CHAPTER IV.
WHEN Linacer, a distinguished physician, but bigoted Romanist,
in the reign of Henry VIII., first fell in with the New
Testament, after reading it for a while, he tossed it from him
with impatience and a great oath, exclaiming, "Either
this book is not true, or we are not Christians." He
saw at once that the system of Rome and the system of the New
Testament were directly opposed to one another; and no one who
impartially compares the two systems can come to any other
conclusion. In passing from the Bible to the Breviary, it is like
passing from light to darkness. While the one breathes glory to
God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will to men, the
other inculcates all that is dishonouring to the Most High, and
ruinous to the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind. How came
it that such pernicious doctrines and practices were embraced by
the Papacy? Was the Bible so obscure or ambiguous that men
naturally fell into the mistake of supposing that it required
them to believe and practise the very opposite of what it did?
No; the doctrine and discipline of the Papacy were never derived
from the Bible. The fact that wherever it has the power, it lays
the reading of the Bible under its ban, and either consigns that
choicest gift of heavenly love to the flames, or shuts it up
under lock and key, proves this of itself. But it can be still
more conclusively established. A glance at the main pillars of
the Papal system will sufficiently prove that its doctrine and
discipline, in all essential respects, have been derived from
Babylon. Let the reader now scan the evidence.
SECTION I. - BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
It is well known that regeneration by baptism is a fundamental
article of Rome, yea, that it stands at the very threshold of the
Roman system. So important, according to Rome, is baptism for
this purpose, that, on the one hand, it is pronounced of "absolute
necessity for salvation," * insomuch that infants dying
without it cannot be admitted to glory; and on the other, its
virtues are so great, that it is declared in all cases infallibly
to "regenerates us by a new spiritual birth, making us
children of God:" * --it is pronounced to be "the
first door by which we enter into the fold of Jesus Christ, the
first means by which we receive the grace of reconciliation with
God; therefore the merits of His death are by baptism applied to
our souls in so superabundant a manner, as fully to satisfy
Divine justice for all demands against us, whether for original
or actual sin." * Now, in both respects this doctrine
is absolutely anti-Scriptural; in both it is purely Pagan. It is
anti-Scriptural, for the Lord Jesus Christ has expressly declared
that infants, without the slightest respect to baptism or any
external ordinance whatever, are capable of admission into all
the glory of the heavenly world: "Suffer the little
children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the
kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist, while yet in his
mother's womb was so filled with joy at the advent of the
Saviour, that, as soon as Mary's salutation sounded in the ears
of his own mother, the unborn babe "leaped in the womb
for joy." Had that child died at the birth, what could
have excluded it from "the inheritance of the saints in
light" for which it was so certainly "made
meet"? Yet the Roman Catholic Bishop Hay, in defiance
of every principle of God's Word, does not hesitate to pen the
following: "Question: What becomes of young children who
die without baptism? Answer: If a young child were put to death
for the sake of Christ, this would be to it the baptism of blood,
and carry it to heaven; but except in this case, as such infants
are incapable of having the desire of baptism, with the other
necessary dispositions, if they are not actually baptised with
water, THEY CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN." * It came from
heathenism. The classic reader cannot fail to remember where, and
in what melancholy plight, AEneas, when he visited the infernal
regions, found the souls of unhappy infants who had died before
receiving. so to speak, "the rites of the church":-
"Before the gates the cries of babes new-born,
Whom fate had from their tender mothers torn,
Assault his ears." *
These wretched babes, to glorify the virtue and efficacy of
the mystic rites of Paganism, are excluded from the Elysian
Fields, the paradise of the heathen, and have among their nearest
associates no better company than that of guilty suicides: * --
"The next in place and punishment are they
Who prodigally threw their souls away,
Fools, who, repining at their wretched state,
And loathing an anxious life, suborned their fate."
So much for the lack of baptism. Then as to its positive
efficacy when obtained, the Papal doctrine is equally
anti-Scriptural. There are professed Protestants who hold the
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration; but the Word of God knows
nothing of it. The Scriptural account of baptism is, not that it
communicates the new birth, but that it is the appointed means of
signifying and sealing that new birth where it already exists. In
this respect baptism stands on the very same ground as
circumcision. Now, what says God's Word of the efficacy of
circumcision? This it says, speaking of Abraham: "He
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of
the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised"
(Romans iv.11). Circumcision was not intended to make Abraham
righteous; he was righteous already before he was circumcised.
