The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop

 (Bilingual reading 📚)

THE 

TWO BABYLONS

OR THE 

PAPAL WORSHIP PROVED 

TO BE THE 

WORSHIP OF NIMROD 

AND HIS WIFE

(1916)

BEAST 

666

by Alexander Hislop

(2 of 255) 

兩個巴比倫

  或教皇的崇拜被證明是對尼姆羅德和他妻子的崇拜

  (1916)

  野獸 — 666

  亞歷山大·希斯洛普

  （255 個中的第 2 個）

Modern Babylon (Rev. 17:5) is the Roman Catholic Church

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

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

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

Catholic image or Pagan Babylonian image?

現代巴比倫（啟示錄 17:5）是羅馬天主教堂

 羅馬天主教的習俗和信仰從何而來？ 在這部八十多年前首次出版的學術經典中，亞歷山大·希斯洛普 (Alexander Hislop) 揭示了羅馬天主教的許多教義並非源自基督或聖經，而是從古代異教巴比倫宗教中採納而來，並賦予了基督教名稱。

 儘管難以閱讀，但這本書準確地提供了對古代巴比倫宗教與當今羅馬天主教會之間令人震驚的相似之處的引人入勝的歷史深入考察。

 看看由寧錄和他的妻子創立的宗教如何傳播到各個地區，採用不同的名稱，但保持相同的異教儀式和服飾。 這些相同的儀式體現了今天的天主教會。

 天主教形像還是巴比倫異教形象？

Learn the true origins of:

● The Mother and Child

● The Confessional

● The Mass

● Clothing and Crowning of Images

● The Wafer (Eucharist

● Purgatory

● Priests, Monks, and Nuns 

● Relic Worship

● The Sovereign Pontiff

● Prayers for the Dead

● Worship of the Sacred Heart

● The Rosary

● The Sign of the Cross

● Extreme Unction 

● and much more!

Author : Alexander Hislop

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 - Distinctive Character of the Two Systems

Chapter 2- Objects of Worship 

● Trinity in Unity

● The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child

The Child in Assyria

The Child in Egypt

The Child in Greece

The Death of the Child 

The Deification of the Child

● The Mother of the Child

Chapter 3 - Festivals

● Christmas and Lady-day

● Easter

● The Nativity of St. John 

● The Feast of the Assumption

Chapter 4 - Doctrine and Discipline

● Baptismal Regeneration

● Justification by Works

● The Sacrifice of the Mass

● Extreme Unction 

● Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

Chapter 5 - Rites and Ceremonies

● Idol Processions

● Relic Worship

● The Clothing and Crowning of Images

●The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart

● Lamps and Wax-Candles

● The Sign of the Cross

Chapter 6 - Religious Orders 

● The Sovereign Pontiff

● Priests, Monks, and Nuns

Chapter 7 - The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered

● The Great Red Dragon

● The Beast from the Sea

● The Beast from the Earth

● The Image of the Beast

●The Name of the Beast, the Number of his Name - the Invisible Head of the Papacy

Conclusion

Appendix

Index

了解以下的真正起源：

 ● 母與子

 ● 懺悔室

 ●彌撒

 ● 圖像的服裝和冠冕

 ● 威化餅（聖體聖事

 ● 煉獄

 ● 牧師、僧侶和修女

 ● 遺物崇拜

 ● 教皇

 ● 為逝者祈禱

 ● 聖心崇拜

 ● 念珠

 ● 十字架的標誌

 ● 臨終膏油

 ● 還有更多！

 作者：亞歷山大·希斯洛普

 目錄

 介紹

 第一章 兩種制度的特點

 第二章崇拜的對象

 ● 三位一體

 ● 母親與孩子，以及孩子的原作

 亞述的孩子

 埃及之子

 希臘的孩子

 孩子之死

 孩子的神化

 ● 孩子的媽媽

 第 3 章 - 節日

 ● 聖誕節和女士節

 ● 復活節

 ● 聖約翰誕生

 ● 升天節

 第 4 章 - 教義與紀律

 ● 洗禮重生

 ● 因事稱義

 ● 群眾的犧牲

 ● 臨終膏油

 ● 煉獄和為死者祈禱

 第 5 章 - 禮儀與儀式

 ● 偶像遊行

 ● 遺物崇拜

 ● 形象的著裝與冠冕

 ●念珠與聖心禮拜

 ● 燈和蠟燭

 ● 十字架的標誌

 第 6 章 - 宗教秩序

 ● 教皇

 ● 牧師、僧侶和修女

 第 7 章從歷史和預言角度考慮的兩種發展

 ● 大紅龍

 ● 海獸

 ● 地獸

 ● 獸像

 ●野獸的名字，他的名字的編號 - 教皇的隱形元首

 結論

 附錄

 指數

The Two Babylons

By Alexander Hislop

Introduction

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

There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God, that the same minute and searching investigation, which displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the beauties of the other. If the most finely polished needle on which the art of man has been expended be subjected to a microscope, many inequalities, much roughness and clumsiness, will be seen. But if the microscope be brought to bear on the flowers of the field, no such result appears. Instead of their beauty diminishing, new beauties and still more delicate, that have escaped the naked eye, are forthwith discovered; beauties that make us appreciate, in a way which otherwise we could have had little conception of, the full force of the Lord's saying, "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these." The same law appears also in comparing the Word of God and the most finished productions of men. There are spots and blemishes in the most admired productions of human genius. But the more the Scriptures are searched, the more minutely they are studied, the more their perfection appears; new beauties are brought into light every day; and the discoveries of science, the researches of the learned, and the labours of infidels, all alike conspire to illustrate the wonderful harmony of all the parts, and the Divine beauty that clothes the whole.

If this be the case with Scripture in general, it is especially the case with prophetic Scripture. As every spoke in the wheel of Providence revolves, the prophetic symbols start into still more bold and beautiful relief. This is very strikingly the case with the prophetic language that forms the groundwork and corner-stone of the present work. There never has been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman "sitting on seven mountains," and having on her forehead the name written, "Mystery, Babylon the Great," with the Roman apostacy. "No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has, for its situation on seven hills. Pagan poets and orators, who had not thought of elucidating prophecy, have alike characterised it as 'the seven hilled city." Thus Virgil refers to it: "Rome has both become the most beautiful (city) in the world, and alone has surrounded for herself seven heights with a wall." Propertius, in the same strain, speaks of it (only adding another trait, which completes the Apocalyptic picture) as "The lofty city on seven hills, which governs the whole world." Its "governing the whole world" is just the counterpart of the Divine statement--"which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). To call Rome the city "of the seven hills" was by its citizens held to be as descriptive as to call it by its own proper name. Hence Horace speaks of it by reference to its seven hills alone, when he addresses, "The gods who have set their affections on the seven hills." Martial, in like manner, speaks of "The seven dominating mountains." In times long subsequent, the same kind of language was in current use; for when Symmachus, the prefect of the city, and the last acting Pagan Pontifex Maximus, as the Imperial substitute, introduces by letter one friend of his to another, he calls him "De septem montibus virum"--"a man from the seven mountains," meaning thereby, as the commentators interpret it, "Civem Romanum, "A Roman Citizen." Now, while this characteristic of Rome has ever been well marked and defined, it has always been easy to show, that the Church which has its seat and headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called "Babylon," inasmuch as it is the chief seat of idolatry under the New Testament, as the ancient Babylon was the chief seat of idolatry under the Old. But recent discoveries in Assyria, taken in connection with the previously well-known but ill-understood history and mythology of the ancient world, demonstrate that there is a vast deal more significance in the name Babylon the Great than this. 

