other? Yes, they
do. When we bring the religious history of the ancient Babylonian
Paganism to bear on the prophetic symbols that shadow forth the
organised working of idolatry in Rome, it will be found that it
casts as much light on this view of the subject as on that which
has hitherto engaged our attention. The powers of iniquity at
work in the modern Babylon are specifically described in chapters
xii. and xiii. of the Revelation; and they are as follows:--I.
The Great Red Dragon; II. The Beast that comes up out of the sea;
III. The Beast that ascendeth out of the earth; and IV. The Image
of the Beast. * In all these respects it will be found, on
inquiry, that, in regard to succession and order of development,
the Paganism of the Old Testament Babylon was the exact type of
the Paganism of the New.
SECTION I.
This formidable enemy of the truth is particularly described
in Rev. xii. 3: "And there appeared another wonder in
heaven, a great red dragon." It is admitted on all
hands that this is the first grand enemy that in Gospel times
assaulted the Christian Church. If the terms in which it is
described, and the deeds attributed to it, are considered, it
will be found that there is a great analogy between it and the
first enemy of all, that appeared against the ancient Church of
God soon after the Flood. The term dragon, according to the
associations currently connected with it, is somewhat apt to
mislead the reader by recalling to his mind the fabulous dragons
of the Dark Ages, equipped with wings. At the time this Divine
description was given, the term dragon had no such meaning among
either profane or sacred writers. "The dragon of the
Greeks," says Pausanias, "was only a large
snake;" * and the context shows that this is the very
case here; for what in the third verse is called a "dragon,"
in the fourteenth is simply described as a "serpent."
Then the word rendered "Red" properly
means "Fiery"; so that the "Red
Dragon" signifies the "Fiery Serpent" or
"Serpent of Fire." Exactly so does it appear
to have been in the first form of idolatry, that, under the
patronage of Nimrod, appeared in the ancient world. The "Serpent
of Fire" in the plains of Shinar seems to have been the
grand object of worship. There is the strongest evidence that
apostacy among the sons of Noah began in fire-worship, and that
in connection with the symbol of the serpent.
We have seen already, on different occasions, that fire was
worshipped as the enlightener and the purifier. Now, it was thus
at the very beginning; for Nimrod is singled out by the voice of
antiquity as commencing this fire-worship. * The identity of
Nimrod and Ninus has already been proved; and under the name of
Ninus, also, he is represented as originating the same practice.
In a fragment of Apollodorus it is said that "Ninus
taught the Assyrians to worship fire." * The sun, as
the great source of light and heat, was worshipped under the name
of Baal. Now, the fact that the sun, under that name, was
worshipped in the earliest ages of the world, shows the audacious
character of these first beginnings of apostacy. Men have spoken
as if the worship of the sun and of the heavenly bodies was a
very excusable thing, into which the human race might very
readily and very innocently fall. But how stands the fact?
According to the primitive language of mankind, the sun was
called "Shemesh"--that is, "the
Servant"--that name, no doubt, being divinely given, to
keep the world in mind of the great truth that, however glorious
was the orb of day, it was, after all, the appointed Minister of
the bounty of the great unseen Creator to His creatures upon
earth. Men knew this, and yet with the full knowledge of it, they
put the servant in the place of the Master; and called the sun
Baal--that is, the Lord--and worshipped him accordingly. What a
meaning, then, in the saying of Paul, that, "when they
knew God, they glorified Him not as God;" but "changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the creator, who is God over all, blessed for
ever." The beginning, then, of sun-worship, and of the
worship of the host of heaven, was a sin against the light--a
presumptuous, heaven-daring sin. As the sun in the heavens was
the great object of worship, so fire was worshipped as its
earthly representative. To this primeval fire-worship Vitruvius
alludes when he says that "men were first formed into
sates and communities by meeting around fires." *
And this is exactly in conformity with what we have already
seen(p. 117) in regard to Phoroneus, whom we have identified with
Nimrod, that while he was said to be the "inventor of
fire," he was also regarded as the first that "gathered
mankind into communities."