But it was intended to declare him righteous, to give him the
more abundant evidence in his own consciousness of his being so.
Had Abraham not been righteous before his circumcision, his
circumcision could not have been a seal, could not have given
confirmation to that which did not exist. So with baptism, it is "a
seal of the righteousness of the faith" which the man
"has before he is baptised:" for it is said, "He
that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved" (Mark
xvi. 16). Where faith exists, if it be genuine, it is the
evidence of a new heart, of a regenerated nature; and it is only
on the profession of that faith and regeneration in the case of
an adult, that he is admitted to baptism. Even in the case of
infants, who can make no profession of faith or holiness, the
administration of baptism is not for the purpose of regenerating
them, or making them holy, but of declaring them "holy,"
in the sense of being fit for being consecrated, even in
infancy, to the service of Christ, just as the whole nation of
Israel, in consequence of their relation to Abraham, according to
the flesh, where "holy unto the Lord." If they
were not, in that figurative sense, "holy," they
would not be fit subjects for baptism, which is the "seal"
of a holy state. But the Bible pronounces them, in
consequence of their decent from believing parents, to be "holy,"
and that even where only one of the parents is a believer: "The
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else where your
children unclean, but now they are HOLY" (1 Cor.
vii.14). It is in consequence of, and solemnly to declare, that "holiness,"
with all the responsibilities attaching to it, that they are
baptised. That "holiness," however, is very
different from the "holiness" of the new
nature; and although the very fact of baptism, if Scripturally
viewed and duly improved, is, in the hand of the good Spirit of
God, an important means of making that "holiness" a
glorious reality, in the highest sense of the term, yet it does
not in all cases necessarily secure their spiritual regeneration.
God may, or may not, as He sees fit, give the new heart, before,
or at, or after baptism; but manifest it is, that thousands who
have been duly baptised are still unregenerate, are still in
precisely the same position as Simon Magus, who, after being
canonically baptised by Philip, was declared to be "in
the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity" (Acts
viii. 23). The doctrine of Rome, however, is, that all who are
canonically baptised, however ignorant, however immoral, if they
only give implicit faith to the Church, and surrender their
conscience to the priests, are as much regenerated as ever they
can be, and that children coming from the waters of baptism are
entirely purged from the stain of original sin. Hence we find the
Jesuit missionaries in India boasting of making converts by
thousands, by the mere fact of baptising them, without the least
previous instruction, in the most complete ignorance of the
truths of Christianity, on their mere profession of submission to
Rome. This doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration also is essentially
Babylonian. Some may perhaps stumble at the idea of regeneration
at all having been known in the Pagan world; but if they only go
to India, they will find at this day, the bigoted Hindoos, who
have never opened their ears to Christian instruction, as
familiar with the term and the idea as ourselves. The Brahmins
make it their distinguishing boast that they are "twice-born"
* men, and that, as such, they are sure of eternal happiness.
Now, the same was the case in Babylon, and their the new birth
was conferred by baptism. In the Chaldean mysteries, before any
instruction could be received, it was required first of all, that
the person to be initiated submit to baptism in token of blind
and implicit obedience. We find different ancient authors bearing
direct testimony both to the fact of this baptism and the
intention of it. "In certain sacred rites of the
heathen," says Tertullian, especially referring to the
worship of Isis and Mithra, "the mode of initiation is
by baptism." * The term "initiation"
clearly shows that it was to the Mysteries of these divinities he
referred. This baptism was by immersion, and seems to have been
rather a rough and formidable process; for we find that he who
passed through the purifying waters, and other necessary
penances, "if he survived, was then admitted to the
knowledge of the Mysteries." * To face this ordeal
required no little courage on the part of those who were
initiated. There was this grand inducement, however, to submit,
that they who were thus baptised were, as Tertullian assures us,
promised, as the consequence, "REGENERATION, and the
pardon of all their perjuries." * Our own Pagan
ancestors, the worshippers of Odin, are known to have practised
baptismal rites, which, taken in connection with their avowed
object in practising them, show that, originally, at least, they
must have believed that the natural guilt and corruption of their
new-born children could be washed away by sprinkling them with
water, or by plunging them, as soon as born, into lakes or
rivers. *
Yea, on the other side of the Atlantic, in Mexico, the same
doctrine of baptismal regeneration was found in full vigour among
the natives, when Cortez and his warriors landed on their shores.