兩個巴比倫

 亞歷山大·希斯洛普

 介紹

 “在她的額上有一個名字寫著：奧秘，大巴比倫，地上淫婦和可憎之物的母親。”——啟示錄 17:5

 人的作為與上帝的作為之間存在著巨大的差異，同樣細緻而徹底的調查顯示了一個人的缺陷和不完美，也揭示了另一個人的美。 如果用顯微鏡觀察經過人類技藝精雕細琢的針，就會發現許多不平等、粗糙和笨拙的地方。 但是，如果用顯微鏡觀察田野裡的花朵，就不會出現這樣的結果。 她們的美麗並沒有減少，而是立即發現了肉眼無法看到的新的美麗，而且更加精緻； 美麗讓我們以一種我們幾乎無法想像的方式欣賞主的話的全部力量，“想一想野地裡的百合花，它們是如何生長的；它們不勞苦，也不紡線：然而 我告訴你們，即使是所羅門，在他所有的榮耀中，也沒有像這樣的人。” 同樣的法則也出現在比較上帝的話語和人類最完備的作品時。 人類天才最令人欽佩的作品中也有斑點和瑕疵。 但是越多地查考聖經，越仔細地研究它們，它們就越完美； 每天都有新的美女出現； 科學的發現、學者的研究和異教徒的努力，都共同說明了所有部分的奇妙和諧，以及覆蓋整體的神聖之美。

 如果說一般的聖經是這樣的話，那麼先知性的聖經尤其如此。 當普羅維登斯之輪的每根輻條轉動時，預言的象徵開始變得更加大膽和美麗。 構成當前工作的基礎和基石的預言性語言的情況非常引人注目。 任何開明的新教徒都毫不費力地認出這位“坐在七座山上”、額頭上寫著“奧秘，大巴比倫”這個名字的女人與羅馬的叛教行為有關。 “世界上沒有任何其他城市像羅馬城那樣因其位於七座山丘上而受到讚譽。沒有想到闡明預言的異教徒詩人和演說家同樣將其描述為“七座山丘之城”。 “ 因此維吉爾提到它：“羅馬已成為世界上最美麗的（城市），並且獨自一人用城牆包圍了七座高地。” Propertius 以同樣的方式將它稱為“七山上的崇高城市，它統治著整個世界”（只是增加了另一個特徵，完成了世界末日的畫面）。 它的“管理全世界”恰好與神聖的聲明相對應——“它統治著地上的君王”（啟 17:18）。 稱羅馬為“七山之城”，其公民認為這與用它自己的專有名稱一樣具有描述性。 因此，賀拉斯談到它時，僅提及它的七座山，他說：“眾神將他們的感情放在七座山上。” 武術，以同樣的方式，談到“七大霸王山”。 在隨後的很長一段時間裡，同一種語言一直在使用； 因為當城市的長官 Symmachus 和最後一位代理異教徒 Pontifex Maximus 作為帝國的替代者，通過信件將他的一個朋友介紹給另一個人時，他稱他為“De septem montibus virum”——“一個來自七國的人” mountains”，正如評論員所解釋的那樣，意思是“Civem Romanum，“羅馬公民”。現在，雖然羅馬的這一特徵一直被很好地標記和定義，但它總是很容易表明，教會已經 它位於羅馬七座山丘上的所在地和總部可能最恰當地稱為“巴比倫”，因為它是新約時代偶像崇拜的主要基地，就像古代巴比倫是舊約時代偶像崇拜的主要基地一樣。但最近的發現 在亞述，結合以前廣為人知但鮮為人知的古代世界歷史和神話，證明大巴比倫這個名字的意義遠不止於此。

It has been known all along that Popery was baptised Paganism; but God is now making it manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptised is, in all its essential elements, the very Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.

That new and unexpected light, in some way or other, should be cast, about this very period, on the Church of the grand Apostacy, the very language and symbols of the Apocalypse might have prepared us to anticipate. In the Apocalyptic visions, it is just before the judgment upon her that, for the first time, John sees the Apostate Church with the name Babylon the Great "written upon her forehead" (Rev 17:5). What means the writing of that name "on the forehead"! Does it not naturally indicate that, just before judgment overtakes her, her real character was to be so thoroughly developed, that everyone who has eyes to see, who has the least spiritual discernment, would be compelled, as it were, on ocular demonstration, to recognise the wonderful fitness of the title which the Spirit of God had affixed to her. Her judgment is now evidently hastening on; and just as it approaches, the Providence of God, conspiring with the Word of God, by light pouring in from all quarters, makes it more and more evident that Rome is in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar. In the warfare that has been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all churches—the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation. If ever there was excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer. If the position I have laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff-king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, "praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone" (Dan 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian Church; but not otherwise. This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position.

眾所周知，羅馬教皇受異教洗禮。 但上帝現在表明，羅馬所接受的異教，就其所有基本要素而言，正是古代巴比倫盛行的異教，當時耶和華在居魯士面前打開了兩扇黃銅門，將 打斷鐵欄杆。

 就在這個時期，那種新的、出人意料的光芒應該以某種方式投射在大叛教的教會上，啟示錄的語言和象徵可能已經讓我們做好了期待的準備。 在世界末日的異像中，就在對她進行審判之前，約翰第一次看到背道教會的名字“寫在她的額上”（啟示錄17:5）。 把那個名字寫在“額頭上”是什麼意思！ 這難道不是自然而然地表明，就在對她進行評判之前，她的真實品格得到瞭如此徹底的發​​展，以致於每個有眼力的人，哪怕是最沒有靈性辨別力的人，都會被迫，就好像是，在視覺展示上， 認識到上帝的靈賦予她的稱號非常合適。 她的判斷現在顯然正在加速； 就在它臨近之時，上帝的旨意與上帝的聖言密謀，通過從四面八方傾瀉而下的光，越來越明顯地表明羅馬確實是啟示錄中的巴比倫。 她制度的基本特徵，她崇拜的偉大對象，她的節日，她的教義和紀律，她的儀式和儀式，她的祭司職分和他們的命令，都來自古代巴比倫； 最後，教皇本人確實是伯沙撒的直系代表。 在反對羅馬專橫霸道的戰爭中，人們常常認為，僅僅滿足並擱置她的狂妄自誇就足夠了，她說她是所有教會的母親和女主人——唯一的天主教會，出自其 蒼白無救。 如果有藉口可以用這種方式對付她，那麼這個藉口將不再有效。 如果能維持我所定下的立場，她就得連基督教會的名號都被剝奪； 因為如果那天晚上召集的是基督教會，巴比倫的教皇國王在他的數千名領主中“讚美金、銀、木和石的神” （但以理書5:4），那麼羅馬教會就有權享有基督教會的名稱； 但不是這樣。 毫無疑問，這對某些人來說是一個非常令人吃驚的情況； 但它是本書要建立的目標； 讓讀者自己判斷，我是否沒有提供充分的證據來證實我的立場。