Along with the sun, as the great fire-god, and, in due time,
identified with him, was the serpent worshipped. * "In
the mythology of the primitive world," says Owen,
"the serpent is universally the symbol of the sun." *
In Egypt, one of the commonest symbols of the sun, or sun-god, is
a disc wit a serpent around it. * The original reason of that
identification seems just to have been that, as the sun was the
great enlightener of the physical world, so the serpent was held
to have been the great enlightener of the spiritual, by giving
mankind the "knowledge of good and evil." This,
of course, implies tremendous depravity on the part of the
ringleaders in such a system, considering the period when it
began; but such appears to have been the real meaning of the
identification. At all events, we have evidence, both Scriptural
and profane, for the fact, that the worship of the serpent began
side by side with the worship of fire and the sun. The inspired
statement of Paul seems decisive on the subject. It was, he says,
"when men knew God, but glorified Him not as God," that
they changed the glory of God, not only into an image made like
to corruptible man, but into the likeness of "creeping
things"--that is, of serpents (Rom. i. 23). With this
profane history exactly coincides. Of profane writers,
Sanchuniathon, the Phoenician, who is believed to have lived
about the time of Joshua, says--"Thoth first attributed
something of the divine nature to the serpent and the serpent
tribe, in which he was followed by the Phoenicians and Egyptians.
For this animal was esteemed by him to be the most spiritual of
all the reptiles, and of a FIERY nature, inasmuch as it exhibits
an incredible celerity, moving by its spirit, without either
hands or feet.....Moreover, it is long-lived, and has the quality
of RENEWING ITS YOUTH....as Thoth has laid down in the sacred
books; upon which accounts this animal is introduced in the
sacred rites and Mysteries." *
Now, Thoth, it will be remembered, was the counsellor of
Thamus, that is, Nimrod. * From this statement, then, we are led
to the conclusion that serpent-worship was a part of the primeval
apostacy of Nimrod. The "FIERY NATURE" of the serpent,
alluded to in the above extract, is continually celebrated by the
heathen poets. Thus Virgil, "availing himself," as
the author of Pompeii remarks, "of the divine nature
attributed to serpents," * describes the sacred serpent
that came from the tomb of Anchises, when his son AEneas had been
sacrificing before it, in such terms as illustrate at once the
language of the Phoenician, and the "Fiery Serpent" of
the passage before us:--
"Scarce had he finished, when, with speckled pride,
A serpent from the tomb began to glide;
His hugy bulk on seen high volumes rolled,
Blue was his breadth of back, but streaked with scaly gold.
Thus, riding on his curls, he seemed to pass
A rolling fire along, and single the grass." *
It is not wonderful, then, that fire-worship and
serpent-worship should be conjoined. The serpent, also, as "renewing
its youth every year, "was plausibly represented to
those who wished an excuse for idolatry as a meet emblem of the
sun, the great regenerator, who every year regenerates and renews
the face of nature, and who, when deified, was worshipped and the
grand Regenerator of the souls of men.