* The ceremony of Mexican baptism, which was beheld with
astonishment by the Spanish Roman Catholic missionaries, is thus
strikingly described in Prescott's Conquest of
Mexico:--"When everything necessary for the baptism had been
made ready, all the relations of the child were assembled, and
the midwife, who was the person that performed the rite of
baptism, * was summoned. At early dawn, they met together in the
court-yard of the house. When the sun had risen, the midwife,
taking the child in her arms, called for a little earthen vessel
of water, while those about her placed the ornaments, which had
been prepared for baptism, in the midst of the court. To perform
the rite of baptism, she placed herself with her face toward the
west, and immediately began to go through certain
ceremonies....After this she sprinkled water on the head of the
infant, saying, "O my child, take and receive the water
of the Lord of the world, which is our life, which is given for
the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash and to
purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your
body, and dwell there; that they may destroy and remove from you
all the evil and sin which was given you before the beginning of
the world, since all of us are under its power.'.... She then
washed the body of the child with water, and spoke in this
manner: "Whencesoever thou comest, thou that art hurtful to
this child, leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth
anew, and is BORN ANEW; now he is purified and cleansed afresh,
and our mother Chalchivitlycue [the goddess of water] bringeth
him into the world.' Having thus prayed, the midwife took the
child in both hands, and, lifting him towards heaven, said,
"O Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom thou hast sent
into the world, thus place of sorrow, suffering, and penitence.
Grant him, O Lord, thy gifts and inspiration, for thou art the
Great God, and with thee is the great goddess.'" * Here
is the opus operatum without mistake. Here is baptismal
regeneration and exorcism too, * as through and complete as any
Romish priest or lover of Tractarianism could desire. Does the
reader ask what evidence is there that Mexico had derived this
doctrine from Chaldea? The evidence is decisive. From the
researches of Humboldt we find that the Mexicans celebrated Wodan
as the founder of their race, just as our own ancestors did. The
Wodan or Odin of Scandinavia can be proved to be the Adon of
Babylon. * The Wodan of Mexico, from the following quotation,
will be seen to be the very same: "According to the
ancient traditions collected by the Bishop Francis Nunez del la
Vega," says Humboldt, "the Wodan of the
Chiapanese [of Mexico] was grandson of that illustrious old man,
who at the time of the great deluge, in which the greater part of
the human race perished, was saved on a raft, together with his
family. Wodan co-operated in the construction of the great
edifice which had been undertaken by men to reach the skies; the
execution of this rash project was interrupted; each family
received from that time a different language; and the great
spirit Teotl ordered Wodan to go and people the country of
Anahuac." * This surely proves to demonstration whence
originally came the Mexican mythology and whence also that
doctrine of baptismal regeneration which the Mexicans held in
common with the Egyptian and Persian worshippers of the Chaldean
Queen of Heaven. Prestcott, indeed, has cast doubts on the
genuineness of this tradition, as being too exactly coincident
with the Scriptural history to be easily believed. But the
distinguished Humboldt, who had carefully examined the matter,
and who had no prejudice to warp him, expresses his full belief
in its correctness; and even from Prescott's own interesting
pages, it may be proved in every essential particular, with the
single exception of the name of Wodan, to which he makes no
reference. But, happily, the fact that that name had been borne
by some illustrious hero among the supposed ancestors of the
Mexican race, is put beyond all doubt by the singular
circumstance that the Mexicans had one of their day called
Wodansday, exactly as we ourselves have. * This, taken in
connection with all the circumstances, is a very striking proof,
at once of the unity of the human race, and of the wide-spread
diffusion of the system that began at Babel.