(8 of 255)

The Two Babylons 

Author: Alexander Hislop

Chapter 1

Distinctive Character of the Two Systems

In leading proof of the Babylonian character of the Papal Church the first point to which I solicit the reader's attention, is the character of MYSTERY which attaches alike to the modern Roman and the ancient Babylonian systems. The gigantic system of moral corruption and idolatry described in this passage under the emblem of a woman with a "GOLDEN CUP IN HER HAND" (Revelation 17:4), "making all nations DRUNK with the wine of her fornication" (Revelation 17:2; 18:3), is divinely called "MYSTERY, Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17:5). That Paul's "MYSTERY of iniquity," as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, has its counterpart in the Church of Rome, no man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the subject, can easily doubt. Such was the impression made by that account on the mind of the great Sir Matthew Hale, no mean judge of evidence, that he used to say, that if the apostolic description were inserted in the public "Hue and Cry" any constable in the realm would be warranted in seizing, wherever he found him, the bishop of Rome as the head of that "MYSTERY of iniquity." Now, as the system here described is equally characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," it may be presumed that both passages refer to the same system. But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the reader cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon of the ancient world. As the Apocalyptic woman has in her hand A CUP, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was it with the Babylon of old. Of that Babylon, while in all its glory, the Lord thus spake, in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: "Babylon hath been a GOLDEN CUP in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad" (Jeremiah 51:7). Why this exact similarity of language in regard to the two systems? The natural inference surely is, that the one stands to the other in the relation of type and antitype. Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean "MYSTERIES," that formed so essential a part of that system. And to these mysteries, the very language of the Hebrew prophet, symbolical though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he speaks of Babylon as a "golden CUP." To drink of "mysterious beverages," says Salverte, was indispensable on the part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries. These "mysterious beverages" were composed of "wine, honey, water, and flour." From the ingredients avowedly used, and from the nature of others not avowed, but certainly used, there can be no doubt that they were of an intoxicating nature; and till the aspirants had come under their power, till their understandings had been dimmed, and their passions excited by the medicated draught, they were not duly prepared for what they were either to hear or to see. If it be inquired what was the object and design of these ancient "Mysteries," it will be found that there was a wonderful analogy between them and that "Mystery of iniquity" which is embodied in the Church of Rome. Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to propound. The time at which they were instituted proved that this must have been the case. The Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image of her own depraved and polluted mind. *

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

That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming, she was worshipped as Rhea,

the great "MOTHER" of the gods, with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus, the MOTHER of all impurity, and raised the very city where she had reigned to a bad eminence among the nations, as the grand seat at once of idolatry and consecrated prostitution. *

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

Thus was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the "Woman" in the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her hand, and the name on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the MOTHER of harlots and abominations of the earth." The Apocalyptic emblem of the Harlot woman with the cup in her hand was even embodied in the symbols of idolatry, derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece; for thus was the Greek Venus originally represented, (see note below) and it is singular that in our own day, and so far as appears for the first time, the Roman Church has actually taken this very symbol as her own chosen emblem. In 1825, on occasion of the jubilee, Pope Leo XII struck a medal, bearing on the one side his own image, and on the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolised as a "Woman," holding in her left hand a cross, and in her right a CUP, with the legend around her, " Sedet super universum" "The whole world is her seat." Now the period when Semiramis lived,—a period when the patriarchal faith was still fresh in the minds of men, when Shem was still alive, * to rouse the minds of the faithful to rally around the banner for the truth and cause of God, made it hazardous all at once and publicly to set up such a system as was inaugurated by the Babylonian queen.

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

We know, from the statements in Job, that among patriarchal tribes that had nothing whatever to do with Mosaic institutions, but which adhered to the pure faith of the patriarchs, idolatry in any shape was held to be a crime, to be visited with signal and summary punishment on the heads of those who practised it. "If I beheld the sun," said Job, "when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, and * my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge ; for I should have denied the God that is above" (Job 31:26-28).

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

兩個巴比倫

 作者：亞歷山大·希斯洛普

 第1章

 兩種制度的鮮明特徵

 在教皇教會的巴比倫特徵的主要證據中，我請讀者註意的第一點是神秘的特徵，它與現代羅馬和古代巴比倫系統有著相似的聯繫。 這段經文描述了道德敗壞和偶像崇拜的巨大體系，其像徵是一個“手中拿著金杯”的女人（啟示錄 17:4），“使萬國喝醉了她淫亂的酒”（啟示錄 17: 2; 18:3)，被神聖地稱為“奧秘，大巴比倫”（啟示錄 17:5）。 帖撒羅尼迦後書 2:7 中描述的保羅的“罪孽之謎”在羅馬教會中有對應物，任何思想坦率、仔細研究過這個主題的人都不會輕易懷疑。 那個記述給偉大的馬修黑爾爵士留下了這樣的印象，他不是一個平庸的證據法官，他常說，如果使徒的描述被插入公眾“Hue and Cry”中，那麼這個領域的任何警察 無論他在哪裡找到羅馬主教，他都有理由抓住他作為那個“罪惡之謎”的負責人。 現在，由於這裡描述的系統同樣以“神秘”的名稱為特徵，因此可以假定這兩段經文指的是同一個系統。 但是，正如讀者所看到的，適用於新約巴比倫的語言自然會把我們帶回到古代世界的巴比倫。 就像世界末日的女人手裡拿著一個杯子，她用它使列國陶醉，古代的巴比倫也是如此。 談到巴比倫，當它在所有的榮耀中時，耶和華這樣說，通過先知耶利米譴責它的厄運：“巴比倫是耶和華手中的金杯，使全地沉醉：列國喝了她的酒 ；因此列國都瘋狂”（耶利米書 51：7）。 為什麼這兩個系統的語言如此相似？ 自然的推論肯定是，一個在類型和反類型的關係中與另一個相對立。 現在，正如啟示錄中的巴比倫以“神秘”這個名字為特徵，所以古代巴比倫系統的重大顯著特徵是迦勒底的“神秘”，它構成了該系統的重要組成部分。 對於這些奧秘，當希伯來先知將巴比倫稱為“金杯”時，他使用的語言當然是像徵性的，但也明確地暗示了這些奧秘。Salverte 說，喝“神秘飲料”對於所有尋求接受這些神秘活動的人來說是必不可少的。 這些“神秘飲料”是由“酒、蜂蜜、水和麵粉”組成的。 從公開使用的成分來看，從其他沒有公開但肯定使用過的成分的性質來看，毫無疑問它們具有令人陶醉的性質； 直到求道者受到他們的控制，直到他們的理解力變得模糊，他們的激情被藥水激發之前，他們還沒有為即將聽到或看到的一切做好充分的準備。 如果探究這些古代“奧秘”的目的和設計是什麼，就會發現它們與體現在羅馬教會中的“罪孽之謎”之間有著奇妙的類比。 他們的主要目的是在保密和宣誓批准的情況下，一點一點地私下介紹那些一次性公開提出並不安全的東西。 他們設立的時間證明情況一定如此。 迦勒底的奧秘可以追溯到塞米拉米斯的時代，她生活在洪水之後的幾個世紀，眾所周知，她給他們留下了她墮落和污染的心靈的形象。 *

 * AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS 與 JUSTINUS、Historia 和 EUSEBIUS 的編年史相比較。 優西比烏斯說尼努斯和塞米勒米斯在亞伯拉罕時代統治。

 那個美麗但被遺棄的巴比倫女王不僅是肆無忌憚的慾望和放蕩的典範，而且在她主要參與形成的神秘事件中，她被崇拜為瑞亞，

 眾神的偉大“母親”，用如此殘忍的儀式將她與維納斯，所有不潔之母聯繫起來，並使她統治的城市在列國中聲名狼藉，立即成為偶像崇拜的大寶座 和神聖的賣淫。 *

 * 一位記者指出，普林尼曾提到塞米勒米斯盃落入勝利的居魯士手中。 它的巨大比例一定使它在巴比倫人和與他們交往的國家中聞名。 它重十五他連得，即 1200 磅。 PLINII，國家歷史。

 因此，這位迦勒底王后是啟示錄中“女人”的合適而非凡的原型，她手裡拿著金杯，額頭上有名字，“奧秘，大巴比倫，大地妓女和可憎之物的母親” ” 手拿杯子的妓女的世界末日標誌甚至體現在源自古巴比倫的偶像崇拜符號中，因為它們在希臘展出； 因為希臘維納斯最初就是這樣代表的（見下面的註釋），而且在我們這個時代，就第一次出現而言，羅馬教會實際上已經將這個符號作為她自己選擇的標誌。 1825 年，在禧年之際，教皇利奧十二世敲擊了一枚獎章，一面是他自己的肖像，另一面是像徵“女人”的羅馬教會的肖像，她的左手拿著一個十字架 ，在她的右邊是一個 CUP，她周圍有一個傳說，“Sedet super universum”“整個世界都是她的座位。” 現在是塞米拉米斯生活的時期——一個父權制信仰在人們的腦海中仍然鮮活的時期，當閃還活著的時候，*喚醒信徒的思想，為了上帝的真理和事業而團結在旗幟周圍， 立即和公開地建立這樣一個由巴比倫女王創立的系統是危險的。

 * 關於閃的年齡，請參閱創世記 11:10、11。據此，閃在洪水之後生活了 502 年，即根據希伯來年表，直到公元前 1846 年。塞米勒米斯的丈夫尼努斯的年齡，如 根據優西比烏斯的說法，在以前的筆記中提到，與公元前 1996 年出生的亞伯拉罕的筆記同步。然而，在尼努斯統治結束之前，據說亞伯拉罕的誕生僅在九年左右 地方。 （同步）因此，根據這種觀點，按照通常的年表，尼努斯的統治必定在公元前 1987 年左右結束。克林頓在年表上享有很高的權威，他將尼努斯的統治時間定得更早一些。 在他的 Fasti Hellenici 中，他將自己的年齡定為公元前 2182 年。Layard（在他的 Nineveh and its Remains 中）贊同這一觀點。 據說塞米勒米斯比她的丈夫活了四十二年。 (SYNCELL) 因此，無論對尼努斯的年齡採取何種觀點，無論是優西比烏斯的觀點，還是克林頓和萊亞德所處的時代，很明顯閃在尼努斯和他的妻子之後都活了很久。 當然，這個論點是基於希伯來年表正確性的假設而進行的。 有關該主題的確鑿證據，請參見下面的註釋 2。

 我們從約伯記的陳述中知道，在與摩西製度毫無關係，但堅持族長純潔信仰的族長部落中，任何形式的偶像崇拜都被視為犯罪，必須受到嚴懲 並在實施它的人的頭上進行簡單的懲罰。 “如果我看到太陽，”約伯說，“當它照耀，或月亮在明亮中行走時；我的心被秘密誘惑，*我的嘴親吻我的手；這也是一種罪孽，要受到懲罰 判斷；因為我早該不認在上的神”（約伯記 31:26-28）。

 * 我翻譯的“and”在授權版本中是“or”，但沒有理由這樣翻譯，因為原文中的詞與連接前一個子句的詞完全相同，“and my heart ，“ ＆C。

(9 of 255)

Now if this was the case in Job's day, much more must it have been the case at the earlier period when the Mysteries were instituted. It was a matter, therefore, of necessity, if idolatry were to be brought in, and especially such foul idolatry as the Babylonian system contained in its bosom, that it should be done stealthily and in secret. *

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

Even though introduced by the hand of power, it might have produced a revulsion, and violent attempts might have been made by the uncorrupted portion of mankind to put it down; and at all events, if it had appeared at once in all its hideousness, it would have alarmed the consciences of men, and defeated the very object in view. That object was to bind all mankind in blind and absolute submission to a hierarchy entirely dependent on the sovereigns of Babylon. In the carrying out of this scheme, all knowledge, sacred and profane, came to be monopolised by the priesthood, who dealt it out to those who were initiated in the "Mysteries" exactly as they saw fit, according as the interests of the grand system of spiritual despotism they had to administer might seem to require. Thus the people, wherever the Babylonian system spread, were bound neck and heel to the priests. The priests were the only depositaries of religious knowledge; they only had the true tradition by which the writs and symbols of the public religion could be interpreted; and without blind and implicit submission to them, what was necessary for salvation could not be known. Now compare this with the early history of the Papacy, and with its spirit and modus operandi throughout, and how exact was the coincidence! Was it in a period of patriarchal light that the corrupt system of the Babylonian "Mysteries" began? It was in a period of still greater light that that unholy and unscriptural system commenced, that has found such rank development in the Church of Rome. It began in the very age of the apostles, when the primitive Church was in its flower, when the glorious fruits of Pentecost were everywhere to be seen, when martyrs were sealing their testimony for the truth with their blood. Even then, when the Gospel shone so brightly, the Spirit of God bore this clear and distinct testimony by Paul: "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Thessalonias 2:7). That system of iniquity which then began it was divinely foretold was to issue in a portentous apostacy, that in due time would be awfully "revealed," and would continue until it should be destroyed "by the breath of the Lord’s mouth, and consumed by the brightness of His coming." But at its first introduction into the Church, it came in secretly and by stealth, with "all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness." It wrought "mysteriously" under fair but false pretences, leading men away from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. And it did so secretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly introduced in the ancient Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe, it was not prudent to do otherwise. The zeal of the true Church, though destitute of civil power, would have aroused itself, to put the false system and all its abettors beyond the pale of Christianity, if it had appeared openly and all at once in all its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress. Therefore it was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one corruption being introduced after another, as apostacy proceeded, and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it, till it has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in almost every particular the system of the Papacy is the very antipodes of the system of the primitive Church. Of the gradual introduction of all that is now most characteristic of Rome, through the working of the "Mystery of iniquity ," we have very striking evidence, preserved even by Rome itself, in the inscriptions copied from the Roman catacombs. These catacombs are extensive excavations underground in the neighbourhood of Rome, in which the Christians, in times of persecution during the first three centuries, celebrated their worship, and also buried their dead. On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well- kn own principles and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:

1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."