In the chapter under consideration, the "great fiery
serpent" is represented with all the emblems of
royalty. All its heads are encircled with "crowns or
diadems;" and so in Egypt, the serpent of fire, or
serpent of the sun, in Greek was called the Basilisk, that is,
the "royal serpent," to identify it with
Moloch, which name, while it recalls the ideas both of fire and
blood, properly signifies "the King." The
Basilisk was always, among the Egyptians, and among many nations
besides, regarded as "the very type of majesty and
dominion." * As such, its image was worn affixed to the
headdress of the Egyptian monarchs; and it was not lawful for any
one else to wear it. * The sun identified with this serpent was
called "P'ouro," * which signifies at once "the
Fire" and "the King," and from this
very name the epithet "Purros," the "Fiery,"
is given to the "Great seven-crowned serpent" of
our text. *
Thus was the Sun, the Great-Fire-god, identified with the
Serpent. But he had also a human representative, and that was
Tammuz, for whom the daughters of Israel lamented, in other words
Nimrod. We have already seen the identity of Nimrod and
Zoroaster. Now, Zoroaster was not only the head of the Chaldean
Mysteries, but, as all admit, the head of the fire-worshippers. *
The title given to Nimrod, as the first of the Babylonian kings,
by Berosus, indicates the same thing. That title is Alorus, *
that is, "the god of fire." * As Nimrod, "the
god of fire," was Molk-Gheber, or, "the Mighty
king," inasmuch as he was the first who was called
Moloch, or King, and the first who began to be "mighty"
(Gheber) on the earth, we see at once how it was that the "passing
through the fire to Moloch" originated, and how the god
of fire among the Romans came to be called "Mulkiber."
* It was only after his death, however, that he appears to
have been deified. Then, retrospectively, he was worshipped as
the child of the Sun, or the Sun incarnate. In his own life-time,
however, he set up no higher pretensions than that of being
Bol-Khan, or Priest of Baal, from which the other name of the
Roman fire-god Vulcan is evidently derived. * Everything in the
history of Vulcan exactly agrees with that of Nimrod. Vulcan was
"the most ugly and deformed" of all the gods. * Nimrod,
over all the world, is represented with the features and
complexion of a negro. Though Vulcan was so ugly, that when he
sought a wife, "all the beautiful goddesses rejected him
with horror;" yet "Destiny, the irrevocable,
interposed, and pronounced the decree, by which [Venus] the most
beautiful of the goddesses, was united to the most unsightly of
the gods." * So, in spite of the black and Cushite
features of Nimrod, he had for his queen Semiramis, the most
beautiful of women. The wife of Vulcan was noted for her
infidelities and licentiousness; the wife of Nimrod was the very
same. * Vulcan was the head and chief of the Cyclops, that is, "the
kings of flame." * Nimrod was the head of the
fire-worshipers. Vulcan was the forger of the thunderbolts by
which such havoc was made among the enemies of the gods. Ninus,
or Nimrod, in his wars with the king of Bactria, seems to have
carried on the conflict in a similar way. From Arnobius we learn,
that when the Assyrians under Ninus made war against the
Bactrians, the warfare was waged not only by the sword and bodily
strength, but by magic and by means derived from the secret
instructions of the Chaldeans. * When it is known that the
historical Cyclops are, by the historian Castor, traced up tot he
very time of Saturn or Belus, the first king of Babylon, * and
when we learn that Jupiter (who was worshipped in the very same
character as Ninus, "the child"), * when
fighting against the Titans, "received from the Cyclops
aid" by means of "dazzling lightnings and
thunders," we may have some pretty clear idea of the
magic arts derived from the Chaldean Mysteries, which Ninus
employed against the Bactrian king. There is evidence that, down
to a late period, the priests of the Chaldean Mysteries knew the
composition of the formidable Greek fire, which burned under
water, and the secret of which has been lost; * and there can be
little doubt that Nimrod, in erecting his power, availed himself
of such or similar scientific secrets, which he and his
associates alone possessed.
In these, and other respects yet to be noticed, there is an
exact coincidence between Vulcan, the god of fire of the Romans,
and Nimrod, the fire-god of Babylon. In the case of the classic
Vulcan, it is only in his character of the fire-god as a physical
agent that he is popularly represented. But it was in his
spiritual aspects, in cleansing and regenerating the souls of
men, that the fire-worship told most effectually on the world.
The power, the popularity, and skill of Nimrod, as well as the
seductive nature of the system itself, enabled him to spread the
delusive doctrine far and wide, and he was represented under the
well-known name of Phaethon, * as on the point of "setting
the whole world on fire," or (without the poetical
metaphor) of involving all mankind in the guild of fire-worship.