If the question arise, How came it that the Babylonians
themselves adopted such a doctrine as regeneration by baptism, we
have light also on that. In the Babylonian Mysteries, the
commemoration of the flood, of the ark, and the grand events in
the life of Noah, was mingled with the worship of the Queen of
Heaven and her son. Noah, as having lived in two worlds, both
before the flood and after it, was called "Diphues,"
or "twice-born," * and was represented as
a god with two heads looking in opposite directions, the one old,
and the other young . * Though we have seen that the two-headed
Janus in one aspect had reference to Cush and his son, Nimrod,
viewed as one god, in a two-fold capacity, as the Supreme, and
Father of all the deified "mighty ones," yet,
in order to gain for him the very authority and respect essential
to constitute him properly the head of the great system of
idolatry that the apostates inaugurated, it was necessary to
represent him as in some way or other identified with the great
patriarch, who was the Father of all, and who had so miraculous a
history. Therefore in the legends of Janus, we find mixed up with
other things derived from an entirely different source,
statements not only in regard to his being the "Father
of the world," but also his being "the
inventory of ships," * which plainly have been borrowed
from the history of Noah; and therefore, the remarkable way in
which he is represented in the figure here presented to the
reader may confidently be concluded to have been primarily
suggested by the history of the great Diluvian patriarch, whose
integrity in his two-fold life is so particularly referred to in
the Scripture, where it is said (Gen. vi. 9), "Noah was
a just man, and perfect in his generations," that is,
in his life before the flood, and in his life after it. The whole
mythology of Greece and Rome, as well as Asia, is full of the
history and deeds of Noah, which it is impossible to
misunderstand. In India, the god Vishnu, "the
Preserver," who is celebrated as having miraculously
preserved one righteous family at the time when the world was
drowned, not only has the story of Noah wrought up with his
legend, but is called by his very name. Vishnu is just the
Sanscrit form of the Chaldee "Ish-nuh," "the
man Noah," or the "Man of rest." *
In the case of Indra, the "king of the gods,"
and god of rain, which is evidently only another form of the same
god, the name is found in the precise form of Ishnu. Now, the
very legend of Vishnu, that pretends to make him no mere
creature, but the supreme and "eternal god,"
shows that this interpretation of the name is no mere unfounded
imagination. Thus is he celebrated in the "Matsya
Puran:" "The sun, the wind, the ether, all things
incorporeal, were absorbed into his Divine essence; and the
universe being consumed, the eternal and omnipotent god, having
assumed an ancient form, REPOSED mysteriously upon the surface of
that (universal) ocean. But no one is capable of knowing whether
that being was then visible or invisible, or what the holy name
of that person was, or what the cause of his mysterious SLUMBER.
Nor can any one tell how long he thus REPOSED until he conceived
the thought of acting; for no one saw him, no one approached him,
and no one can penetrate the mystery of his real essence." *
In conformity with this ancient legend, Vishnu is still
represented as sleeping four months every year. Now, connect this
story with the name of Noah, the man of "Rest," and
with his personal history during the period of the flood, when
the world was destroyed, when for forty days and forty nights all
was chaos, when neither sun nor moon nor twinkling star appeared,
when sea and sky were mingled, and all was one wide universal "ocean,"
on the bosom of which the patriarch floated, when there was no
human being to "approach" him but those who
were with him in the ark, and "the mystery of his real
essence is penetrated" at once, "the holy name
of that person" is ascertained, and his "mysterious
slumber" fully accounted for. Now, wherever Noah is
celebrated, whether by the name of Saturn, * "the hidden
one,"--for that name was applied to him as well as to
Nimrod, on account of his having been "hidden"
in the ark, in the "day of the Lord's fierce
anger,"--or, "Oannes," or "Janus,"
the "Man of the Sea," he is generally
described in such a way as shows that he was looked upon as
Diphues, "twice-born," or "regenerate."