2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." (DR. MAITLAND’S Church in the Catacombs ) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working,—that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to ’marry.’" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. At its commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system.

But this feature of "Mystery" has adhered to it throughout its whole course. When it had once succeeded in dimming the light of the Gospel, obscuring the fulness and freeness of the grace of God, and drawing away the souls of men from direct and immediate dealings with the One Grand Prophet and High Priest of our profession, a mysterious power was attributed to the clergy, which gave them "dominion over the faith" of the people—a dominion directly disclaimed by apostolic men (2 Cor 1:24), but which, in connection with the confessional, has become at least as absolute and complete as was ever possessed by Babylonian priest over those initiated in the ancient Mysteries. The clerical power of the Roman priesthood culminated in the erection of the confessional. That confessional was itself borrowed from Babylon. The confession required of the votaries of Rome is entirely different from the confession prescribed in the Word of God. The dictate of Scripture in regard to confession is, "Confess your faults one to another " (James 5:16), which implies that the priest should confess to the people, as well as the people to the priest, if either should sin against the other. This could never have served any purpose of spiritual despotism; and therefore, Rome, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian system. In that system, secret confession to the priest, according to a prescribed form, was required of all who were admitted to the "Mysteries"; and till such confession had been made, no complete initiation could take place. Thus does Salverte refer to this confession as observed in Greece, in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian origin: "All the Greeks, from Delphi to Thermopylae, were initiated in the Mysteries of the temple of Delphi. Their silence in regard to everything they were commanded to keep secret was secured both by the fear of the penalties threatened to a perjured revelation, and by the general CONFESSION exacted of the aspirants after initiation—a confession which caused them greater dread of the indiscretion of the priest, than gave him reason to dread their indiscretion." This confession is also referred to by Potter, in his "Greek Antiquities," though it has been generally overlooked. In his account of the Eleusinian mysteries, after describing the preliminary ceremonies and instructions before the admission of the candidates for initiation into the immediate presence of the divinities, he thus proceeds: "Then the priest that initiated them called the Hierophant, proposed certain QUESTIONS, as, whether they were fasting, &c., to which they returned answers in a set form." The etcetera here might not strike a casual reader; but it is a pregnant etcetera, and contains a great deal. It means, Are you free from every violation of chastity? and that not merely in the sense of moral impurity, but in that factitious sense of chastity which Paganism always cherishes. Are you free from the guilt of murder?—for no one guilty of slaughter, even accidentally, could be admitted till he was purged from blood, and there were certain priests, called Koes, who "heard confessions" in such cases, and purged the guilt away. The strictness of the inquiries in the Pagan confessional is evidently implied in certain licentious poems of Propertius, Tibullus, and Juvenal. Wilkinson, in his chapter on "Private Fasts and Penance," which, he says, "were strictly enforced," in connection with "certain regulations at fixed periods," has several classical quotations, which clearly prove whence Popery derived the kind of questions which have stamped that character of obscenity on its confessional, as exhibited in the notorious pages of Peter Dens. The pretence under which this auricular confession was required, was, that the solemnities to which the initiated were to be admitted were so high, so heavenly, so holy, that no man with guilt lying on his conscience, and sin unpurged, could lawfully be admitted to them. For the safety, therefore of those who were to be initiated, it was held to be indispensable that the officiating priest should thoroughly probe their consciences, lest coming without due purgation from previous guilt contracted, the wrath of the gods should be provoked against the profane intruders. This was the pretence; but when we know the essentially unholy nature, both of the gods and their worship, who can fail to see that this was nothing more than a pretence; that the grand object in requiring the candidates for initiation to make confession to the priest of all their secret faults and shortcomings and sins, was just to put them entirely in the power of those to whom the inmost feelings of their souls and their most important secrets were confided? Now, exactly in the same way, and for the very same purposes, has Rome erected the confessional. Instead of requiring priests and people alike, as the Scripture does, to "confess their faults one to another," when either have offended the other, it commands all, on pain of perdition, to confess to the priest, * whether they have transgressed against him or no, while the priest is under no obligation to confess to the people at all.

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

Without such confession, in the Church of Rome, there can be no admission to the Sacraments, any more than in the days of Paganism there could be admission without confession to the benefit of the Mysteries. Now, this confession is made by every individual, in SECRECY AND IN SOLITUDE, to the priest sitting in the name and clothed with the authority of God, invested with the power to examine the conscience, to judge the life, to absolve or condemn according to his mere arbitrary will and pleasure. This is the grand pivot on which the whole "Mystery of iniquity," as embodied in the Papacy, is made to turn; and wherever it is submitted to, admirably does it serve the design of binding men in abject subjection to the priesthood.

In conformity with the principle out of which the confessional grew, the Church, that is, the clergy, claimed to be the sole depositaries of the true faith of Christianity. As the Chaldean priests were believed alone to possess the key to the understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, a key handed down to them from primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be the sole interpreters of Scripture; they only had the true tradition, transmitted from age to age, without which it was impossible to arrive at its true meaning. They, therefore, require implicit faith in their dogmas; all men were bound to believe as the Church believed, while the Church in this way could shape its faith as it pleased. As possessing supreme authority, also, over the faith, they could let out little or much, as they judged most expedient; and "RESERVE" in teaching the great truths of religion was as essential a principle in the system of Babylon, as it is in Romanism or Tractariansim at this day. * It was this priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that "imprisoned the truth in unrighteousness" ** in the ancient world, so that "darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people." It was the very same claim, in the hands of the Roman priests, that ushered in the dark ages, when, through many a dreary century, the Gospel was unknown, and the Bible a sealed book to millions who bore the name of Christ. In every respect, then, we see how justly Rome bears on its forehead the name, " Mystery , Babylon the Great."