The extraordinary prevalence of the worship of the fire-god in
the early ages of the world, is proved by legends found over all
the earth, and by facts in almost every clime. Thus, in Mexico,
the natives relate, that in primeval times, just after the first
age, the world was burnt up with fire. * As their history, like
the Egyptian, was written in Hieroglyphics, it is plain that this
must be symbolically understood. In India, they have a legend to
the very same effect, though somewhat varied in its form. The
Brahmins say that, in a very remote period of the past, one of
the gods shone with such insufferable splendour,
"inflicting distress on the universe by his effulgent beams,
brighter than a thousand worlds," * that, unless
another more potent god had interposed and cut off his head, the
result would have been most disastrous. In the Druidic Triads of
the old British Bards, there is distinct reference to the same
event. They say that in primeval times a "tempest of
fire arose, which split the earth asunder to the great
deep," from which none escaped buy "the select
company shut up together in the enclosure with the strong
door," with the great "patriarch distinguished
for his integrity," * that is evidently with Shem, the
leader of the faithful--who preserved their "integrity"
when so many made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. These
stories all point to one and the same period, and they show how
powerful had been this form of apostacy. The Papal purgatory and
the fires of St. John's Eve, which we have already considered,
and many other fables or practices still extant, are just so many
relics of the same ancient superstition.
It will be observed, however, that the Great Red Dragon, or
Great Fiery Serpent, is represented as standing before the Woman
with the crown of twelve stars, that is, the true Church of God,
"To devour her child as soon as it should be born." Now,
this is an exact accordance with the character of the Great Head
of the system of fire-worship. Nimrod, as the representative of
the devouring fire to which human victims, and especially
children, were offered in sacrifice, was regarded as the great
child-devourer. Though, at his first deification, he was set up
himself as Ninus, or the child, yet, as the first of mankind that
was deified, he was, of course, the actual father of all the
Babylonian gods; and, therefore, in that character he was
afterwards universally regarded. * As the Father of the gods, he
was, as we have seen, called Kronos; and every one knows that the
classical story of Kronos was just this, that, "he
devoured his sons as soon as they were born." * Such is
the analogy between type and antitype. This legend has a further
and deeper meaning; but, as applied to Nimrod, or "The
Horned One," * it just refers to the fact, that, as the
representative of Moloch or Baal, infants were the most
acceptable offerings at his altar. We have ample and melancholy
evidence on this subject from the records of antiquity. "The
Phenicians," says Eusebius, "every year
sacrificed their beloved and only-begotten children to Kronos or
Saturn, * and the Rhodians also often did the same."
Diodorus Siculus states that the Carthaginians, on one occasion,
when besieged by the Sicilians, and sore pressed, in order to
rectify, as they supposed, their error in having somewhat
departed from the ancient custom of Carthage, in this respect,
hastily "chose out two hundred of the noblest of their
children, and publicly sacrificed them" to this god. *
There is reason to believe that the same practice obtained in our
own land in the times of the Druids. We know that they offered
human sacrifices to their bloody gods. We have evidence that they
made "their children pass through the fire to
Moloch," and that makes it highly probable that they
also offered them in sacrifice; for, from Jeremiah xxxii. 35,
compared with Jeremiah xix. 5, we find that these two things were
parts of one and the same system. The god whom the Druids
worshipped was Baal, as the blazing Baal-fires show, and the
last-cited passage proves that children were offered in sacrifice
to Baal. When "the fruit of the body" was thus offered,
it was "for the sin of the soul." And it was a
principle of the Mosaic law, a principle no doubt derived from
the patriarchal faith, that the priest must partake of whatever
was offered as a sin-offering (Numbers xviii. 9, 10). Hence, the
priests of Nimrod or Baal were necessarily required to eat of the
human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that "Cahna-Bal,"
* the "Priest of Baal," is the
established word in our own tongue for a devourer of human flesh.