The "twice-born" Brahmins, who are all so many
gods upon earth, by the very title they take to themselves, show
that the god whom they represent, and to whose prerogatives they
lay claim, had been known as the "twice-born"
god. The connection of "regeneration" with the
history of Noah, comes out with special evidence in the accounts
handed down to us of the Mysteries as celebrated in Egypt. The
most learned explorers of Egyptian antiquities, including Sir
Gardiner Wilkinson, admit that the story of Noah was mixed up
with the story of Osiris. * The ship of Isis, and the coffin of
Osiris, floating on the waters, point distinctly to that
remarkable event. There were different periods, in different
places in Egypt, when the fate of Osiris was lamented; and at one
time there was more special reference to the personal history of "the
mighty hunter before the Lord," and at another to the
awful catastrophe through which Noah passed. In the great and
solemn festival called "The Disappearance of
Osiris," it is evident that it is Noah himself who was
then supposed to have been lost. The time when Osiris was "shut
up in his coffin," and when that coffin was set afloat
on the waters, as stated by Plutarch, agrees exactly with the
period when Noah entered the ark. That time was "the
17th day of the month Athyr, when the overflowing of the Nile had
ceased, when the nights were growing long and the days
decreasing." * The month Athyr was the second month
after the autumnal equinox, at which time the civil year of the
Jew and the patriarchs began. According to this statement, then,
Osiris was "shut up in his coffin" on the 17th
day of the second month of the patriarchal year. Compare this
with the Scriptural account of Noah's entering into the ark, and
it will be seen how remarkably they agree (Gen. vii. 11), "In
the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the SECOND MONTH, in
the SEVENTEENTH DAY of the month, were all the fountains of the
great deep broken up; in the self-same day entered Noah into the
ark." The period, too, that Osiris (otherwise Adonis)
was believed to have been shut up in his coffin, was precisely
the same as Noah was confined in the ark, a whole year. * Now,
the statements of Plutarch demonstrate that, as Osiris at this
festival was looked upon as dead and buried when put into his ark
or coffin, and committed to the deep, so, when at length he came
out of it again, that new state was regarded as a state of "new
life," or "REGENERATION." * There
seems every reason to believe that by the ark and the flood God
actually gave to the patriarchal saints, and especially to
righteous Noah, a vivid typical representation of the power of
the blood and Spirit of Christ, at once in saving from wrath, and
cleansing from all sin--a representation which was a most
cheering "seal" and confirmation to the faith
of those who really believed. To this Peter seems distinctly to
allude, when he says, speaking of this very event, "The
like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us." Wherever
primitive truth the Chaldean priests held, they utterly perverted
and corrupted it. They willingly overlooked the fact, that it was
"the righteousness of the faith" which Noah "had
before" the flood, that carried him safely through the
avenging waters of that dread catastrophe, and ushered him, as it
were, from the womb of the ark, by a new birth, into a new world,
when on the ark resting on Mount Ararat, he was released from his
long confinement. They led their votaries to believe that, if
they only passed through the baptismal waters, and the penances
therewith connected, that of itself would make them like the
second father of mankind, "Diphueis,"
"twice-born," or "regenerate,"
would entitle them to all the privileges of "righteous"
Noah, and give them that "new birth" (palingenesia)
* which their consciences told them they so much needed. The
Papacy acts on precisely the same principle; and from this very
source has its doctrine of baptismal regeneration been derived,
about which so much has been written and so many controversies
been waged. Let men contend as they may, this, and this only,
will be found to be the real origin of the anti-Scriptural dogma.