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

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

現在，如果這在約伯時代是這樣，那麼在設立奧秘事蹟的較早時期，情況就更是如此了。 因此，如果要引入偶像崇拜，尤其是像巴比倫制度這樣骯髒的偶像崇拜，就必須偷偷摸摸地進行。 *

 *事實上，在這個問題上最嚴密的秘密究竟有什麼令人信服的理由，將逐漸被證明。 見第二章

 即使是通過權力之手引入的，它也可能會引起反感，未腐化的人類可能會做出暴力嘗試來鎮壓它； 無論如何，如果它以其醜陋的面貌立即出現，它會驚動人們的良心，並擊敗眼前的目標。 這個目標是要讓全人類盲目地絕對服從一個完全依賴於巴比倫君主的等級制度。 在這個計劃的實施過程中，所有的知識，無論是神聖的還是世俗的，都被祭司所壟斷，他們按照他們認為合適的方式，根據盛大的利益，將這些知識分發給那些在“神秘”中被啟蒙的人。 他們必須管理的精神專制制度似乎需要。 因此，無論巴比倫制度傳播到哪裡，人民都與祭司緊緊相依。 祭司是宗教知識的唯一保管人。 他們只有真正的傳統，可以用來解釋公共宗教的令狀和符號； 如果不盲目和含蓄地服從他們，就無法知道得救的必要條件。 現在將其與教皇的早期歷史及其貫穿始終的精神和作案手法進行比較，這種巧合是多麼精確啊！ 巴比倫“神秘”的腐敗制度是否是在父權制的光輝時期開始的？ 正是在一個更加光明的時期，那個不聖潔和不符合聖經的體系開始出現，它在羅馬教會中得到瞭如此高的發展。 它始於使徒時代，當時原始教會正處於繁榮時期，當時五旬節的榮耀果實隨處可見，當時殉道者正在用他們的鮮血為真理作證。 即使在那時，當福音照耀得如此明亮時，上帝的靈也為保羅作了這個清晰明確的見證：“罪孽的奧秘已經起作用”（帖撒羅尼迦後書 2:7）。 當時開始的罪惡制度被神聖預言會導致不祥的背道，在適當的時候會被可怕地“揭露”，並會持續下去，直到它“被主口中的氣所摧毀，被毀滅”。 他降臨的光輝。” 但在它第一次被引入教會時，它是偷偷摸摸地進來的，帶著“一切不義的可欺騙性”。 它在美麗但虛假的藉口下“神秘地”發生作用，使人們遠離在耶穌裡的真理的簡單性。 而且它是偷偷地這樣做的，這與偶像崇拜被秘密地引入古代巴比倫的神秘事物的原因相同。 這不安全，否則不明智。 真正的教會，雖然沒有民間權力，但如果它的粗俗性公開地同時出現，它就會激發自己的熱情，將錯誤的系統及其所有教唆者置於基督教的範圍之外； 這會阻止它的進展。 因此，它被秘密地引入，一點一點地引入，隨著背道的進行，一個又一個腐敗被引入，退後的教會準備容忍它，直到它達到我們現在看到的巨大高度，幾乎在每一個細節中 教皇制度正是原始教會制度的對立面。 通過“罪惡之謎”的運作，逐漸引入了羅馬現在最具特色的一切，我們有非常驚人的證據，甚至在羅馬本身也保存在從羅馬地下墓穴複製的銘文中。 這些地下墓穴是在羅馬附近廣泛挖掘的地下墓穴，在前三個世紀遭受迫害的時期，基督徒在這裡舉行禮拜，並埋葬死者。 在一些墓碑上仍然可以找到銘文，這些銘文直接與現在眾所周知的羅馬自己的原則和實踐相抵觸。 僅舉一個例子：例如，在今天，有什麼比強迫神職人員獨身更能體現教皇權的標誌呢？ 然而，從這些銘文中，我們有最決定性的證據表明，即使在羅馬，也曾有一段時間不為人所知的這種牧師獨身製度。 見證以下，在不同的墳墓上發現：

 1. “獻給長老 Basilius 和他的妻子 Felicitas。這是他們自己做的。”

2. “Petronia，牧師的妻子，謙虛的類型。我在這個地方安放了我的骨頭。親愛的丈夫和女兒，請不要流淚，相信為生活在上帝內的人哭泣是被禁止的。” （梅特蘭博士在地下墓穴中的教堂）到處為死者祈禱：“願上帝振奮你的精神”，證明即使在那時，罪孽之謎已經開始發揮作用； 但是像上面這樣的銘文同樣表明它一直在緩慢而謹慎地工作——直到他們所指的那個時期，羅馬教會還沒有像現在這樣進行，絕對“禁止其牧師‘結婚’ .'”羅馬巧妙而逐漸地奠定了其祭司係統的基礎，後來它建立瞭如此龐大的上層建築。 在它的開始，“神秘”被印在它的系統上。

 但《懸疑》的這一特點貫穿了整個過程。 當它曾經成功地使福音之光黯淡，模糊了上帝恩典的豐盛和自由，並使人們的靈魂遠離與我們職業的一位大先知和大祭司直接和即時的交往時，一位神秘的 權力歸於神職人員，這賦予了他們“對人民信仰的統治權”——使徒們直接否認的統治權（哥林多後書 1:24），但是，與告解有關，它至少變得絕對和完整，就像巴比倫神父對那些在古代神秘中開始的人所擁有的那樣。 羅馬祭司的文書權力在懺悔室的建立中達到頂峰。 那個懺悔室本身就是從巴比倫借來的。 羅馬信徒所要求的認罪與上帝聖言中規定的認罪完全不同。 聖經關於認罪的指示是，“彼此承認你們的錯誤”（雅各書 5:16），這意味著祭司應該向人民承認，以及人民向祭司承認，如果任何一方犯了罪 另一個。 這絕不可能達到精神專制的任何目的； 因此，羅馬離開了上帝的話語，求助於巴比倫體系。 在那個系統中，所有被接納為“神秘主義者”的人都必須按照規定的形式向牧師秘密懺悔； 在做出這樣的懺悔之前，不可能進行完整的啟蒙。 因此，薩爾維特提到了在希臘觀察到的這種懺悔，其儀式可以清楚地追溯到巴比倫起源：“所有希臘人，從德爾斐到塞莫皮萊，都是在德爾斐神廟的神秘中開始的。他們對 他們被命令保守秘密的一切都得到了保護，因為他們擔心會受到懲罰威脅到偽造的揭露，以及在入會後要求有抱負的人進行的一般懺悔——這種懺悔使他們更害怕牧師的輕率行為，而不是給他們帶來的恐懼。 他有理由害怕他們的輕率行為。” 波特在他的“希臘古物”中也提到了這個懺悔，儘管它通常被忽視了。 在他對 Eleusinian 奧秘的描述中，在描述了候選人進入神靈的直接存在之前的初步儀式和指示之後，他繼續說道：“然後發起他們的祭司被稱為 Hierophant，提出了某些問題， 例如，他們是否在禁食，等等，他們以固定的形式返回答案。” 這裡的等等可能不會打動不經意的讀者； 但它是一個懷孕的等等，而且包含很多。 它的意思是，你沒有任何違反貞操的行為嗎？ 這不僅是在道德不潔的意義上，而且是在異教徒一直珍視的那種人為的貞潔感上。 你沒有殺人罪嗎？——因為任何犯有殺人罪的人，即使是無意中犯下的罪行，在被清洗乾淨之前是不能被接納的，而且有一些叫做 Koes 的牧師，在這種情況下“聽到供詞”，並被清洗 罪惡感消失了。 Propertius、Tibullus 和 Juvenal 的某些放蕩詩中顯然暗示了異教徒懺悔中詢問的嚴格性。 威爾金森在他關於“私人齋戒和懺悔”的章節中，他說，“嚴格執行”，與“固定時期的某些規定”有關，引用了幾句經典引文，清楚地證明了羅馬教皇從何而來的這類問題 正如彼得·登斯 (Peter Dens) 臭名昭著的書頁所展示的那樣，在懺悔室中留下了淫穢的印記。 要求進行這種耳邊懺悔的藉口是，接受入會者的莊嚴儀式是如此崇高、如此屬天、如此聖潔，以至於任何良心有罪、罪惡未除淨的人都不能合法地參加 錄取了他們。 因此，為了那些將要入會的人的安全，主祭祭司必須徹底檢查他們的良心，以免在沒有適當淨化之前所犯的罪行的情況下，對褻瀆神明的人激怒 入侵者。 這是假裝； 但是當我們知道神和他們的崇拜本質上是不神聖的本質時，誰會看不出這只不過是一種偽裝； 要求入會候選人向神父懺悔他們所有隱秘的錯誤、缺點和罪惡的偉大目的，只是讓他們完全掌握在那些能夠了解他們靈魂最深處的感受和最重要的秘密的人手中 被吐露了嗎？ 現在，羅馬以同樣的方式，出於同樣的目的，建立了懺悔室。 聖經並沒有像聖經那樣要求祭司和其他人“互相承認自己的過錯”，而是命令所有人，以被處決為代價，向祭司承認他們是否有過錯 反對他或不反對他，而牧師根本沒有義務向人民懺悔。