*
Now, the ancient traditions relate that the apostates who
joined in the rebellion of Nimrod made war upon the faithful
among the sons of Noah. Power and numbers were on the side of the
fire-worshippers. But on the side of Shem and the faithful was
the mighty power of God's Spirit. Therefore many were convinced
of their sin, arrested in their evil career; and victory, as we
have already seen, declared for the saints. The power of Nimrod
came to an end, * and with that, for a time, the worship of the
sun, and the fiery serpent associated with it. The case was
exactly as stated here in regard to the antitype (Rev. xii. 9): "The
great dragon," or fiery serpent, was "cast out
of heaven to the earth, and his angels were cast out with
him" that is, the Head of the fire-worship, and all his
associates and underlings, were cast down from the power and
glory to which they had been raised. Then was the time when the
whole gods of the classic Pantheon of Greece were fain to flee
and hid themselves from the wrath of their adversaries. * Then it
was, that, in India, Indra, the king of the gods, Surya, the god
of the sun, Agni, the god of fire, and all the rabble rout of the
Hindu Olympus, were driven from heaven, wandered over the earth,
* or hid themselves, in forests, * disconsolate, and ready to "perish
of hunger." * Then it was that Phaethon, while driving
the chariot of the sun, when on the point of setting the world on
fire, was smitten by the Supreme God, and cast headlong to the
earth, while his sitters, the daughters of the sun, inconsolably
lamented him, as, "the women wept for Tammuz." Then
it was, as the reader must be prepared to see, that Vulcan, or
Mold-gheber, the classic "god of fire," was so
ignominiously hurled down from heaven, as he himself relates in
Homer, speaking of the wrath of the King of Heaven, which in this
instance must mean God Most High:--
"I felt his matchless might,
Tossed all the day in raped circles round,
Nor, till the sun descended, touched the ground.
Breathless I fell, in giddy motion lost.
The Sinthians raised me on the Lemnian coast." *
The lines, in which Milton refers to this same downfall,
though he gives it another application, still more beautifully
describe the greatness of the overthrow:--
"In Ausonian land Men called him Mulciber; and how he
fell From heaven, they fabled. Thrown by an angry Jove Sheer o'er
the crystal battlements; from morn To noon he fell, from noon to
dewy eve, A summer's day; and, with the setting sun, Dropped from
the zenith, like a falling star, On Lemnos, the Aegean
isle." *
These words very strikingly show the tremendous fall of
Molk-gheber, or Nimrod, "the Mighty King," when
"suddenly he was cast down from the height of his power,
and was deprived at once of his kingdom and his life." *
Now, to this overthrow there is very manifest allusion in the
prophetic apostrophe of Isaiah to the king of Babylon, exulting
over his approaching downfall: "How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The Babylonian
king pretended to be a representative of Nimrod or Phaethon; and
the prophet, in these words, informs him, that, as certainly as
the god in whom he gloried had been cast down from his high
estate, so certainly should he. In the classic story, Phaethon is
said to have been consumed with lightning (and, as we shall see
by-and-by, AEsculapius also died the same death); but the
lightning is a mere metaphor for the wrath of God, under which
his life and his kingdom had come to an end. When the history is
examined, and the figure stripped off, it turns out, as we have
already seen, that he was judicially slain with the sword. *
Such is the language of the prophecy, and so exactly does it
correspond with the character, and deeds, and fate of the ancient
type. How does it suit the antitype? Could the power of Pagan
Imperial Rome--that power that first persecuted the Church of
Christ, that stood by its soldiers around the tomb of the Son of
God Himself, to devour Him, if it had been possible, when He
should be brought forth, as the first-begotten from the dead, *1*
*2* to rule all nations--be represented by a "Fiery
Serpent"? Nothing could more lucidly show it forth.