*
The reader has seen already how faithfully Rome has copied the
Pagan exorcism in connection with baptism. All the other
peculiarities attending the Romish baptism, such as the use of
salt, spittle, chrism, or anointing with oil, and marking the
forehead with the sign of the cross, are equally Pagan. Some of
the continental advocates of Rome have admitted that some of
these at least have not been derived from Scripture. Thus Jodocus
Tiletanus of Louvaine, defending the doctrine of "Unwritten
Tradition," does not hesitate to say, "We are
not satisfied with that which the apostles or the Gospel do
declare, but we say that, as well before as after, there are
divers matters of importance and weight accepted and received out
of a doctrine which is nowhere set forth in writing. For we do
blesse the water wherewith we baptise, and the oyle wherewith we
annoynt; yea, and besides that, him that is christened. And (I
pray you) out of what Scripture have we learned the same? Have it
not of a secret and unwritten ordinance? And further, what
Scripture hath taught us to grease with oyle? Yea, I pray you,
whence cometh it, that we do dype the childe three times in the
water? Doth it not come out of this hidden and undisclosed
doctrine, which our forefathers have received closely without any
curiosity, and do observe it still." * This learned
divine of Louvaine, of course, maintains that "the
hidden and undisclosed doctrine" of which he speaks,
was the "unwritten word" handed down through
the channel of infallibility, from the Apostles of Christ to his
own time. But, after what we have already seen, the reader will
probably entertain a different opinion of the source from which
the hidden and undisclosed doctrine must have come. And, indeed,
Father Newman himself admits, in regard to "holy
water" (that is, water impregnated with "salt,"
and consecrated), and many other things that were, as he says, "the
very instruments and appendages of demon-worship"--that
they were all of "Pagan" origin, and "sanctified
by adoption into the Church." * What plea, then, what
palliation can he offer, for so extraordinary an adoption? Why,
this: that the Church had "confidence in the power of
Christianity to resist the infection of evil," and to
transmute them to "an evangelical use." What
right had the Church to entertain any such "confidence"?
What fellowship could light have with darkness? what concord
between Christ and Belial? Let the history of the Church bear
testimony to the vanity, yea, impiety of such a hope. Let the
progress of our inquiries shed light upon the same. At the
present stage, there is only one of the concomitant rites of
baptism to which I will refer--viz., the use of "spittle"
in that ordinance; and an examination of the very words of the
Roman ritual, in applying it, will prove that its use in baptism
must have come from the Mysteries. The following is the account
of its application, as given by Bishop Hay * :--"The
priest recites another exorcism, and at the end of it touches the
ear and nostrils of the person to be baptised with a little
spittle, saying,'Ephpheta, that is, Be thou opened into an odour
of sweetness; but be thou put to flight, O Devil, for the
judgment of God will be at hand.'" Now, surely the
reader will at once ask, what possible, what conceivable
connection can there be between spittle and an "odour of
sweetness"? If the secret doctrine of the Chaldean
mysteries be set side by side with this statement, it will be
seen that, absurd and nonsensical as this collocation of terms
may appear, it was not at random that "spittle"
and an "odour of sweetness" were brought
together. We have seen already how thoroughly Paganism was
acquainted with the attributes and work of the promise Messiah,
though all that acquaintance with these grand themes was used for
the purpose of corrupting the minds of mankind, and keeping them
in spiritual bondage. We have now to see that, as they were well
aware of the existence of the Holy Spirit, so, intellectually,
they were just as well acquainted with His work, though their
knowledge on that subject was equally debased and degraded.
Servius, in his comments upon Virgil's First Georgic, after
quoting the well-known expression, "Mystica vannus
Iacchi," "the mystic fan of Bacchus," says
that that "mystic fan" symbolised the "purifying
of soul." * Now, how could the fan be a symbol of the
purification of souls? The answer is, The fan is an instrument
for producing "wind"; * and in Chaldee, as has
been already observed, it is one and the same word which
signified "wind" and the "Holy
Spirit." There can be no doubt, that, from the very
beginning, the "wind" was one of the Divine patriarchal
emblems by which the power of the Holy Ghost was shadowed forth,
even as our Lord Jesus Christ said to Nicodemus, "The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Hence,
when Bacchus was represented with "the mystic fan,"
that was to declare him to be the mighty One with whom was
"the residue of the Spirit." Hence came the idea
of purifying the soul by means of the wind, according to the
description of Virgil, who represents the stain and pollution of
sin as being removed in this very way:-
"For this are various penances enjoined, And some are
hung to bleach upon the WIND." *
Hence the priests of Jupiter (who was originally just another
form of Bacchus), , were called Flamens, * --that is Breathers,
or bestowers of the Holy Ghost, by breathing upon their votaries.