 * BISHOP HAY 的真誠基督徒。 在這項工作中，出現了以下問題和答案：“問題：為了獲得赦免，必須承認我們的罪嗎？答案：這是耶穌基督規定的，對於這個目的來說是絕對必要的。另見《窮人手冊》，一部在愛爾蘭使用的作品。

 沒有這樣的懺悔，在羅馬教會中，就不能參加聖禮，就像在異教時代，沒有懺悔就不能參加聖禮一樣。 現在，這個懺悔是由每個人在秘密和孤獨中向以上帝的名義坐在地上並披著上帝的權威的牧師作出的，被賦予了檢查良心，判斷生活，赦免或譴責的權力。 完全滿足他的任意意志和樂趣。 這是體現在教皇權中的整個“罪惡之謎”的大樞紐； 無論它被提交到哪裡，它都令人欽佩地服務於束縛人們卑鄙地服從祭司的設計。

 根據懺悔的原則，教會，即神職人員，聲稱是基督教真正信仰的唯一保管人。 由於迦勒底祭司被認為擁有理解巴比倫神話的鑰匙，這把鑰匙從遠古時代就傳給了他們，所以羅馬的祭司被設立為聖經的唯一解釋者； 他們只有真正的傳統，代代相傳，沒有它就不可能達到它的真正含義。 因此，他們需要絕對相信他們的教條； 所有人都必須相信教會所相信的，而教會可以通過這種方式隨心所欲地塑造自己的信仰。 由於對信仰擁有至高無上的權威，他們可以根據自己的判斷，在最有利的情況下放出或多或少。 在教導宗教的偉大真理時“保留”是巴比倫體系中的基本原則，就像今天在羅馬教或 Tractariansim 中一樣。 *正是這種對人類信仰進行統治的祭司聲稱，在古代世界“將真理囚禁在不義之中”**，以至於“黑暗籠罩大地，黑暗籠罩人民”。 在羅馬教士的手中，正是同樣的主張開啟了黑暗時代，在那個時代，經過許多沉悶的世紀，福音無人知曉，而聖經對於數以百萬計的以基督之名的人來說是一本密封的書。 因此，從各個方面來看，我們都看到羅馬在其額頭上貼上“神秘的大巴比倫”這個名字是多麼正當。

 * 即使在發起者之間也存在差異。 有些人只被允許進入“較小的神秘”； “大”是為少數受寵的人服務的。 威爾金森的古埃及人

 ** 羅馬書 1:18。 最好的口譯員按照上面給出的方式翻譯這段話。 可以看出，保羅明確地談到了異教徒。

(13 of 255)

Notes

Woman with Golden Cup

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

____________________

Hebrew Chronology

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

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

筆記

 金杯女郎

 在保薩尼阿斯 (Pausanias) 中，我們找到了一位女神的記述，她以天啟中的“女人”的姿態出現。 “但是用這塊石頭 [Parian 大理石] 菲狄亞斯，”他說，“做了一個涅墨西斯的雕像；在女神的頭上有一頂裝飾著雄鹿的王冠，以及並不大的勝利形象。在她的左手 ，她也拿著一根白蠟樹的樹枝，右邊拿著一個杯子，上面刻著埃塞俄比亞人。” (PAUSANIAS, Attica) Pausanias 宣稱他自己無法解釋為什麼“埃塞俄比亞人”被刻在杯子上； 但是埃塞俄比亞人和雄鹿的意思對於所有進一步閱讀的人來說也是顯而易見的。 然而，我們從同一章的陳述中發現，雖然涅墨西斯通常被描繪成複仇女神，但她一定也以完全不同的角色為人所知。 保薩尼亞斯繼續說道，對這座雕像評論說：“但這尊女神鵰像也沒有翅膀。然而，在擁有涅墨西斯最神聖形象的士米爾尼人中，我後來發現這些雕像有翅膀。因為，作為這位女神主要 與戀人有關，因此他們可能被認為已經給了復仇女神和愛的翅膀，”即丘比特。 因為愛神丘比特生下了翅膀，女神涅墨西斯“主要屬於戀人”，所以給了她翅膀，這意味著，在保薩尼亞斯看來，她是丘比特或愛神的對應物—— 也就是金星。 雖然這是從保薩尼亞斯的話自然而然地推導出來的推論，但我們發現它得到了 Photius 的明確陳述的證實，他談到了 Rhamnusian Nemesis 的雕像：“她最初是以維納斯的形式豎立起來的，因此也有 蘋果樹的樹枝。” (PHOTII, Lexicon) 雖然愛情女神和復仇女神在性格上似乎相距甚遠，但不難看出這是怎麼回事。 以最誘人的方式向奧秘中的啟蒙者揭示的女神，也以最無情和最無情的方式報復那些揭示這些奧秘的人而聞名； 因為每一個被發現的人都被毫不留情地處死。 （POTTER'S Antiquities, "Eleusinia"）因此，杯狀女神既是放蕩的女神維納斯，又是複仇女神，對所有反抗她權威的人都冷酷無情。 約翰所見的女人，一方面被描述為“妓女之母”，另一方面被描述為“喝醉了聖徒的血”，是多麼非凡的預表啊！