Among the lords many, and the gods many, worshipped in the
imperial city, the two grand objects of worship were the "Eternal
Fire," kept perpetually burning in the temple of Vesta,
and the sacred Epidaurian Serpent. In Pagan Rome, this
fire-worship and serpent-worship were sometimes separate,
sometimes conjoined; but both occupied a pre-eminent place in
Roman esteem. The fire of Vesta was regarded as one of the grand
safeguards of the empire. It was pretended to have been brought
from Troy by AEneas, who had it confided to his care by the shade
of Hector, * and was kept with the most jealous care by the
Vestal virgins, who, for their charge of it, were honoured with
the highest honours. The temple where it was kept, says
Augustine, "was the most sacred and most reverenced of
all the temples of Rome." * The fire that was so
jealously guarded in that temple, and on which so much was
believed to depend, was regarded in the very same light as by the
old Babylonian fire-worshippers. It was looked upon as the
purifier, and in April every year, at the Palilia, or feast of
Pales, both men and cattle, for this purpose, were made to pass
through the fire. * The Epidaurian snake, that the Romans
worshipped along with the fire, was looked on as the divine
representation of AEsculapius, the child of the Sun. *
AEsculapius, whom that sacred snake represented, was evidently,
just another name for the great Babylonian god. His fate was
exactly the same as that of Phaethon. He was said to have been
smitten with lightning for raising the dead. * It is evident that
this could never have been the case in a physical sense, nor
could it easily have been believed to be so. But view it in a
spiritual sense, and then the statement is just this, that he was
believed to raise men who were dead in trespasses and sins to
newness of life. Now, this was exactly what Phaethon was
pretending to do, when he was smitten for setting the world on
fire. In the Babylonian system there was a symbolical death, *
that all the initiated had to pass through, before they got the
new life which was implied in regeneration, and that just to
declare that they had passed from death unto life. As the passing
through the fire was both a purgation from sin and the means of
regeneration, so it was also for raising the dead that Phaethon
was smitten. Then, as AEsculapius was the child of the Sun, so
was Phaethon. * To symbolise this relationship, the head of the
image of AEsculapius was generally encircled with rays. * The
Pope thus encircles the heads of the pretended images of Christ;
but the real source of these irradiations is patent to all
acquainted either with the literature or the art of Rome. Thus
speaks Virgil of Latinus:-
"And now, in pomp, the peaceful kings appear,
Four steeds the chariot of Latinus bear,
Twelve golden beams around his temples play,
To mark his lineage from the god of day." *
The "golden beams" around the head of
AEsculapius were intended to mark the same, to point him out as
the child of the Sun, or the Sun incarnate. The "golden
beams" around the heads of pictures and images called
by the name of Christ, were intended to show the Pagans that they
might safely worship them, as the images of their well-known
divinities, though called by a different name. Now AEsculapius,
in a time of deadly pestilence, had been invited from Epidaurus
to Rome. The god, under the form of a larger serpent, entered the
ship that was sent to convey him to Rome, and having safely
arrived in the Tiber, was solemnly inaugurated as the guardian
god of the Romans. * From that time forth, in private as well as
in public, the worship of the Epidaurian snake, the serpent that
represented the Sun-divinity incarnate, in other words, the
"Serpent of Fire," became nearly universal. In
almost every house the sacred serpent, which was a harmless sort,
was to be found. "These serpents nestled about the
domestic altars," says the author of Pompeii, "and
came out, like dogs or cats, to be patted by the visitors, and
beg for something to eat. Nay, at table, if we may build upon
insulted passages, they crept about the cups of the guests, and,
in hot weather, ladies would use them as live boas, and twist
them round their necks for the sake of coolness....These sacred
animals made war on the rats and mice, and thus kept down one
species of vermin; but as they bore a charmed life, and no one