Now, in the Mysteries, the "spittle" was
just another symbol for the same thing. In Egypt, through which
the Babylonian system
passed to Western Europe, the name of the "Pure or
Purifying Spirit" was "Rekh." * But "Rekh"
also signified "spittle"; * so that to
anoint the nose and ears of the initiated with "spittle,"
according to the mystic system, was held to be anointing
them with the "Purifying Spirit." That Rome in
adopting the "spittle" actually copied from
some Chaldean ritual in which "spittle" was
the appointed emblem of the "Spirit," is plain from the
account which she gives in her own recognised formularies of the
reason of anointing the ears with it. The reason for anointing
the ears with "spittle," says Bishop Hay, is
because "by the grace of baptism, the ears of our soul
are opened to hear the Word of God, and the inspirations of His
Holy Spirit." * But what, it may be asked, has the "spittle"
to do with "the odour of sweetness"? I
answer, The very word "Rekh," which signified
the "Holy Spirit," and was visibly represented
by the "spittle," was intimately connected
with "Rikh," which signifies a "fragrant
smell," or "odour of sweetness." Thus,
a knowledge of the Mysteries gives sense and a consistent meaning
to the cabalistic saying addressed by the Papal baptiser to the
person about to be baptised, when the "spittle"
is daubed on his nose and ear, which otherwise would have no
meaning *at all--"Ephpheta, Be thou opened into an odour
of sweetness." While this was the primitive truth
concealed under the "spittle," yet the whole spirit of
Paganism was so opposed to the spirituality of the patriarchal
religion, and indeed intended to make it void, and to draw men
utterly away from it, while pretending to do homage to it, that
among the multitude in general the magic use of "spittle"
became the symbol of the grossest superstition. Theocritus
shows with what debasing rites it was mixed up in Sicily and
Greece; * and Persius thus hold up to scorn the people of Rome in
his day for their reliance on it to avert the influence of the "evil
eye":--
"Our superstitions with our life begin;
The obscene old grandam, or the next of kin,
The new-born infant from the cradle takes,
And first of spittle a lustration makes;
Then in the spawl her middle finger dips,
Anoints the temples, forehead, and the lips,
Pretending force of magic to prevent (urentes oculos)
By virtue of her nasty excrement."--DRYDEN. *
While thus far we have seen how the Papal baptism is just a
reproduction of the Chaldean, there is still one other point to
be noticed, which makes the demonstration complete. That point is
contained in the following tremendous curse fulminated against a
man who committed the unpardonable offence of leaving the Church
of Rome, and published grave and weighty reasons for so doing: "May
the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who suffered
for us, curse him!" * I do not stop to show how
absolutely and utterly opposed such a curse as this is to the
whole spirit of the Gospel. But what I call the reader's
attention to is the astounding statement that "the Holy
Ghost suffered for us in baptism." Where in the whole
compass of Scripture could warrant be found for such an assertion
as this, or anything that could even suggest it? But let the
reader revert to the Babylonian account of the personality of the
Holy Ghost, and the amount of blasphemy contained in this
language will be apparent. According to the Chaldean doctrine,
Semiramis, the wife of Ninus or Nimrod, when exalted to divinity
under the Name of the Queen of Heaven, came, as we have seen, to
be worshipped as Juno, the "Dove"--in other
words, the Holy Spirit incarnate. Now, when her husband, for his
blasphemous rebellion against the majesty of heaven, was cut off,
for a season it was a time of tribulation also for her. The
fragments of ancient history that have come down to us give an
account of her trepidation and flight, to save herself from her
adversaries. In the fables of the mythology, this flight was
mystically represented in accordance with what was attributed to
her husband. The bards of Greece represented Bacchus, when
overcome by his enemies, as taking refuge in the depths of the
ocean . * Thus, Homer:--
"In a mad mood, while Bacchus blindly raged,
Lycurgus drove his trembling bands, confused,
O'er the vast plains of Nusa. They in haste
Threw down their sacred implements, and fled
In fearful dissipation. Bacchus saw
Rout upon rout, and, lost in wild dismay,
Plunged in the deep. Here Thetis in her arms
Received him shuddering at the dire event." *
In Egypt, as we have seen, Osiris, as identified with Noah,
was represented, when overcome by his grand enemy Typhon, or the "Evil
One," as passing through the waters. The poets
represented Semiramis as sharing in his distress, and likewise
seeking safety in the same way. We have seen already, that, under