 ____________________________

 希伯來年表

 黑爾斯博士試圖用較長的七十士譯本年表代替希伯來年表。 但這暗示希伯來教會作為一個整體，在遵守聖經方面不忠於所交託給它的託付，這似乎與我們的主對這些聖經的見證截然相反（約翰福音 5:39） ; 10:35)，還有保羅的事（羅馬書 3:2），那裡沒有絲毫不忠的跡象。 那麼我們就可以找到一個理由，可能會促使亞歷山大城七十士譯本的譯者把世界古代史的時期延長到83年； 我們找不到理由誘使巴勒斯坦的猶太人縮短它。 埃及人在他們的歷史上有著漫長而神話般的時代，居住在埃及的猶太人可能希望盡可能地追溯他們的神聖歷史，並且在每種情況下都只增加一百年，就像在七十士譯本中一樣， 祖師歲月，奇似刻意偽造； 而我們根本無法想像巴勒斯坦猶太人為什麼要在這件事上做出任何改變。 眾所周知，七十士譯本包含無數嚴重錯誤和插補。

 本生拋棄了所有聖經年表，無論是希伯來文、撒瑪利亞文還是希臘文，並建立了不受支持的曼內托王朝，就好像它們足以推翻關於歷史事實問題的神聖話語。 但是，如果聖經在歷史上不是真實的，我們就根本無法保證它們的真實性。 現在值得注意的是，雖然希羅多德證實在同一時間埃及有不少於十二位同時代的國王，但正如威爾金森所觀察到的那樣，Manetho 並沒有提及這一點，而是將他的 Thinite，Memphite ，以及迪奧波利坦王朝的國王，以及其他王朝的漫長等等，都是連續的！

 （255 個中的第 14 個）(14 of 255)

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

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

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

從這些王朝的第一位國王美尼斯開始，Manetho 的王朝延續的時期本身就是一個非常長的時期，並且超越了所有理性的信念。 但本生並不滿足於此，他非常有信心地表示，甚至在美尼斯統治之前，上埃及和下埃及“在兩到四千年的時間裡”就已經出現了強大的君主。 在得出這樣的結論時，他明確地假設麥斯拉伊姆這個名字是埃及土地的聖經名稱，顯然是從含的兒子和挪亞的孫子的名字衍生而來的，不是， 畢竟，一個人的名字，但聯合王國的名字是由“兩個米斯爾”、“上埃及和下埃及”在美尼斯統治下形成的，它以前作為獨立的王國存在，米斯里姆這個名字，據他說， 是一個複數詞。 Mizraim 或 Misrim 這個名字的複數形式的派生，無疑給人留下這樣的印象，即 Ham 的兒子 Mizraim 一定只是一個神話人物。 但沒有真正的理由認為 Mizraim 是一個複數詞，或者它成為“含之地”的名稱，除了因為那片土地也是含兒子的土地之外。 Mizraim，在創世記的希伯來語中，沒有點，是 Metzrim； Metzr-im 表示“海的包圍者或堤岸”（該詞源自 Im，與 Yam 相同，意為“海”，Tzr 意為“包圍”，前綴為 M）。

 如果古代歷史傳給我們的關於埃及原始狀態的記載是正確的，那麼第一個在那裡建立定居點的人一定做了這個名字所暗示的事情。 Diodorus Siculus 告訴我們，在原始時代，當他寫道時，“據說埃及不是一個國家，而是一個宇宙海洋”。 普魯塔克還說（德伊賽德）埃及是海。從希羅多德那裡，我們也有非常驚人的證據證明同樣的效果。他從他的陳述中排除了底比斯省；但是當看到“底比斯省”確實 不屬於 Mizraim 或埃及本土，聖經百科全書中“Mizraim”一文的作者說，“正確地指代下埃及”；希羅多德的證詞將被視為與狄奧多羅斯和普魯塔克的證詞完全一致。他的聲明 就是說，在第一位國王的統治下，“整個埃及（底比斯省除外）是一片廣闊的沼澤地。 現在位於 Moeris 湖之外的任何部分都看不到，湖和海之間的距離是 7 天的路程。”因此，整個麥茲拉伊姆或下埃及都在水下。

 該國的這種狀況源於尼羅河肆無忌憚的氾濫，用威爾金森的話說，尼羅河“以前沖刷著利比亞山脈的沙山腳下”。 現在，在埃及適合成為適合人類居住的地方之前——在它成為後來成為最肥沃的土地之一之前，必須對溢出的海域設置邊界（ 尼羅河在古代被稱為“狄奧多羅斯”（DIODORUS），正是由於海洋這個名字，尼羅河才被稱為“狄奧多羅斯”），為此，應該用巨大的堤壩圍住或限制它的水域。 那麼，如果漢姆的兒子帶領一個殖民地進入下埃及並在那裡定居，那麼他一定完成了這項工作。 為了紀念他的偉大成就，還有什麼比給他起個名字更自然的呢？ 還有什麼名字像 Metzr-im（“大海的堤岸”）或今天發現的適用於全埃及（WILKINSON）、Musr 或 Misr 的名字一樣具有描述性？ 名字在人們的口中總是傾向於縮寫，因此，“米斯爾之地”顯然就是“堤岸之地”。 從這句話可以看出，就下埃及而言，“海堤”——將海“包圍”在一定範圍內，就是把海變成一條河流。 從這個角度看這件事，以西結書 29:3 中的神聖語言有何意義，其中譴責埃及國王的判決，埃及國王是 Metzr-im 的代表，“海的堤壩”，因為他的驕傲 ：“看啊，埃及王法老，我反對你，那條大龍躺在他的河流中，它說：我的河流是我的，我為自己創造了它。”

 （255 個中的第 15 個）(15 of 255)

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

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

當我們轉向記錄美尼斯的所作所為時，他被希羅多德、馬內托和狄奧多羅斯等人立為埃及歷史上的第一位國王，並將對他所說的內容與對他的含義的簡單解釋進行比較 Mizraim 的名字，一個如何照亮另一個？ 威爾金森這樣描述了使美尼斯聲名鵲起的偉大工作，他說，“誰，”被普遍同意，成為該國的第一任君主。 “他改變了尼羅河的河道，尼羅河以前沖刷著利比亞山脈的沙山腳下，他迫使它在山谷的中心流過，幾乎在與它接壤的兩條平行山脊之間的距離相等 在東西兩邊；並在古河床的河床上建造了孟菲斯城。這一變化是通過在計劃城市所在地上方約一百斯塔德建造堤壩實現的，其高聳的土墩和堅固的堤防將水流向 向東，有效地將河流限制在它的新河床。繼任的國王小心翼翼地維修堤壩；甚至在波斯入侵時，那裡也一直有人守衛，忽略必要的維修，並監視 在堤壩的狀態上。” （埃及人）

 當我們看到梅內斯，埃及歷史上公認的第一位國王，實現了麥茲拉伊姆這個名字所暗示的成就時，誰能拒絕梅內斯和麥茲拉伊姆只是同一個人的兩個不同名字的結論呢？ 如果是這樣的話，本生對美尼斯統治前“兩到四千年”的強大君主王朝的看法會變成什麼樣子呢？ 梅內斯一定是麥茲拉伊姆，諾亞本人的孫子？ 因此，聖經在其自身的懷抱中包含了為自己辯護的方法； 因此，即使是關於事實的最細微的陳述，在被徹底理解後，也會為世界歷史的黑暗部分帶來驚人的光明。

 （255 個中的第 16 個）(16 of 255)