laid violent hands on them, they multiplied so fast, that, like
the monkeys of Benares, they became an intolerable nuisance. The
frequent fires at Rome were the only things that kept them
under." * The reader will find, in the accompanying
woodcut , a representation of Roman fire-worship and
serpent-worship at once separate and conjoined. * The reason of
the double representation of the god I cannot here enter into;
but it must be evident, from the words of Virgil already quoted,
that the figures in the upper compartment having their heads
encircled with rays, represent the fire-god, or Sun divinity; and
what is worthy of special note is, that these fire-gods are
black, * the colour thereby identifying them with the Ethiopian
or black Phaethon; while, as the author of Pompeii himself
admits, these same black fire-gods are in the under compartment
represented by two huge serpents. Now, if this worship of the
sacred serpent of the Sun, the great fire-god, was so universal
in Rome, what symbol could more graphically portray the
idolatrous power of Pagan Imperial Rome than the "Great
Fiery Serpent"? No doubt it was to set forth this very
thing that the Imperial standard itself--the standard of the
Pagan Emperor of Rome, as Pontifex Maximus, Head of the great
system of fire-worship and serpent worship--was a serpent
elevated on a lofty pole, and so coloured, as to exhibit it as a
recognised symbol of fire-worship. *
As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, the powers of
light and darkness came into collision (Rev. xii. 7,8):--"Michael
and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought
and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found
any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out;.... he was
cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with
him." The "great serpent of fire" was cast
out, when, by the decree of Gratian, Paganism throughout the
Roman empire was abolished--when the fires of Vesta were
extinguished, and the revenues of the Vestal virgins were
confiscated--when the Roman Emperor (who though for more than a
century and a-half a professor of Christianity, had been "Pontifex
Maximus," the very head of the idolatry of Rome, and
such, on high occasions, appearing invested with all the
idolatrous insignia of Paganism,) through force of conscience
abolished his own office. * While Nimrod was personally and
literally slain by the sword, it was through the sword of the
Spirit that Shem overcame the system of fire-worship, and so
bowed the hearts of men, as to cause it for a time to be utterly
extinguished. In like manner did the Dragon of fire, in the Roman
Empire, receive a deadly wound from a sword, and that the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. There is thus far an
exact analogy between the type and the antitype.
But not only is there this analogy. It turns out, when the
records of history are searched to the bottom, that when the head
of the Pagan idolatry of Rome was slain with the sword by the
extinction of the office of Pontifex Maximus, the last Roman
Pontifex Maximus was the ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE, SOLE REPRESENTATIVE
OF NIMROD and his idolatrous system the existing. To make this
clear, a brief glance at the Roman history is necessary. In comma
with all the earth, Rome at a very early prehistoric period, had
drunk deep of Babylon's "golden cup." But
above and beyond all other nations, it had had a connection with
the idolatry of Babylon that put it in a position peculiar and
alone. Long before the days of Romulus, a representative of the
Babylonian Messiah, called by his name, had fixed his temple as a
god, and his palace as a king, on one of those very heights which
came to be included within the walls of that city which Remus and
his brother were destined to found. On the Capitoline hill, so
famed in after-days as the great high place of Roman worship,
Saturnia, or the city of Saturn, the great Chaldean god, had in
the days of dim and distant antiquity been erected. * Some
revolution had then taken place--the graven images of Babylon had
been abolished--the erecting of any idol had been sternly
prohibited, * and when the twin founders of the now
world-renowned city reared its humble walls, the city and the
palace of their Babylonian predecessor had long lain in ruins.