the name of Astarte, she was said to have come forth from the
wondrous egg that was found floating on the waters of the
Euphrates. Now Manilius tells, in his Astronomical Poetics, what
induced her to take refuge in these waters. "Venus
plunged into the Babylonian waters," says he, "to
shun the fury of the snake-footed Typhon." * When Venus
Urania, or Dione, * the "Heavenly Dove," plunged
in deep distress into these waters of Babylon, be it observed
what, according to the Chaldean doctrine, this amounted to. It
was neither more nor less than saying that the Holy Ghost
incarnate in deep tribulation entered these waters, and that one
purpose that these waters might be fit, not only by the temporary
abode of the Messiah in the midst of them, but by the Spirit's
efficacy thus imparted to them, for giving new life and
regeneration, by baptism, to the worshippers of the Chaldean
Madonna. We have evidence that the purifying virtue of the
waters, which in Pagan esteem had such efficacy in cleansing from
guilt and regenerating the soul, was derived in part from the
passing of the Mediatorial god, the sun-god and god of fire,
through these waters during his humiliation and sojourn in the
midst of them; and that the Papacy at this day retains the very
custom which had sprung up from that persuasion. So far as
heathenism is concerned, the following extracts from Potter and
Athenaeus speak distinctly enough: "Every person," says
the former, "who came to the solemn sacrifices [of the
Greeks] was purified by water. To which end, at the entrance of
the temples there was commonly placed a vessel of full of holy
water." * How did this water get its holiness? This
water "was consecrated," says Athenaeus, "by
putting into it a BURNING TORCH taken from the altar." *
The burning torch was the express symbol of the god of fire; and
by the light of this torch, so indispensable for consecrating
"the holy water," we may easily see whence came
one great part of the purifying virtue of "the water of
the loud resounding sea," which was held to be so
efficacious in purging away the guilt and stain of sin, * --even
from the sun-god having taken refuge in its waters. Now this very
same method is used in the Romish Church for consecrating the
water for baptism. The unsuspicious testimony of Bishop Hay
leaves no doubt on this point: "It" [the water
kept in the baptismal font], says he, "is blessed on the
eve of Pentecost, because it is the Holy Ghost who gives to the
waters of baptism the power and efficacy of sanctifying our
souls, and because the baptism of Christ is 'with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire' (Matt. iii. 11). In blessing the waters, a LIGHTED
TORCH is put into the font." * Here, then, it is
manifest that the baptismal regenerating water of Rome is
consecrated just as the regenerating and purifying water of the
Pagans was. Of what avail is it for Bishop Hay to say, with the
view of sanctifying superstition and "making apostacy
plausibly," that this is due "to represent the
fire of Divine love, which is communicated to the soul by
baptism, and the light of good example, which all who are
baptised ought to give." * This is the fair face put on
the matter; but the fact still remains that while the Romish
doctrine in regard to baptism is purely Pagan, in the ceremonies
connected with the Papal baptism one of the essential rites of
the ancient fire-worship is still practised at this day, just as
it was practised by the worshippers of Bacchus, the Babylonian
Messiah. As Rome keeps u the remembrance of the fire-god passing
through the waters and giving virtue to them, so when it speaks
of the "Holy Ghost suffering for us in baptism," it
in like manner commemorates the part which Paganism assign to the
Babylonian goddess when she plunged into the waters. The sorrows
of Nimrod, or Bacchus, when in the waters were meritorious
sorrows. The sorrows of his wife, in whim the Holy Ghost
miraculously dwelt, were the same. The sorrows of the Madonna,
then, when in these waters, fleeing from Typhon's rage, were the
birth-throes by which children were born to God. And thus, even
in the Far West, Chalchivitlycue, the Mexican "goddess
of the waters," and "mother" of all
the regenerate, was represented as purging the new-born infant
from original sin, and "bringing it anew into the
world." * Now, the Holy Ghost was idolatrously
worshipped in Babylon under the form of a "Dove."
Under the same form, and with equal idolatry, the Holy Ghost is
worshipped in Rome. When, therefore, we read, in opposition to
every Scripture principle, that "the Holy Ghost suffered
for us in baptism," surely it must now be manifest who
is that Holy Ghost that is really intended. It is no other than
Semiramis, the very incarnation of lust and all uncleanness.
[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]
|