The ruined state of this sacred city, even in the remote age of
Evander, is alluded to by Virgil. Referring to the time when
AEneas is said to have visited that ancient Italian king, thus he
speaks:-
"Then saw two heaps of ruins; once they stood
Two stately towns on either side the flood;
Saturnia and Janicula's remains;
And either place the founder's name retains." *
The deadly wound, however, thus given to the Chaldean system,
was destined to be healed. A colony of Etruscans, earnestly
attached to the Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from
Asia Minor, others from Greece, and settled in the immediate
neighbourhood of Rome. * They were ultimately incorporated in the
Roman state, but long before this political union took place they
exercised the most powerful influence on the religion of the
Romans. From the very first their skill in augury, soothsaying,
and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or
soothsayers monopolised, made the Romans look up to them with
respect. It is admitted on all hands that the Romans derived
their knowledge of augury, which occupied so prominent a place in
every public transaction in which they engaged, chiefly from the
Tuscans, * that is, the people of Etruria, and at first none but
natives of that country were permitted to exercise the office of
a Haruspex, which had respect to all the rites essentially
involved in sacrifice. * Wars and disputes arose between Rome and
the Etruscans; but still the highest of the noble youths of Rome
were sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which
flourished there. * The consequence was, that under the influence
of men whose minds were moulded by those who clung to the ancient
idol-worship, the Romans were brought back again to much of that
idolatry which they had formerly repudiated and cast off. Though
Numa, therefore, in setting up his religious system, so far
deferred to the prevailing feeling of his day and forbade
image-worship, yet in consequence of the alliance subsisting
between Rome and Etruria in sacred things, matters were put in
train for the ultimate subversion of that prohibition. The
college of Pontiffs, of which he laid the foundation, * in
process of time came to be substantially an Etruscan college, and
the Sovereign Pontiff that presided over that college, and that
controlled all the public and private religious rites of the
Roman people in all essential respects, became in spirit and in
practice an Etruscan Pontiff.
Still the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome, even after the Etruscan
idolatry was absorbed into the Roman system, was only an offshoot
from the grand original Babylonian system. He was a devoted
worshipper of the Babylonian god; but he was not the legitimate
representative of that God. The true legitimate Babylonian
Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. That
seat, after the death of Belshazzar, and the expulsion of the
Chaldean priesthood from Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings, was
at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the seven churches of
Asia. * There, in consequence, for many centuries was "Satan's
seat" (Rev. ii. 13).There, under favour of the deified
* kings of Pergamos, was his favourite abode, there was the
worship of AEsculapius, under the form of the serpent, celebrated
with frantic orgies and excesses, that elsewhere were kept under
some measure of restraint. At first, the Roman Pontiff had no
immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; yet,
in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of
Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself became part and
parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III., the last of its
kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman
people, B.C. 133. * For some time after the kingdom of Pergamos
was merged in the Roman dominions, there was no one who could set
himself openly and advisedly to lay claim to all the dignity
inherent in the old title of the kings of Pergamos. The original
powers even of the Roman Pontiffs seem to have been by that time
abridged, * but when Julius Caesar, who had previously been
elected Pontifex Maximus, * became also, as Emperor, the supreme
civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the Roman state, and
head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the
true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him,
and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then
he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as
well as the kingdom that Attalus had been regarded. * Then, on
certain occasions, in the exercise of his high pontifical office,
he appeared of course in all the pomp of the Babylonian custom,
as Belshazzar himself might have done, in robes of scarlet, *
with the crosier of Nimrod in his hand, wearing the mitre of
Dagon and bearing the keys of Janus and Cybele. * Thus did
matters continue, as already stated, even under so-called
Christian emperors; who, as a slave to their consciences,
appointed a heathen as their substitute in the performance of the
more directly idolatrous functions of the pontificate (that
substitute, however, acting in their name and by their
authority), until the reign of Gratian, who, as shown by Gibbon,
was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idolatrous
pontifical attire, or to act as Pontifex. * Now, from all this it
is evident that, when Paganism in the Roman empire was abolished,
when the office of Pontifex Maximus was suppressed, and all the
dignitaries of paganism were cast down from their seats of
influence and of power, which they had still been allowed in some
measure to retain, this was not merely the casting down of the
Fiery Dragon of Rome, but the casting down of the Fiery Dragon of
Babylon. It was just the enacting over again, in a symbolical
sense, upon the true and sole legitimate successor of Nimrod,
what have taken place upon himself, when the greatness of his
downfall gave rise to the exclamation, "How art thou
fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"